Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[B35 via Church]

delete.

Edited June 2, 2017 by B35 via Church

[Q43LTD]

 

Yeah... I did.... Before the pipe dream of extending the Q19 on both ends became reality!

 

 

Sure.... and I find it wrong that there are services still in existence, where there are so many more people that are being screwed citywide with inadequate service on other routes where a far greater demand for them exists....

 

Now all they need to do extend the span by a few hours...remember Mr Iryck, a tight budget is no excuse on why you can't improve bus service

[B35 via Church]

Now all they need to do extend the span by a few hours...remember Mr Iryck, a tight budget is no excuse on why you can't improve bus service

Yeah, makes me 2 for 2 so far.... I always thought ending it at 21st was abrupt for the route... The whole Q19/Q19b "relationship" it had when they both ended at Astoria/102nd was antiquated; usually it's the child that's said to have to leave the nest, but it made more sense in that household for the parent to (head to Flushing).....

 

I think they're going to put SBS on the Q66 before we'll see any span expansion of the Q19.....

I'll have to settle with 2 out of 3......

[Q43LTD]

Hmmm...do I really wanna see an XN60 on the Q66? I bet the SBS would go to LIC while the locals get turned at Woodside. Sounds about right?

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

4] Do you? Because I never wanted the Q23 to run inside the airport.... The outer 1/3rds of the route are a spaghetti mess & 108th is becoming more & more like a parking lot by the minute.... I mean it takes forever to get from residential Forest Hills to QB alone, sits in traffic along 108th when it's not picking up & dropping off pax (the Q23 isn't one of those routes (like... the Q19) that doesn't see activity for much of the stops along the route; I mean, especially once you hit QB heading north, forget it... makes you want to pull your hair out if you need to get to Corona or E. Elmhurst).... Which segues into getting in & out of the Corona plaza area, which is always fun... LMAO....

After that though, it's smooth sailing to the hotels along Ditmars....

 

^^ Adding getting in & out of the airport to that would be torturous.... No thanks.

 

I'm not seeing what current Q48 usage has to do w/ potential Q23 usage inside LGA though.... Q48 usage to/from LGA is horrid, due to the running from a major hub like Flushing, to the airport, not working like it would on paper... Fact of the matter is, it doesn't help that Flushing is a terminal on the - with which the Q48 enters it from the same direction the subway does.... The Q23 wouldn't have that problem... If anything, I think it'd see slightly less airport usage than the Q72 does....

 

As far as what BM5 said about the Q23, I don't get the sense that he wants to replace the Q48 with the Q23.... For whatever reason, he's judging potential Q23 usage inside the airport to that of current Q48 usage.... That's not saying, screw the Q48 & put the Q23 in there instead.... If it's anyone saying screw the Q48, it's me - by saying the Flushing-Corona can be replaced w/ the Q19 & rest of the route goes bye-bye.... I'm guessing it's a matter of BPH as to why he feels the Q48 & the Q72 would have to terminate outside the airport if the Q23 were to go in there, since the Q23 has more service than either one of them..... That's something he'll have to clarify....

 

There's two reasons why I would consider sending the Q23 to the airport while truncating the Q72 (I'm basing this off the same proposal where the Q19 would replace the Q48 south of Astoria Boulevard). 

 

BPH is one of them (as was mentioned, the Q23 is more frequent than the Q48 and the Q72). With the Q48 eliminated, there's a decrease of BPH towards LaGuardia Airport. Truncating the Q72 and sending in the Q23 instead would have more buses at certain times of the daytime. At times, there would be less BPH into LaGuardia compared to the current setup (evening). It also provides a service similar to that to the current Q48 and Q72 inside of LaGuardia. 

 

The second is attempting to "streamline" service into LaGuardia while maintaining important connections (at least for the portion north of the LIRR tracks). Q48 riders from Corona and Flushing would either walk to the Q23 or take the to Corona Plaza, and transfer to the Q23. The same applies for riders from areas west of the Q23. The Q23 would serve 23 Avenue & 94 Street SB only in order to allow riders to connect to the Q33 and the Q72. Riders transferring from the Q33 would still have an airport connection to get to/from LGA (M60 to LGA, Q23 from LGA), and so would Q72 riders, with one fare. Most people going into LGA on those routes are airport workers, so it wouldn't as bad of an inconvenience compared to riders with luggage. For most riders, they can take the same bus or train to the Q23 instead, or walk to the Q53, the QBL, or instead for the Q70. 

 

There are a few problems though, because the runtime is long, and it makes a lot stops (not saying that it's warranted, but an LTD wouldn't even help).

 

AddThe Q72 and Q48 ridership within (not just the Q48) are not very high (the Q48 though is just very bad). For the Q33 riders transferring to the Q72, I expect those riders to take the Q23 instead, but as far as "streamlining" service to LaGuardia, I expect some riders to either to use other alternatives (moreso from riders who take the Q72, not transferring from the Q33). 

Edited June 4, 2017 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl

[MikeC]

Sending the Q23 into LGA would be the biggest mistake ever. There is no need to bog it up any further. 

[Union Tpke]

Sending the Q23 into LGA would be the biggest mistake ever. There is no need to bog it up any further. 

 

I agree. It runs infrequently and it always bunches up.

[bobtehpanda]

 

 

Q48 riders from Corona and Flushing would either walk to the Q23 or take the   to Corona Plaza, and transfer to the Q23.

 

The idea that anyone would do this is laughable. That is a very unpleasant walk.

 

Personally I agree with B35; there is no need for a bus from Flushing to LGA. It would never be time competitive; in a car you can make that trip in five minutes, ten with traffic. No airport workers live that far out east, and all those people would opt for cars or livery cabs anyways - who wants to deal with the bus when holding heavy luggage?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The idea that anyone would do this is laughable. That is a very unpleasant walk.

 

Personally I agree with B35; there is no need for a bus from Flushing to LGA. It would never be time competitive; in a car you can make that trip in five minutes, ten with traffic. No airport workers live that far out east, and all those people would opt for cars or livery cabs anyways - who wants to deal with the bus when holding heavy luggage?

Well what about all of the people using the M60 to go to the airport with heavy luggage? Clearly there are some people that do use the local bus to reach the airport.  I do however agree with your other points.

[B35 via Church]

Hmmm...do I really wanna see an XN60 on the Q66? I bet the SBS would go to LIC while the locals get turned at Woodside. Sounds about right?

Yep, and they would "B44" the Q66 SBS too.... What I mean by that is, they would try to make the route as straight as possible....

From Flushing, once buses hit Northern, I'm thinking something like keeping the SBS's straight on Northern all the way to the end, where buses would stop dead at where the Q67/Q100 normally terminate (on Jackson b/w Queens plz. S. & 42 rd).... The local trips would either do the current full route to LIC, or short turn at Northern blvd .... Of course, at a lesser rate than they do now....

 

There's two reasons why I would consider sending the Q23 to the airport while truncating the Q72 (I'm basing this off the same proposal where the Q19 would replace the Q48 south of Astoria Boulevard). 

 

BPH is one of them (as was mentioned, the Q23 is more frequent than the Q48 and the Q72). With the Q48 eliminated, there's a decrease of BPH towards LaGuardia Airport. Truncating the Q72 and sending in the Q23 instead would have more buses at certain times of the daytime. At times, there would be less BPH into LaGuardia compared to the current setup (evening). It also provides a service similar to that to the current Q48 and Q72 inside of LaGuardia. 

 

The second is attempting to "streamline" service into LaGuardia while maintaining important connections (at least for the portion north of the LIRR tracks). Q48 riders from Corona and Flushing would either walk to the Q23 or take the to Corona Plaza, and transfer to the Q23. The same applies for riders from areas west of the Q23. The Q23 would serve 23 Avenue & 94 Street SB only in order to allow riders to connect to the Q33 and the Q72. Riders transferring from the Q33 would still have an airport connection to get to/from LGA (M60 to LGA, Q23 from LGA), and so would Q72 riders, with one fare. Most people going into LGA on those routes are airport workers, so it wouldn't as bad of an inconvenience compared to riders with luggage. For most riders, they can take the same bus or train to the Q23 instead, or walk to the Q53, the QBL, or instead for the Q70. 

 

There are a few problems though, because the runtime is long, and it makes a lot stops (not saying that it's warranted, but an LTD wouldn't even help).

 

Add The Q72 and Q48 ridership within (not just the Q48) are not very high (the Q48 though is just very bad). For the Q33 riders transferring to the Q72, I expect those riders to take the Q23 instead, but as far as "streamlining" service to LaGuardia, I expect some riders to either to use other alternatives (moreso from riders who take the Q72, not transferring from the Q33). 

Alright, thanks for the explanation.

 

As long as you realize a Q23 LTD would be rather useless, there's really nothing else for me to add to what I said about a Q23 inside LGA....

 

Regarding the last part of that very last paragraph (well, not really, but I'll ask anyway), which route would you say is quicker b/w the RR tracks & Northern blvd - The Q23 or the Q72? 

(Just to be clear, I'm not asking because I have an underlying point (to this Q23 inside LGA bit), I'm asking because I'm asking myself & I can't definitively say either one.... 108th is becoming a parking lot as I said a couple days ago, but Junction blvd for long stretches is already there - and the bad driving (and moronic double parking) around that general area of LeFrak does not help matters..... That area is simply too god damn congested..... As for the Q23, outside of 108th itself, it's the turns slowing things down & the adventure of getting in/out of Corona Plz.....

 

I guess the better question is, which to you is the lesser of two evils....)

 

Personally I agree with B35; there is no need for a bus from Flushing to LGA. It would never be time competitive; in a car you can make that trip in five minutes, ten with traffic. No airport workers live that far out east, and all those people would opt for cars or livery cabs anyways - who wants to deal with the bus when holding heavy luggage?

That's my main problem with iAlam's stance; the guy's more or less defending Air..... It's like trying to make a case for the old N91 to be revived because there's no route that serves JFK from the east....

[bobtehpanda]

Well what about all of the people using the M60 to go to the airport with heavy luggage? Clearly there are some people that do use the local bus to reach the airport.  I do however agree with your other points.

 

Maybe I should phrase it a little better.

 

Most people getting to the M60 for LGA are either coming from the subway or Columbia. The M60 is the only bus they will ever deal with.

 

In contrast, most people who you could reasonably expect to take the Q48 to LGA do not live at the intersection of Main and Roosevelt. To ask an airport traveller to do two things, namely 1. transfer buses with luggage and 2. do it in Flushing, a congested pedestrian environment with unclear signage on where that bus is, is expecting way too much.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Maybe I should phrase it a little better.

 

Most people getting to the M60 for LGA are either coming from the subway or Columbia. The M60 is the only bus they will ever deal with.

 

In contrast, most people who you could reasonably expect to take the Q48 to LGA do not live at the intersection of Main and Roosevelt. To ask an airport traveller to do two things, namely 1. transfer buses with luggage and 2. do it in Flushing, a congested pedestrian environment with unclear signage on where that bus is, is expecting way too much.

What exactly is the difference?  If you're telling me that people are using the M60 from the subway or Columbia AND they're doing so WITH luggage, then if they're willing to schlepp up tons of stairs, why would transferring to and from another bus be such a big deal?  I think you're underestimating how cheap some people are.  When I would come home from college, I did so with the subway from Greyhound and had to make transfers.  When I would go the airport however, I would take a taxi because living in South Brooklyn at the time, there really wasn't an easy way to reach JFK.  However, if there's a viable way to do so with a few buses, then people WILL do it.  I see plenty of people that get on the express bus for example from Penn Station or to Penn Station for travel with big pieces of luggage all of the time.  $6.50 is a lot cheaper than $30 - 40 from Riverdale, and mind you, they are navigating with pretty big items and doing so in a pretty hilly neighborhood that can be a pain to get around with such things.  Then there are the people I see walking with luggage in the city using even cheaper options like buses or subways.  Unless your luggage is terribly heavy, if it has wheels it's really not that big of a deal to use a few buses to and from the airport.  This is coming from someone who would travel with one HUGE duffel bag back in the day to and from Europe on a small cart with wheels. I'm sure if I had that today, people would think I was walking around with a dead body. lol

Edited June 5, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[bobtehpanda]

What exactly is the difference?  If you're telling me that people are using the M60 from the subway or Columbia AND they're doing so WITH luggage, then if they're willing to schlepp up tons of stairs, why would transferring to and from another bus be such a big deal?  I think you're underestimating how cheap some people are.  When I would come home from college, I did so with the subway from Greyhound and had to make transfers.  When I would go the airport however, I would take a taxi because living in South Brooklyn at the time, there really wasn't an easy way to reach JFK.  However, if there's a viable way to do so with a few buses, then people WILL do it.  I see plenty of people that get on the express bus for example from Penn Station or to Penn Station for travel with big pieces of luggage all of the time.  $6.50 is a lot cheaper than $30 - 40 from Riverdale, and mind you, they are navigating with pretty big items and doing so in a pretty hilly neighborhood that can be a pain to get around with such things.  Then there are the people I see walking with luggage in the city using even cheaper options like buses or subways.  Unless your luggage is terribly heavy, if it has wheels it's really not that big of a deal to use a few buses to and from the airport.  This is coming from someone who would travel with one HUGE duffel bag back in the day to and from Europe on a small cart with wheels. I'm sure if I had that today, people would think I was walking around with a dead body. lol

 

Have you walked through Flushing? There is barely enough room for the pedestrians as it is, it's as bad as pre-Bloomberg Times Square. Navigating that place with luggage while you're looking on Google Maps for the bus stop is possibly the last thing anyone wants to do pre-vacation.

 

If people were that cheap, they'd be doing it today, but they're not, hence why we're even having a discussion about cutting the route in the first place.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Have you walked through Flushing? There is barely enough room for the pedestrians as it is, it's as bad as pre-Bloomberg Times Square. Navigating that place with luggage while you're looking on Google Maps for the bus stop is possibly the last thing anyone wants to do pre-vacation.

 

If people were that cheap, they'd be doing it today, but they're not, hence why we're even having a discussion about cutting the route in the first place.

Then you should specify Flushing then, but people ARE doing it already in other parts of the city and have been for years. Your claim was far too general and inaccurate.

[bobtehpanda]

Then you should specify Flushing then, but people ARE doing it already in other parts of the city and have been for years. Your claim was far too general and inaccurate.

 

We've been talking about the Q48 the entire time, in the Queens Bus Proposal thread, so I don't know where you're coming from...

 

On another note, I have a proposal to make regarding bus stops in Flushing.

 

Q17/27 northbound terminates at Kissena/Sanford. Q17/27 southbound begins at the library stop. All other southbound buses on Kissena stop serving the library stop. (Q17/27 continues laying over wherever they do today, they just don't serve their respective last stops.)

 

For the Q17/27, this forces passengers to walk further to the subway, but Q58 passengers have put up with that for years, and most of the bus passengers have been getting off at this stop for years anyway due to the molasses-level congestion in Flushing. Southbound, this makes riders walk more, but the traffic speed during rush hour on that segment of Main St is abysmal; by having the library Kissena stop be the first stop, buses will avoid the most congested Flushing part of their route now. As a side benefit, the poor Q17/27 riders at the library stop today will stop getting passed up by six or so buses before they can squeeze on.

 

For the Q25/34/65 (I don't remember if I'm forgetting any southbound Kissena buses), these buses already make stops 600 feet away. Skipping the library stop will not really result in reduced coverage, and will save time for buses on the most congested section of route.

Edited June 5, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[Via Garibaldi 8]

We've been talking about the Q48 the entire time, in the Queens Bus Proposal thread, so I don't know where you're coming from...

I know. All of your reasons why make sense with the exception of the heavy luggage.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yep, and they would "B44" the Q66 SBS too.... What I mean by that is, they would try to make the route as straight as possible....

From Flushing, once buses hit Northern, I'm thinking something like keeping the SBS's straight on Northern all the way to the end, where buses would stop dead at where the Q67/Q100 normally terminate (on Jackson b/w Queens plz. S. & 42 rd).... The local trips would either do the current full route to LIC, or short turn at Northern blvd .... Of course, at a lesser rate than they do now....

 

From what I understand, they want to send the Q66 SBS over the QB Bridge to Columbus Circle. 

[Mtatransit]

From what I understand, they want to send the Q66 SBS over the QB Bridge to Columbus Circle.

 

Q66 needs a frequency increase first, night and Sunday service on this route is a joke 30 min after 8PM? The demand is there, MTA just doesn't want to provide it, therefore everyone ends up on the

[Q43LTD]

The Q66 going to Columbus Circle is overkill local or select

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Q17/27 northbound terminates at Kissena/Sanford. Q17/27 southbound begins at the library stop. All other southbound buses on Kissena stop serving the library stop. (Q17/27 continues laying over wherever they do today, they just don't serve their respective last stops.)

 

The last northbound stop is still on 39th Avenue, immediately after the right turn from Main Street. 

 

The first southbound stop is temporarily in the layover area on 138th Street, next to what's left of the former Municipal Parking Field #1. This is actually listed on the site under "Planned Service Changes."

 

(My wife often rides the Q27 and has verified both of these.)

[bobtehpanda]

The last northbound stop is still on 39th Avenue, immediately after the right turn from Main Street. 

 

The first southbound stop is temporarily in the layover area on 138th Street, next to what's left of the former Municipal Parking Field #1. This is actually listed on the site under "Planned Service Changes."

 

(My wife often rides the Q27 and has verified both of these.)

 

Well it's a proposal to just terminate at Sanford/Library, not the current situation. (The Q17/27 stops have switched places so many times at this point that I've given up trying to figure out where it is at this point.)

[IAlam]

Sure.... and I find it wrong that there are services still in existence, where there are so many more people that are being screwed citywide with inadequate service on other routes where a far greater demand for them exists....

 

Then in that case the only buses that should serve the airport are the Q70 and M60. The Q47, Q48, & Q72 should be eliminated from the airport. None of these line have good ridership to the airport. But cutting such service goes back to the classic argument that the MTA focuses more commuters from Manhattan than those in the outer boros.

 

We've been talking about the Q48 the entire time, in the Queens Bus Proposal thread, so I don't know where you're coming from...

 

On another note, I have a proposal to make regarding bus stops in Flushing.

 

Q17/27 northbound terminates at Kissena/Sanford. Q17/27 southbound begins at the library stop. All other southbound buses on Kissena stop serving the library stop. (Q17/27 continues laying over wherever they do today, they just don't serve their respective last stops.)

 

For the Q17/27, this forces passengers to walk further to the subway, but Q58 passengers have put up with that for years, and most of the bus passengers have been getting off at this stop for years anyway due to the molasses-level congestion in Flushing. Southbound, this makes riders walk more, but the traffic speed during rush hour on that segment of Main St is abysmal; by having the library Kissena stop be the first stop, buses will avoid the most congested Flushing part of their route now. As a side benefit, the poor Q17/27 riders at the library stop today will stop getting passed up by six or so buses before they can squeeze on.

 

For the Q25/34/65 (I don't remember if I'm forgetting any southbound Kissena buses), these buses already make stops 600 feet away. Skipping the library stop will not really result in reduced coverage, and will save time for buses on the most congested section of route.

 

But where woudl the turn around? and making them drop passengers off at Sanford creates a longer walk, and would annoy passengers going to routes like the Q13 and Q28

[MikeC]

Well what about all of the people using the M60 to go to the airport with heavy luggage? Clearly there are some people that do use the local bus to reach the airport.  I do however agree with your other points.

I see some of those M60s when I'm going over the RFK bridge absolutely crush loaded and alot of the people have luggage too..

[bobtehpanda]

But where woudl the turn around? and making them drop passengers off at Sanford creates a longer walk, and would annoy passengers going to routes like the Q13 and Q28

 

Like I said, we already force Q58 passengers to walk a further distance than that. If you ride those buses going north most of the passengers get off anyways, because that last portion past Sanford often takes ten minutes due to traffic. I would be willing to bet that not many people are going from the 17/27 to the 13/16/28.

 

Buses can continue turning around the way they do now, they just don't take passengers along for the ride.

[B35 via Church]

Then in that case the only buses that should serve the airport are the Q70 and M60. The Q47, Q48, & Q72 should be eliminated from the airport. None of these line have good ridership to the airport. But cutting such service goes back to the classic argument that the MTA focuses more commuters from Manhattan than those in the outer boros.

Not remotely defending the airport usage of either of those other 2 routes....

 

- I've always thought the Q47 should end over there @ Ditmars/82nd; the problem is the turnaround....

- I wouldn't bother kicking the Q72 out, and it has nothing to do with its airport usage... Before sometime in the mid 2000's when it used to end at Ditmars/94th, buses used to turn around inside the airport anyway.... So I don't really blame them for eventually running buses inside there to actually serve the terminals......

 

Aside from that, the difference between the Q48 & the Q47/Q72 is that there would be no reason to try to phase out those routes because of its poor airport usage.... Again, the reach of the Q48 is much too narrow - and extending it eastward (or combining it with some route in Flushing wouldn't help matters).....