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.
Q43LTD

Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I asked this question on here years ago & I got a rather anomalous answer about some acquaintance or whatever having to drive between the two points.....

Again I ask, Who are these people that are just clamoring to ride between the damn Rockaways & some Sheepshead Bay (or vice versa) enough to warrant deviating the Q35?

Also, why is there this (apparent) need to want to shift Rockaway patrons to the Brighton line, in an indirect fashion nonetheless (instead of directly to the IRT)?

I'm really starting to think this shit is a B36 extension to Kings Plaza in disguise....

No one is talking about shifting riders from the IRT to the Brighton Line. It is about giving people more options. For some, taking the Brighton Line may get more direct with one less subway change. It is also about turning three and four bus trips into one, two or three bus trips. Someone from middle or Far Rockaway must take four buses to Kingsborough College who has students going there from all over the city. In 1978, when I surveyed the 86th Street routes we found 80 students a day using five buses to get to Kingsborough. Today that same trip now requires one, two or three buses due to the current B1. So don't tell me that students aren't willing to put up with crazy sounding trips. But they shouldn't have to. And why should a short trip from Sheepshead Bay to Rockaway take three or more buses anyway?

As far as who is clamoring for this, a better question is who is clamoring for any route change? Most accept bus routes as a given and at the most will ask for a short extension, not a major change. To find out if there is demand for such a service or any other new service, you would have to ask.

All I can say is when I suggested this several years ago in a Rockaway Local paper, someone wrote to the editor he thought it was a great idea. Of course, you can say it was only one person and it proves nothing. But the fact that te took the time to write a letter, rather than merely nodding his head in agreement, and the editor decided to print it does mean something. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, I'm long sick of his bullshit also....

I think it's French for deifying & having a sick obsession with one man over the internet.

1. Why Forest Park, specifically?

2. I'm all for a Q79 revival myself, but this is just strange on two fronts.... One is ending at LIRR Bellerose (instead of LIRR Floral Park) & the other thing is having short turns on the route.....

3. I'd leave the nomenclature alone.... The implication/notion that the route does more for Brooklynites than it does Queens patrons is something to ponder, though....

4. I couldn't think of two more diametric bus routes..... Why would you combine these two routes?
(please don't tell me because their route numbers happen to be consecutive)

5. Fair reason, but I think you risk losing a significant amt. of ridership combining these two routes.... Not to mention the Q29 between QB & Roosevelt is a PITA to navigate through....

1. My Q61’s southern terminal doesn’t have to be Forest Park Specially. I just chose Forest Park cause I didn’t know where to locate it’s south terminal and that’s where the Q23 terminates. I could’ve routed my Q61 to terminate at Atlas Park, but that’s not a good place to terminate it since not much demand is coming from there. 

2. The Short turns and the Q79 ending at Bellrose was a Reference to @Union Tpke‘s Better Access to Train Stations Plan which featured what seemed to be a bus route from Bellrose to Glen Oaks. I saw this as an opportunity for a revival of the Q79. However, I kept the main route at Little Neck Parkway. As for Short Turns, that is my version of the Q79 taking over the Part Time Spur to Glen Oaks Oval currently used by the Q46. If that doesn’t work out, the I could omit that from my proposal. 

3. The fact that the Q35 serves more of Brooklyn than Queens is why I’d change its nomenclature to match that of the Brooklyn Division. (Renaming it “B53” in the process.) Other than that, I don’t plan on Altering the Q35 route whatsoever.

4. As of 2017, the Q42 has a total ridership of 1,184 riders while the Q41 had a total ridership of 7,061. So In order to boost ridership, I thought of combining the 2 routes. And to be honest, I could care less if the route numbers happen to be consecutive. 

5. I was aware of the potential ridership drop if the Q33 and Q29 were combined. But in my opinion, that seems like an open opportunity to make improvements on the Q32, Q47, and Q49 routes if that’s the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

No one is talking about shifting riders from the IRT to the Brighton Line. It is about giving people more options. For some, taking the Brighton Line may get more direct with one less subway change. It is also about turning three and four bus trips into one, two or three bus trips. Someone from middle or Far Rockaway must take four buses to Kingsborough College who has students going there from all over the city. In 1978, when I surveyed the 86th Street routes we found 80 students a day using five buses to get to Kingsborough. Today that same trip now requires one, two or three buses due to the current B1. So don't tell me that students aren't willing to put up with crazy sounding trips. But they shouldn't have to. And why should a short trip from Sheepshead Bay to Rockaway take three or more buses anyway?

As far as who is clamoring for this, a better question is who is clamoring for any route change? Most accept bus routes as a given and at the most will ask for a short extension, not a major change. To find out if there is demand for such a service or any other new service, you would have to ask.

All I can say is when I suggested this several years ago in a Rockaway Local paper, someone wrote to the editor he thought it was a great idea. Of course, you can say it was only one person and it proves nothing. But the fact that te took the time to write a letter, rather than merely nodding his head in agreement, and the editor decided to print it does mean something. 

Just generally, it's extremely difficult to get to the Brighton Line through the Rockaways. Even by subway, you still have to transfer to the (C) and then the (S), but overall the problem is analogous to exactly what you're describing.

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

4. As of 2017, the Q42 has a total ridership of 1,184 riders while the Q41 had a total ridership of 7,061. So In order to boost ridership, I thought of combining the 2 routes. And to be honest, I could care less if the route numbers happen to be consecutive. 

5. I was aware of the potential ridership drop if the Q33 and Q29 were combined. But in my opinion, that seems like an open opportunity to make improvements on the Q32, Q47, and Q49 routes if that’s the case. 

The Q41 and Q42 don't have much in common though. Two different sets of riders with different needs. The Q41 is also not the most reliable of buses. I'd rather leave them both separate.

I'm against any Q33 change which haas it not serve 74th Street. It connects people to the QBL, instead of just dropping them off at the (7) . Each one of those routes has a purpose in that area, and adding service to compensate for loss of Q33 is not a solution in any sort of way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I asked this question on here years ago & I got a rather anomalous answer about some acquaintance or whatever having to drive between the two points.....

Again I ask, Who are these people that are just clamoring to ride between the damn Rockaways & some Sheepshead Bay (or vice versa) enough to warrant deviating the Q35?

Also, why is there this (apparent) need to want to shift Rockaway patrons to the Brighton line, in an indirect fashion nonetheless (instead of directly to the IRT)?

I'm really starting to think this shit is a B36 extension to Kings Plaza in disguise....

I think I remembered mentioning some B36 extension to the mall some years also. (That might be coming down the pike)!

Noting that the B3 doesn’t need any help at this point but who’s traveling between Sheepshead to The Rockaways. (Me wonders) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

No one is talking about shifting riders from the IRT to the Brighton Line. It is about giving people more options. For some, taking the Brighton Line may get more direct with one less subway change. It is also about turning three and four bus trips into one, two or three bus trips. Someone from middle or Far Rockaway must take four buses to Kingsborough College who has students going there from all over the city. In 1978, when I surveyed the 86th Street routes we found 80 students a day using five buses to get to Kingsborough. Today that same trip now requires one, two or three buses due to the current B1. So don't tell me that students aren't willing to put up with crazy sounding trips. But they shouldn't have to. And why should a short trip from Sheepshead Bay to Rockaway take three or more buses anyway?

As far as who is clamoring for this, a better question is who is clamoring for any route change? Most accept bus routes as a given and at the most will ask for a short extension, not a major change. To find out if there is demand for such a service or any other new service, you would have to ask.

All I can say is when I suggested this several years ago in a Rockaway Local paper, someone wrote to the editor he thought it was a great idea. Of course, you can say it was only one person and it proves nothing. But the fact that te took the time to write a letter, rather than merely nodding his head in agreement, and the editor decided to print it does mean something. 

Yes, yes, of course - and no one is talking about Kingsborough either.... Or whatever else you're talking about, about putting up with crazy sounding trips....

Spare me the comparison.... The question that was posed is, who's clamoring for this particular diversion of the Q35 - and your retort to that is, who clamors for any route change? Apparently demand means nothing.... How insulting to anyone in any given community that's ever fought for (and ended up accomplishing) some type of change to some bus route that serves their community....

...and who exactly is this editor that I, or anyone else is supposed to place in some level of regard....

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

1. My Q61’s southern terminal doesn’t have to be Forest Park Specially. I just chose Forest Park cause I didn’t know where to locate it’s south terminal and that’s where the Q23 terminates. I could’ve routed my Q61 to terminate at Atlas Park, but that’s not a good place to terminate it since not much demand is coming from there. 

2. The Short turns and the Q79 ending at Bellrose was a Reference to @Union Tpke‘s Better Access to Train Stations Plan which featured what seemed to be a bus route from Bellrose to Glen Oaks. I saw this as an opportunity for a revival of the Q79. However, I kept the main route at Little Neck Parkway. As for Short Turns, that is my version of the Q79 taking over the Part Time Spur to Glen Oaks Oval currently used by the Q46. If that doesn’t work out, the I could omit that from my proposal. 

3. The fact that the Q35 serves more of Brooklyn than Queens is why I’d change its nomenclature to match that of the Brooklyn Division. (Renaming it “B53” in the process.) Other than that, I don’t plan on Altering the Q35 route whatsoever.

4. As of 2017, the Q42 has a total ridership of 1,184 riders while the Q41 had a total ridership of 7,061. So In order to boost ridership, I thought of combining the 2 routes. And to be honest, I could care less if the route numbers happen to be consecutive. 

5. I was aware of the potential ridership drop if the Q33 and Q29 were combined. But in my opinion, that seems like an open opportunity to make improvements on the Q32, Q47, and Q49 routes if that’s the case. 

2. Even if you didn't want every trip out of the day to run up to LIRR Little Neck, stymieing trips in Glen Oaks from the south wouldn't be worth it IMO.... I'd say minimum, every trip should at least run up to Northern.....

4. So you do have some level of care that the two route numbers are consecutive :D (the phrase is couldn't care less, btw)

Anyway, what you're conveying here is a common fallacy... At minimum, there would have to be some sort of benefit to Q41 riders, anyone else residing in its service area, and whoever else is xferring to the Q41 that's seeking the areas of Queens the Q42 serves (and vice versa) if you're talking about combining routes & boosting ridership of the resultant route... AFAIK, none exists.....

Q41 tends to tank out at Archer/Sutphin from the south, with everyone else gunning for commercial Jamaica av.... Q42 is more or less a feeder route to/from Jamaica Ctr..... The congruency in combining these two routes would be severely lacking; the fact that both routes serve Jamaica, isn't enough.....

5. What improvements of the sort are we speaking of here?

37 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

I think I remembered mentioning some B36 extension to the mall some years also. (That might be coming down the pike)!

Noting that the B3 doesn’t need any help at this point but who’s traveling between Sheepshead to The Rockaways. (Me wonders) 

I'm not even asking for stats or studies or anything of the sort... I'm really not trying to be an ass about this....

For the life of me, I don't, and haven't seen/noticed anything that remotely suggests that the Q35 should be diverted in that fashion.....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Yes, yes, of course - and no one is talking about Kingsborough either.... Or whatever else you're talking about, about putting up with crazy sounding trips....

Spare me the comparison.... The question that was posed is, who's clamoring for this particular diversion of the Q35 - and your retort to that is, who clamors for any route change? Apparently demand means nothing.... How insulting to anyone in any given community that's ever fought for (and ended up accomplishing) some type of change to some bus route that serves their community....

...and who exactly is this editor that I, or anyone else is supposed to place in some level of regard....

Your mind is made up so arguing with you would be useless. Sorry if statistics are not readily available to substantiate latent demand. You apparently see nothing wrong with short trips that can be made by car in 20 minutes or less taking 90 minutes by mass transit requiring multiple fares as well. 

If we ever want to reduce use of the automobile, these are the things we must correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Your mind is made up so arguing with you would be useless. Sorry if statistics are not readily available to substantiate latent demand. You apparently see nothing wrong with short trips that can be made by car in 20 minutes or less taking 90 minutes by mass transit requiring multiple fares as well. 

If we ever want to reduce use of the automobile, these are the things we must correct.

I don't agree with diverting bus routes that would inconvenience more of its current riders, over trying to benefit some lesser good..... Your ineptitude to adequately illustrate the contrary is not my problem & it's really where you expose yourself on these parts.... You rely far too much on theory, instead of paying any real attention to how these routes are currently utilized....

Key word..... Current.... So, don't talk to me about being stubborn, guy...

Nobody's asking for stats, of course selective reading has always been your forte...

Yes, reducing automobile use is of an importance, but being counterproductive with current mass transit services could send current mass transit users right into the very automobile & its usage of it you're talking about wanting to reduce....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

I don't agree with diverting bus routes that would inconvenience more of its current riders, over trying to benefit some lesser good..... Your ineptitude to adequately illustrate the contrary is not my problem & it's really where you expose yourself on these parts.... You rely far too much on theory, instead of paying any real attention to how these routes are currently utilized....

Key word..... Current.... So, don't talk to me about being stubborn, guy...

Nobody's asking for stats, of course selective reading has always been your forte...

Yes, reducing automobile use is of an importance, but being counterproductive with current mass transit services could send current mass transit users right into the very automobile & its usage of it you're talking about wanting to reduce....

I have no idea what you are talking about since I never proposed to divert any routes. I never said anything about changing the current Q35. I was talking about a completely new route. And I am certainly not being counter productive with mass transit services. I stand by all my comments on this subject.

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I have no idea what you are talking about since I never proposed to divert any routes. I never said anything about changing the current Q35. I was talking about a completely new route. And I am certainly not being counter productive with mass transit services. I stand by all my comments on this subject.

Oh. I was the one who created the proposal on here. My initial attempt was to reroute the Q35 from the Junction to serve Knapp Street and Sheepshead Bay, while extending the Q22 to cover the Q35 section north of Avenue U, making all the same stops the Q35 does. This would ensure no one loses service while extending service to new areas. What do you think of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Oh. I was the one who created the proposal on here. My initial attempt was to reroute the Q35 from the Junction to serve Knapp Street and Sheepshead Bay, while extending the Q22 to cover the Q35 section north of Avenue U, making all the same stops the Q35 does. This would ensure no one loses service while extending service to new areas. What do you think of this?

What would be the point of involving the Q35? Why not just extend the Q22 to Sheepshead Bay? I didn't propose that because the Q22 would become a very long route and subject to delays outside of Rockaway. It would still be long if extended to Nostrand to cover the Q35. Also, when proposing route combinations, you also have to look at the headways to see if they are comparable or if you would be cutting or adding service. 

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

What would be the point of involving the Q35? Why not just extend the Q22 to Sheepshead Bay? I didn't propose that because the Q22 would become a very long route and subject to delays outside of Rockaway. It would still be long if extended to Nostrand to cover the Q35. Also, when proposing route combinations, you also have to look at the headways to see if they are comparable or if you would be cutting or adding service. 

Okay. The Q22 to Sheepshead Bay would also be a great idea, since it would give Sheepshead Bay access to all of the Rockaway Peninsula. I had originally proposed a Q22 to Nostrand, Q35 to Sheepshead Bay because there could also be a potential to provide direct access between all of the Rockaway Peninsula and both Kings Plaza, across the bridge, and the Junction, where many Rockaway riders get off to transfer to the subway. However, a Q22 to Sheepshead Bay should also be considered as well.

However, there could also be another solution to the Sheepshead Bay-Rockaway commute problem, which is to create a brand new route from scratch that would serve Sheepshead Bay, Knapp Street, and the Rockaway Peninsula, something you proposed in 2012 on Sheepshead Bites (Now Bklyner). Link to that article is here: https://bklyner.com/my-proposed-bus-route-changes-for-sheepshead-bay-and-adjacent-neighborhoods-part-1-of-2-sheepshead-bay/. Here, your proposed route, the Q51, would start at the Sheepshead Bay station, take the eastern end of the B4 routing (Emmons Av/Shore Pkwy), then Knapp Street, Avenue U, and follow the Q35 route to Rockaway Park. This can also provide a direct service between the areas in question, and still provide Knapp Street with a bus route near their homes. While this could be viewed as a branch of the Q35, it supplements the two routes, but doesn't affect both of them in any manner, aside from some slight schedule adjustments to accommodate the route. The Q51 would operate every 10-15 minutes at all times except late nights.

However, this would entail cutting the B4 back to Sheepshead Bay station at all times except late nights (there is no B4 service at night), something that you also proposed in 2004 and 2012. They would have to transfer to the Q51 at Sheepshead Bay Road. However, the upside is that Sheepshead Bay residents would have a convenient transit options to the nearby peninsula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Okay. The Q22 to Sheepshead Bay would also be a great idea, since it would give Sheepshead Bay access to all of the Rockaway Peninsula. I had originally proposed a Q22 to Nostrand, Q35 to Sheepshead Bay because there could also be a potential to provide direct access between all of the Rockaway Peninsula and both Kings Plaza, across the bridge, and the Junction, where many Rockaway riders get off to transfer to the subway. However, a Q22 to Sheepshead Bay should also be considered as well.

However, there could also be another solution to the Sheepshead Bay-Rockaway commute problem, which is to create a brand new route from scratch that would serve Sheepshead Bay, Knapp Street, and the Rockaway Peninsula, something you proposed in 2012 on Sheepshead Bites (Now Bklyner). Link to that article is here: https://bklyner.com/my-proposed-bus-route-changes-for-sheepshead-bay-and-adjacent-neighborhoods-part-1-of-2-sheepshead-bay/. Here, your proposed route, the Q51, would start at the Sheepshead Bay station, take the eastern end of the B4 routing (Emmons Av/Shore Pkwy), then Knapp Street, Avenue U, and follow the Q35 route to Rockaway Park. This can also provide a direct service between the areas in question, and still provide Knapp Street with a bus route near their homes. While this could be viewed as a branch of the Q35, it supplements the two routes, but doesn't affect both of them in any manner, aside from some slight schedule adjustments to accommodate the route. The Q51 would operate every 10-15 minutes at all times except late nights.

However, this would entail cutting the B4 back to Sheepshead Bay station at all times except late nights (there is no B4 service at night), something that you also proposed in 2004 and 2012. They would have to transfer to the Q51 at Sheepshead Bay Road. However, the upside is that Sheepshead Bay residents would have a convenient transit options to the nearby peninsula.

I have since revised that proposal. Will be releasing it soon along with others.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes out of the idea of the Q70 needing capacity increases and that cumbersome turn around 74th and Broadway that requires going around the block on what can be cumbersome, especially during rush hour. I would propose this rerouting as a loop.

From LGA, instead of serving 74/Broadway (E)(F)(M)(R)(7) first, the Q70 would instead turn right onto Broadway with an immediate stop for drop-off only at the 65 Street (M)(R) station, allowing a discharge of passengers there (the entrance is right at the exit ramp). Then, west on Broadway to 61 Street, making a left there to serve the 61 Street/Woodside (7)/LIRR station complex. Then lastly, the Q70 would run east on Roosevelt to 74 Street/Broadway, and lay over.

Outbound to LGA, a dispatcher could then have the freedom to send a bus up Broadway, doing the loop around the block, or up 75 Street to 37 Avenue to the BQE.

The main advantage? For those not needing ADA access, one can get off the bus sooner. The main disadvantage? For Woodside-originating customers, they have to change buses at 74/Broadway.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aemoreira81 said:

This comes out of the idea of the Q70 needing capacity increases and that cumbersome turn around 74th and Broadway that requires going around the block on what can be cumbersome, especially during rush hour. I would propose this rerouting as a loop.

From LGA, instead of serving 74/Broadway (E)(F)(M)(R)(7) first, the Q70 would instead turn right onto Broadway with an immediate stop for drop-off only at the 65 Street (M)(R) station, allowing a discharge of passengers there (the entrance is right at the exit ramp). Then, west on Broadway to 61 Street, making a left there to serve the 61 Street/Woodside (7)/LIRR station complex. Then lastly, the Q70 would run east on Roosevelt to 74 Street/Broadway, and lay over.

Outbound to LGA, a dispatcher could then have the freedom to send a bus up Broadway, doing the loop around the block, or up 75 Street to 37 Avenue to the BQE.

The main advantage? For those not needing ADA access, one can get off the bus sooner. The main disadvantage? For Woodside-originating customers, they have to change buses at 74/Broadway.

I'm a little Confused. So what you're saying is that Buses should go via Broadway and 61st. Then they get to 74th Street up Roosevelt or some other street. Then LGA bound buses do WHAT!?! 

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I'm a little Confused. So what you're saying is that Buses should go via Broadway and 61st. Then they get to 74th Street up Roosevelt or some other street. Then LGA bound buses do WHAT!?! 

The dispatcher would have freedom as to how they get to the airport, turning right or left depending on how traffic on Broadway is.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody WANTS to get of at 65th St instead of 74 St- Broadway, especially with luggage and people backtracking on the express.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Proposal. 

In earlier pages, we all discussed that Broadway could use a crosstown route. So I decided to reroute the Q59, along with making some changes to it in Brooklyn. 

*Buses will now start by WilliamsBurg Bridge Plaza and go up via the Q54 route before returning to its normal route at Union Avenue. 

* Once the buses reach Queens Blvd, ALL Q59 buses will continue up Broadway until reaching Vernon Blvd.  Beyond this point, buses will Terminate at Astoria, 2nd Street. 

Riders wishing to continue to Rego Park will have to transfer to the Q60 or the (M)(R).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

New Proposal. 

In earlier pages, we all discussed that Broadway could use a crosstown route. So I decided to reroute the Q59, along with making some changes to it in Brooklyn. 

*Buses will now start by WilliamsBurg Bridge Plaza and go up via the Q54 route before returning to its normal route at Union Avenue. 

* Once the buses reach Queens Blvd, ALL Q59 buses will continue up Broadway until reaching Vernon Blvd.  Beyond this point, buses will Terminate at Astoria, 2nd Street. 

Riders wishing to continue to Rego Park will have to transfer to the Q60 or the (M)(R).  

I rather not extend the Q59 as Broadway traffic will definitely screw up the Q59.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

New Proposal. 

In earlier pages, we all discussed that Broadway could use a crosstown route. So I decided to reroute the Q59, along with making some changes to it in Brooklyn. 

*Buses will now start by WilliamsBurg Bridge Plaza and go up via the Q54 route before returning to its normal route at Union Avenue. 

* Once the buses reach Queens Blvd, ALL Q59 buses will continue up Broadway until reaching Vernon Blvd.  Beyond this point, buses will Terminate at Astoria, 2nd Street. 

Riders wishing to continue to Rego Park will have to transfer to the Q60 or the (M)(R).  

That would be way too long of a route, and virtually no one rides the whole length therefore, by the time the bus gets to Elmhurst it would be completely delayed and bunched up.

I do believe that the Q59 shouldn't go to Rego Park though, I would end it at Queens Center or something. The bus empty out at the Grand Av Station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

New Proposal. 

In earlier pages, we all discussed that Broadway could use a crosstown route. So I decided to reroute the Q59, along with making some changes to it in Brooklyn. 

*Buses will now start by WilliamsBurg Bridge Plaza and go up via the Q54 route before returning to its normal route at Union Avenue. 

* Once the buses reach Queens Blvd, ALL Q59 buses will continue up Broadway until reaching Vernon Blvd.  Beyond this point, buses will Terminate at Astoria, 2nd Street. 

Riders wishing to continue to Rego Park will have to transfer to the Q60 or the (M)(R).  

Have you taken the Q53 north of Queens Blvd by any chance, or otherwise ventured along that part of Broadway? There's no real reason to subject the Q59 to that (and then some).....

On 4/26/2019 at 1:44 PM, aemoreira81 said:

This comes out of the idea of the Q70 needing capacity increases and that cumbersome turn around 74th and Broadway that requires going around the block on what can be cumbersome, especially during rush hour. I would propose this rerouting as a loop.

From LGA, instead of serving 74/Broadway (E)(F)(M)(R)(7) first, the Q70 would instead turn right onto Broadway with an immediate stop for drop-off only at the 65 Street (M)(R) station, allowing a discharge of passengers there (the entrance is right at the exit ramp). Then, west on Broadway to 61 Street, making a left there to serve the 61 Street/Woodside (7)/LIRR station complex. Then lastly, the Q70 would run east on Roosevelt to 74 Street/Broadway, and lay over.

Outbound to LGA, a dispatcher could then have the freedom to send a bus up Broadway, doing the loop around the block, or up 75 Street to 37 Avenue to the BQE.

The main advantage? For those not needing ADA access, one can get off the bus sooner. The main disadvantage? For Woodside-originating customers, they have to change buses at 74/Broadway.

On 4/26/2019 at 1:53 PM, aemoreira81 said:

The dispatcher would have freedom as to how they get to the airport, turning right or left depending on how traffic on Broadway is.

For what you're presenting here, the Q70 may as well be two services:

  • one running from 61st-Woodside to the airport (via 65th st subway), and...
  • one running from Moore terminal straight to the airport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Have you taken the Q53 north of Queens Blvd by any chance, or otherwise ventured along that part of Broadway? There's no real reason to subject the Q59 to that (and then some).....

Yeah, I used to pass by there all the time. So I’m aware of the congestion that happens there daily, Even before the 53 became SBS, Broadway was like that. I felt like experimenting with a new Idea though by using elements of some used ideas (the Broadway Crosstown idea).

 

10 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

That would be way too long of a route, and virtually no one rides the whole length therefore, by the time the bus gets to Elmhurst it would be completely delayed and bunched up.

I do believe that the Q59 shouldn't go to Rego Park though, I would end it at Queens Center or something. The bus empty out at the Grand Av Station

The delays at Elmhurst part, I agree with you. I personally believe that the Q59 should go to Rego Park (maybe this is a bias I have cause I live in Rego Park) but Queens Center works as a Terminal, given if Q59 buses were rerouted on the Main Road on Queens Blvd.

 

As for the Delays and the Bus Bunching on Grand Avenue And Broadway, then the only solutions I see to that are Better Dispatching, TSP along Grand Avenue and Broadway (Which I think is already in Place, I don’t know), and Bus Zones Which would be implemented on the Bus Stop where ever Bus Lanes aren’t Feasible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Yeah, I used to pass by there all the time. So I’m aware of the congestion that happens there daily, Even before the 53 became SBS, Broadway was like that. I felt like experimenting with a new Idea though by using elements of some used ideas (the Broadway Crosstown idea).

Lol, SBS, that's only about a year and a half ago.... Even before the Q53 operated via 63rd Dr & ran nonstop between Rego Park (63rd dr) & Broad Channel, Broadway in Elmhurst was a shitshow.... The overall street grid/layout around there absolutely sucks & on top of it, the streets themselves are narrow as f***.... Same problem plagues the Q29 running in Elmhurst....

You can have a Broadway route without fusing it with the Q59; that part of it is just plain crazy, you have to admit... Sometimes you have to go back to the drawing board with these experiments....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Have you taken the Q53 north of Queens Blvd by any chance, or otherwise ventured along that part of Broadway? There's no real reason to subject the Q59 to that (and then some).....

For what you're presenting here, the Q70 may as well be two services:

  • one running from 61st-Woodside to the airport (via 65th st subway), and...
  • one running from Moore terminal straight to the airport

And I'm not opposed to severing the services here...the one from Moore would get a lot more service and could run easily with articulated services by itself. Is there that much ridership originating from Woodside?

As for rigids on SBS, when Brooklyn Division gets artics for the B46, I'd actually wonder if it may be worth it to send some of the blue/yellow SBS buses to LaGuardia. Also, keep in mind that B6 (the airline) is a major carrier at LGA, but is not served by LaGuardia Link (it has exclusive use of the Marine Air Terminal). I'll take your offer and suggest this:

Q70: 74/Broadway straight to the terminals, except Terminal 1 (Marine Air) - using articulated buses (the 10 additional artics from 6234-6286 could be used for this, because the capacity is needed). This would require current 7-minute headways, but fewer buses since there is no longer the leg back to Woodside.

Q80: 74/Broadway to Marine Air only---using rigid buses, every 10 minutes.

Q90: Woodside to all terminals following the M60 path around the airport---using rigid buses, every 12 minutes.

IMO, the hours on the LaGuardia Link should also be reduced from 24 hours a day to 4:30 AM to 12:30 AM (LaGuardia curfew rule). During this time, the Q33 would be extended into the Central Terminal Area for the major purpose of carrying employees in and out, and the Q47 would be rerouted to terminate at the front door to LaGuardia Depot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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