Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

22 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Those Next Gens may not be new, but they are somewhat close enough. Sure beats the outdated garbage that is the OGs, which were so 15 years ago, although as you said, as long as the basics exist that’s all that matters. I only proposed it for maintenance simplification at the JFK end.

Not really. I’m under the belief that rebranding the bus routes is one step in improving the bus network, as a modern fleet with modern route changes can get people back on the bus. I mean look at the M42 and M50 routes in Manhattan. Ever since new buses showed up on the route, the decline in ridership has lessened to an extent. 

Where exactly are you getting this from??? We have a shit ton of stuff to fix with the bus networks and all you're stick(y)ing to is the damn bus fleet. SMH.

[JeremiahC99]

12 minutes ago, Lex said:

So long as the two depots pool, this is moot.

 

They are currently pooling the fleet due to Sandy. Far Rockaway Depot was damaged and and fleet needed a location to be stored and maintained. There are buses assigned to the depot, but it is still a rotation. I’m pretty sure that the rotation should end when the depot renovations are complete.

 

12 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Where exactly are you getting this from??? We have a shit ton of stuff to fix with the bus networks and all you're stick(y)ing to is the damn bus fleet. SMH.

The additional buses have supplied them with extra units it’s to cover some service at a time when there are Depots running with bus shortages one way or another. If not for those buses, the service can never be made.

[B35 via Church]

28 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Where exactly are you getting this from??? We have a shit ton of stuff to fix with the bus networks and all you're stick(y)ing to is the damn bus fleet. SMH.

His proctologist.

Not even the most avid bus fan on here believes that ridership losses on those routes have diminished due to a fleet change.....

[Lex]

14 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

His proctologist.

Not even the most avid bus fan on here believes that ridership losses on those routes have diminished due to a fleet change.....

Literally the only route I can even remotely see having any reduction in ridership loss due to a fleet change is the B35, and that's only because the buses are better suited for the chronic overcrowding (and even taking that into consideration, any such change would be negligible).

[MysteriousBtrain]

So the M42/50 and something about ridership because of new XE40s and XD40s at the depot?

 

[B35 via Church]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Literally the only route I can even remotely see having any reduction in ridership loss due to a fleet change is the B35, and that's only because the buses are better suited for the chronic overcrowding (and even taking that into consideration, any such change would be negligible).

Hell, if we factor in the amt. of riders unaccounted for in any statistical gathering by the MTA (i.e, farebeaters), that number would even be more negligible... at best.

 

side note: when are they coming out with last year's ridership fixings figures anyway?

Edited May 6, 2019 by B35 via Church

[JeremiahC99]

13 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

So the M42/50 and something about ridership because of new XE40s and XD40s at the depot?

 

Yeah why not? Since we have had older buses break down in the middle of their runs before, having new buses replace old buses helps with improving reliability and end cases no show buses due to lack of available fleet as well. Pretty soon the bus shortage should end as well.

[DetSMART45]

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Yeah why not? Since we have had older buses break down in the middle of their runs before, having new buses replace old buses helps with improving reliability and end cases no show buses due to lack of available fleet as well. Pretty soon the bus shortage should end as well.

Theoretically, or "according to what I read in a textbook case," yeah. IRL? No. (Have you been lifting from the many Irick tales he tells at Committee/Board meetings? Sure sounds like it.)

There are just so many factors you're not including. Read some of @Via Garibaldi 8's posts about "no-shows" in his Express Bus thread and many are chalked-up to the MTA actually opting not to send them out. How about "driver error" road calls? Operators aren't trained in diagnostics, so there could be something minor that pops up, they call it in, and are told to wait for the road crew. Whether a replacement is deemed to be warranted or taken out for a swap is another factor with that -- affecting "reliability" and "no-shows." Schedules play a significant part to it as well.

And then there's the biggest factor: labor. With the MTA's LIRR overtime troubles of late, any whiff that contracts could be changed will send your labor into a tizzy. (You can bet that NYCT and MTAB will face some kind of sniffing around on their overtime as a result of LIRR getting an anal exam.) Labor "slowdowns" can affect both sides of service: street-side and depot-side. Maintenance can start to suffer, meaning more road calls, even of the not-so-serious variety -- but it affects service. That in turn delays maintenance to other write-ups.   It's inevitable that service cuts will occur, but get a bit too drastic, and the peasants start taking it out on the operators, then they'll do a slowdown there. And naturally you have the "sick-out" possibility, which is a troublesome reality on the LIRR side, because plenty of your "seniors" have banked sick-days.

In Detroit, a massive service cut pre-bankruptcy led to a major loss of customers. A vicious cycle ensued once customers started taking out their frustrations on the operators. Operators retaliated by a slowdown, as "told" (not implicitly) by the union. Maintenance followed in solidarity. Post-bankruptcy, new mayor put in a new Transportation Director, and got new buses trickling in. Director laid down the law with operators and mechanics, and wasn't afraid to can people who wanted to deviate. BUT -- scheduled service was righted, and as time went on, improved consistently. Customers weren't as hostile, gave it time, and started coming back to the buses. How much factor was new buses? Only 80 out of a nearly 400 fleet. All the "old buses" played the biggest part of the turn-around.

EDIT: After posting, thought of this: Following the drastic service cuts, a "mysterious" fire consumed one of the DDOT depots. That depot remains shuttered. Many theories/"explanations" abound on timing, etc.

Edited May 6, 2019 by DetSMART45

[Via Garibaldi 8]

9 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

Theoretically, or "according to what I read in a textbook case," yeah. IRL? No. (Have you been lifting from the many Irick tales he tells at Committee/Board meetings? Sure sounds like it.)

There are just so many factors you're not including. Read some of @Via Garibaldi 8's posts about "no-shows" in his Express Bus thread and many are chalked-up to the MTA actually opting not to send them out. How about "driver error" road calls? Operators aren't trained in diagnostics, so there could be something minor that pops up, they call it in, and are told to wait for the road crew. Whether a replacement is deemed to be warranted or taken out for a swap is another factor with that -- affecting "reliability" and "no-shows." Schedules play a significant part to it as well.

And then there's the biggest factor: labor. With the MTA's LIRR overtime troubles of late, any whiff that contracts could be changed will send your labor into a tizzy. (You can bet that NYCT and MTAB will face some kind of sniffing around on their overtime as a result of LIRR getting an anal exam.) Labor "slowdowns" can affect both sides of service: street-side and depot-side. Maintenance can start to suffer, meaning more road calls, even of the not-so-serious variety -- but it affects service. That in turn delays maintenance to other write-ups.   It's inevitable that service cuts will occur, but get a bit too drastic, and the peasants start taking it out on the operators, then they'll do a slowdown there. And naturally you have the "sick-out" possibility, which is a troublesome reality on the LIRR side, because plenty of your "seniors" have banked sick-days.

In Detroit, a massive service cut pre-bankruptcy led to a major loss of customers. A vicious cycle ensued once customers started taking out their frustrations on the operators. Operators retaliated by a slowdown, as "told" (not implicitly) by the union. Maintenance followed in solidarity. Post-bankruptcy, new mayor put in a new Transportation Director, and got new buses trickling in. Director laid down the law with operators and mechanics, and wasn't afraid to can people who wanted to deviate. BUT -- scheduled service was righted, and as time went on, improved consistently. Customers weren't as hostile, gave it time, and started coming back to the buses. How much factor was new buses? Only 80 out of a nearly 400 fleet. All the "old buses" played the biggest part of the turn-around.

Everything that you have stated above is 1000% spot on. In fact I was just having a conversation with someone in the know about the whole missing bus saga a few minutes ago, and they were telling me that operators are constantly retiring, and drivers can be pulled for anything. Drivers can and do report being assaulted, and in those cases they can go out for extended periods. Without going into particulars, something happened recently on a line where service couldn't be met.  That trip went unfilled, and there was an hour gap in service.  

It is a constant struggle to make service.  HOWEVER, the  is not new to the game. There are lots of people needed to make things work. Get a few lazy people that don't care and service can easily tank.  That's one of the main problems with the  . It is so big, with so many departments, managers and the like. It takes a lot to run the agency efficiently and effectively.

As you said, there are also slowdowns...

[JeremiahC99]

23 hours ago, Lex said:

Sure, and having the Q35 run to Arverne is somehow not a 💩 idea (which goes double for a second route between the Rockaways and Brooklyn).

Why not? Arverne is undergoing redevelopment due to new housing developments there. With this trend continuing, there should be more busses there going to other parts of the city and the Q52 SBS is not enough. After all, if we got the Q52 extended 8 blocks to Beach 54th Street to serve Arverne better, the sure as hell we can have the Q35 go there. Maybe those people can enjoy a one-seat ride to Primark and Zara over at Kings Plaza.

[Lex]

47 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Why not? Arverne is undergoing redevelopment due to new housing developments there. With this trend continuing, there should be more busses there going to other parts of the city and the Q52 SBS is not enough. After all, if we got the Q52 extended 8 blocks to Beach 54th Street to serve Arverne better, the sure as hell we can have the Q35 go there. Maybe those people can enjoy a one-seat ride to Primark and Zara over at Kings Plaza.

I'll seem like a broken record for saying this, but you really need an enema.

[DetSMART45]

9 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Why not? Arverne is undergoing redevelopment due to new housing developments there. With this trend continuing, there should be more busses there going to other parts of the city and the Q52 SBS is not enough. After all, if we got the Q52 extended 8 blocks to Beach 54th Street to serve Arverne better, the sure as hell we can have the Q35 go there. Maybe those people can enjoy a one-seat ride to Primark and Zara over at Kings Plaza.

I just can't understand how practically all of your "brainstorms" presented on these ideas threads are nothing more than brain-fart-drizzles. Everyone else you expose these to has an umbrella at the ready, yet you keep getting drenched and wandering aimlessly.

You seem to have a penchant for thinking that serving a minority of customers across any given route, through 20, 30, 40-minute extensions, or totally changing of a route's focus, is going to somehow be a success. You've come up with some doozies, the smackdown over your Harlem/Randall's Island "reorganization" being one of the most amusing to watch. This whole Rockaways/Brooklyn obsession is getting close to overtaking that one.

All of these overlaps of coverage are nothing more than wastes of resources. What is there, exactly, to gain by adding coverage to Arverne for those few customers who may get a "one-seat ride", when you're stripping them from an already-running route? Even though Bloomberg encouraged new/renewal of housing around that area, the amount of new residents is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to being actual bus customers. And unless you have some sort of "major draw" (significant-enough size shopping center or a similar office/industrial development) then you're just cannibalizing your own service. Those who specifically want to go to Brooklyn/Kings Plaza/Primark already know what they have to go through to get there -- you're not going to be meeting some unmet need for the vast majority.

While your seeming obsession with "one-seat rides" can appear to be a noble one, and similarly with the double-fare problems, much of this could be eliminated if the MTA would just revamp the transfer policy overall. With the increase in travel time systemwide (buses or subway separately or in conjunction with each other), the two-hour, single transfer should be done away with -- and should have been awhile ago. The transfer system should be extended to three hours, with unlimited MetroCard transfers within that period, the only exception being no same-route-different-direction (or make that available only to reduced-fare MetroCard). This would also eliminate the "out-of-system" subway transfers, plus the need to program additional transfers during subway work projects. (Fare differential would still apply to Express Buses.) Paper transfers on buses would be eliminated for cash customers as well (many TAs already use such a policy).

You've also definitely got to start delving into the Census Data (it's not that hard to sort through once you do it a few times) for any of these proposals. Although Arverne might not be going through a "gentrification", per se, with the car-culture being what it is on the Rockaways, that definitely should have been considered within your route changes.

[BrooklynBus]

17 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

I just can't understand how practically all of your "brainstorms" presented on these ideas threads are nothing more than brain-fart-drizzles. Everyone else you expose these to has an umbrella at the ready, yet you keep getting drenched and wandering aimlessly.

You seem to have a penchant for thinking that serving a minority of customers across any given route, through 20, 30, 40-minute extensions, or totally changing of a route's focus, is going to somehow be a success. You've come up with some doozies, the smackdown over your Harlem/Randall's Island "reorganization" being one of the most amusing to watch. This whole Rockaways/Brooklyn obsession is getting close to overtaking that one.

All of these overlaps of coverage are nothing more than wastes of resources. What is there, exactly, to gain by adding coverage to Arverne for those few customers who may get a "one-seat ride", when you're stripping them from an already-running route? Even though Bloomberg encouraged new/renewal of housing around that area, the amount of new residents is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to being actual bus customers. And unless you have some sort of "major draw" (significant-enough size shopping center or a similar office/industrial development) then you're just cannibalizing your own service. Those who specifically want to go to Brooklyn/Kings Plaza/Primark already know what they have to go through to get there -- you're not going to be meeting some unmet need for the vast majority.

While your seeming obsession with "one-seat rides" can appear to be a noble one, and similarly with the double-fare problems, much of this could be eliminated if the MTA would just revamp the transfer policy overall. With the increase in travel time systemwide (buses or subway separately or in conjunction with each other), the two-hour, single transfer should be done away with -- and should have been awhile ago. The transfer system should be extended to three hours, with unlimited MetroCard transfers within that period, the only exception being no same-route-different-direction (or make that available only to reduced-fare MetroCard). This would also eliminate the "out-of-system" subway transfers, plus the need to program additional transfers during subway work projects. (Fare differential would still apply to Express Buses.) Paper transfers on buses would be eliminated for cash customers as well (many TAs already use such a policy).

You've also definitely got to start delving into the Census Data (it's not that hard to sort through once you do it a few times) for any of these proposals. Although Arverne might not be going through a "gentrification", per se, with the car-culture being what it is on the Rockaways, that definitely should have been considered within your route changes.

The goal should not be to give everyone a one-seat ride but to turn three bus trips in tom two bus trips. Most will resist having to take three buses. The need for an extra fare for those without unlimiteds is just a further deterrent. 

You are correct about revamping the the transfer system, but increasing the limit to three hours is not necessary since there is no record of getting off the last bus or train. If as many transfers as needed can be made within two hours of the first fare being paid, trips taking as long as three hours will still be possible with one fare. That also means the fare should not be raised to $5 to pay for this. 

I explained how such a system would work two years ago and also submitted it to the MTA as testimony for the last fare increase. 

https://www.rockawave.com/articles/a-fare-discussion/

[JeremiahC99]

54 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

I just can't understand how practically all of your "brainstorms" presented on these ideas threads are nothing more than brain-fart-drizzles. Everyone else you expose these to has an umbrella at the ready, yet you keep getting drenched and wandering aimlessly.

You seem to have a penchant for thinking that serving a minority of customers across any given route, through 20, 30, 40-minute extensions, or totally changing of a route's focus, is going to somehow be a success. You've come up with some doozies, the smackdown over your Harlem/Randall's Island "reorganization" being one of the most amusing to watch. This whole Rockaways/Brooklyn obsession is getting close to overtaking that one.

All of these overlaps of coverage are nothing more than wastes of resources. What is there, exactly, to gain by adding coverage to Arverne for those few customers who may get a "one-seat ride", when you're stripping them from an already-running route? Even though Bloomberg encouraged new/renewal of housing around that area, the amount of new residents is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to being actual bus customers. And unless you have some sort of "major draw" (significant-enough size shopping center or a similar office/industrial development) then you're just cannibalizing your own service. Those who specifically want to go to Brooklyn/Kings Plaza/Primark already know what they have to go through to get there -- you're not going to be meeting some unmet need for the vast majority.

While your seeming obsession with "one-seat rides" can appear to be a noble one, and similarly with the double-fare problems, much of this could be eliminated if the MTA would just revamp the transfer policy overall. With the increase in travel time systemwide (buses or subway separately or in conjunction with each other), the two-hour, single transfer should be done away with -- and should have been awhile ago. The transfer system should be extended to three hours, with unlimited MetroCard transfers within that period, the only exception being no same-route-different-direction (or make that available only to reduced-fare MetroCard). This would also eliminate the "out-of-system" subway transfers, plus the need to program additional transfers during subway work projects. (Fare differential would still apply to Express Buses.) Paper transfers on buses would be eliminated for cash customers as well (many TAs already use such a policy).

You've also definitely got to start delving into the Census Data (it's not that hard to sort through once you do it a few times) for any of these proposals. Although Arverne might not be going through a "gentrification", per se, with the car-culture being what it is on the Rockaways, that definitely should have been considered within your route changes.

The idea of a Q35 to Arverne was based on the recent changes to the Q21 and Q52 In the entire peninsula to serve Arverne. Prior to 2012, the Q21 ran with the Q53 to Rockaway Park, which was unneeded since the Q53 runs along the same corridor and is much faster. Since 2012, these changes were made:

• January 2012: Q21 rerouted to Arverne. Q21 LTD created.
• July 2012: Q21 LTD split off into full time Q52 LTD. Q21 truncated to Howard Beach.
• September 2013: Overnight Q53 service added.
• April 2017: Q52 extended from Arverne-Beach 67th Street to Arverne-Beach 54th Street to better serve Arverne and Edgemere.
• November 2017: Q52 converted to SBS to speed commutes to/from Arverne and Edgemere.

All of those improvements have led to in increase in ridership on the Q11, Q21, Q52 and Q53. And if we extend the Q35 to Arverne via Beach Channel Drive, then the Q35 can get the same ridership increases the Q52 got.

You also ignore how the Q35 via Beach Channel would serve a section of Rockaway that is separated by the Rockaway Freeway. The Rockaway Freeway, which carries train service that is relatively infrequent, splits Rockaways into a northern and southern section. There are few crossings that cross the freeway and elevated subway west of Beach 62nd Street, though a portion of it has been closed for a transit plaza. By providing a service on Beach Channel, one can catch a bus to other parts of the peninsula without having to navigate to the few crossings that cross the freeway to reach Rockaways Beach Blvd, where the overcrowded Q22 operates.

And yes, i agree that the transfer policy needs to be changed. In fact, some new fare policies should be fare implemented, like unlimited transfer within two hours and fare capping, a system similar to what London has that caps the fare when the fares paid reach the cost of a unlimited weekly. That can work as well.

[Lex]

8 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The idea of a Q35 to Arverne was based on the recent changes to the Q21 and Q52 In the entire peninsula to serve Arverne. Prior to 2012, the Q21 ran with the Q53 to Rockaway Park, which was unneeded since the Q53 runs along the same corridor and is much faster. Since 2012, these changes were made:

• January 2012: Q21 rerouted to Arverne. Q21 LTD created.
• July 2012: Q21 LTD split off into full time Q52 LTD. Q21 truncated to Howard Beach.
• September 2013: Overnight Q53 service added.
• April 2017: Q52 extended from Arverne-Beach 67th Street to Arverne-Beach 54th Street to better serve Arverne and Edgemere.
• November 2017: Q52 converted to SBS to speed commutes to/from Arverne and Edgemere.

All of those improvements have led to in increase in ridership on the Q11, Q21, Q52 and Q53. And if we extend the Q35 to Arverne via Beach Channel Drive, then the Q35 can get the same ridership increases the Q52 got.

You also ignore how the Q35 via Beach Channel would serve a section of Rockaway that is separated by the Rockaway Freeway. The Rockaway Freeway, which carries train service that is relatively infrequent, splits Rockaways into a northern and southern section. There are few crossings that cross the freeway and elevated subway west of Beach 62nd Street, though a portion of it has been closed for a transit plaza. By providing a service on Beach Channel, one can catch a bus to other parts of the peninsula without having to navigate to the few crossings that cross the freeway to reach Rockaways Beach Blvd, where the overcrowded Q22 operates.

And yes, i agree that the transfer policy needs to be changed. In fact, some new fare policies should be fare implemented, like unlimited transfer within two hours and fare capping, a system similar to what London has that caps the fare when the fares paid reach the cost of a unlimited weekly. That can work as well.

Overstate this, ignore that, rinse and repeat. 🤦‍♀️

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The idea of a Q35 to Arverne was based on the recent changes to the Q21 and Q52 In the entire peninsula to serve Arverne. Prior to 2012, the Q21 ran with the Q53 to Rockaway Park, which was unneeded since the Q53 runs along the same corridor and is much faster. Since 2012, these changes were made:

• January 2012: Q21 rerouted to Arverne. Q21 LTD created.
• July 2012: Q21 LTD split off into full time Q52 LTD. Q21 truncated to Howard Beach.
• September 2013: Overnight Q53 service added.
• April 2017: Q52 extended from Arverne-Beach 67th Street to Arverne-Beach 54th Street to better serve Arverne and Edgemere.
• November 2017: Q52 converted to SBS to speed commutes to/from Arverne and Edgemere.

All of those improvements have led to in increase in ridership on the Q11, Q21, Q52 and Q53. And if we extend the Q35 to Arverne via Beach Channel Drive, then the Q35 can get the same ridership increases the Q52 got.

The Woodhaven locals & Woodhaven SBS' have not seen concurrent ridership increases, that's just not true.....

• The Q11 has seen losses since the Q21 was extended to QCM (Queens Center Mall) & since more SBS service was added along Woodhaven - by way of the Q52 conversion....
• The Q21 saw usage increases, due to service having been taken away from the Q11 to facilitate the extension to QCM...
• The Q52 saw usage increases, due to service having been taken away from the Q53 & quite frankly, being utilized interchangeably with the Q53.... It also eliminated an xfer scenario b/w the Q22 & the Q53 for some riders....
• The Q53 from start to finish, at best, has remained stagnant - largely due to the increases between QCM & Woodside....

Yes, the Q35 can get the same ridership increases the Q52 got - at the expense of the Q22..... Good job leaving that little tidbit out.

2 hours ago, Lex said:

Overstate this, ignore that, rinse and repeat. 🤦‍♀️

Yeah, he's blatantly ignoring the ridership losses that occurred with the Q11/21 as a result of the gross imbalance of them, to SBS service along Woodhaven....

Just what the hell the demand for Brooklyn-Rockaways travel has to do with mainland Queens-Rockaways travel, who tf knows....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

You also ignore how the Q35 via Beach Channel would serve a section of Rockaway that is separated by the Rockaway Freeway. The Rockaway Freeway, which carries train service that is relatively infrequent, splits Rockaways into a northern and southern section. There are few crossings that cross the freeway and elevated subway west of Beach 62nd Street, though a portion of it has been closed for a transit plaza. By providing a service on Beach Channel, one can catch a bus to other parts of the peninsula without having to navigate to the few crossings that cross the freeway to reach Rockaways Beach Blvd, where the overcrowded Q22 operates.

And yes, i agree that the transfer policy needs to be changed. In fact, some new fare policies should be fare implemented, like unlimited transfer within two hours and fare capping, a system similar to what London has that caps the fare when the fares paid reach the cost of a unlimited weekly. That can work as well.

What are you talking about? You need to stop. 

First off, areas north of the Freeway are not 'separated' due to the freeway. Most roads intersecting Rockaway Freeway are continuous, whether it is or not allowed (technically). Even counting the ones which are designed to allow continuous traffic, you still have a street every few blocks or so. 

Second, have you ever seen what's north of Rockaway Freeway? From B 116 Street to about B 102 Street, all there is a huge parking lot, a water pumping station, and Jamaica Bay. From Beach 98 Street to Beach 92 Street, and from Beach 84 to Beach 75th, there's virtually not much of anything, especially since for the latter portion, Rockaway Freeway IS the northermost road on the Peninsula. Those people east of the bridge don't want, and haven't clamored for any bus service at all, and the only area that's somewhat may be more transit friendly are the 4 blocks from B 102 Street to B 98 Street which is a whopping 3 minute walk from the Q22 at most. You can walk from north to south in less than 10 minutes. 

A Q35 via Beach Channel Drive would be at best, useless. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[B35 via Church]

Overlooked his mention of Beach Channel drive; was too honed in on checking this dude on that outright lie of the Q11, 21, 52, and Q53 all getting ridership increases, due to the changes in service along Woodhaven/Cross Bay from 2012, onward.....

Anyway, yeah, If the Q35 were to run to Arverne for it to loom the most useful, it would either....

• have to turn down B. 116th (from Newport) & run with the Q22 the rest of the way, or...
• stay on Rockaway Beach Blvd. from B. 149th all the way to Arverne

Extending the thing from B. 116th/Newport to keep it running straight on Beach Channel drive, is nothing short of stupid.... It's the result of someone making suggestions with areas they're unfamiliar with....

 

* Personally, I think Arverne is straight up overrated..... Had the MTA not bothered terminating the Q52 there, there wouldn't be much of any buzz surrounding that neighborhood.... I can't imagine living in a community where damn near all the residents & establishments are of similar colors & hues like that, but none of this is neither here nor there....

[Gotham Bus Co.]

7 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

You are correct about revamping the the transfer system, but increasing the limit to three hours is not necessary since there is no record of getting off the last bus or train. If as many transfers as needed can be made within two hours of the first fare being paid, trips taking as long as three hours will still be possible with one fare. That also means the fare should not be raised to $5 to pay for this. 

 

I have always favored scrapping transfers in favor of a time-based pass. One dip or swipe gives you your run of the base system for a set amount of time which can even vary by time of day (e.g. 3 hours during the day, 4 hours overnight) or day of week. Then NYCT can break up unmanageably long routes into shorter, more reliable segments without forcing anyone to pay a double fare.  The potential for round-tripping is a very small price to pay for the added mobility.

[BrooklynBus]

27 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

I have always favored scrapping transfers in favor of a time-based pass. One dip or swipe gives you your run of the base system for a set amount of time which can even vary by time of day (e.g. 3 hours during the day, 4 hours overnight) or day of week. Then NYCT can break up unmanageably long routes into shorter, more reliable segments without forcing anyone to pay a double fare.  The potential for round-tripping is a very small price to pay for the added mobility.

Round tripping is what the MTA is scared stiff. God forbid someone makes around trip for one fare. That’s why they haven’t done it. The world would end. As if there were no way to do this now. Even before MetroCard some round tripping was possible. Since MetroCard it’s easier. What they don’t consider is now many new trips would be generated by the ability to run several quick errands for one fare. 

[Lex]

4 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

What are you talking about? You need to stop. 

First off, areas north of the Freeway are not 'separated' due to the freeway. Most roads intersecting Rockaway Freeway are continuous, whether it is or not allowed (technically). Even counting the ones which are designed to allow continuous traffic, you still have a street every few blocks or so. 

Second, have you ever seen what's north of Rockaway Freeway? From B 116 Street to about B 102 Street, all there is a huge parking lot, a water pumping station, and Jamaica Bay. From Beach 98 Street to Beach 92 Street, and from Beach 84 to Beach 75th, there's virtually not much of anything, especially since for the latter portion, Rockaway Freeway IS the northermost road on the Peninsula. Those people east of the bridge don't want, and haven't clamored for any bus service at all, and the only area that's somewhat may be more transit friendly are the 4 blocks from B 102 Street to B 98 Street which is a whopping 3 minute walk from the Q22 at most. You can walk from north to south in less than 10 minutes. 

A Q35 via Beach Channel Drive would be at best, useless. 

Also, how many people are really using Rockaway Freeway (aside from the "concurrency" with Beach Channel Drive around Hammels)?

[engineerboy6561]

On 5/5/2019 at 10:13 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

 

Moved it here since the conversation is moving towards Queens.

Anyway, I feel that it would not make any sense to run a service past 169 anyway, not even for the summer. Past Beach 169th Street and the entrance to Fort Tilden, all you have are some residencies and a few businesses until Beach 184th. From there to Breezy Point, there’s nothing. 

Honestly, I would just have any Rockaway route going east of Beach 116 go as far as Beach 169th Street, with bus service improvements being focused on the rest of the peninsula (aka the areas actually shown on the Queens bus map). To start, I would suggest having the Q35 (as well as the new  Rockaway-Brooklyn route) extended east from Rockaway Park to the growing communities of Arverne and Egemere at Beach 54th Street, where the Q52 terminates. This would provided another crosstown bus service on the peninsula, and provide an alternative to the Q22.

A couple things about that. First off, basically everything on the peninsula west of Beach 125 St is single-family homes. They already have bus service every 7-10 minutes to Brooklyn via the Q35 (every 15 on Sundays) and then service every 15-25 minutes to the  via the Q22. To be honest, unless we're going to upzone the Rockaways that's really all it makes sense for them to have.

As far as the I also don't necessarily know how many transit-length trips that start on the Rockaways end there; if you had a situation where there were a ton of jobs (offices, factories, shipyards, etc.) down near Arverne or Far Rock and enough housing density in Rockaway Park that the full-length Q22 was starting to get overwhelmed in its current operation then you could expand the Q22 to send all trips down to Riis Park and then look at adding additional capacity along the Q22 route by extending the Q35 along the Q22 route down to Arverne.

Also, if you were going to extend the Q35 you'd basically need to put that along the same route as the Q22 because there isn't really anything of note north of Rockaway Freeway that can't easily be walked to from Rockaway Beach Blvd, and so extra capacity along the freeway or Beach Channel would go to waste.

I'm also not really sure it makes sense to connect Sheepshead Bay to the Rockaways specifically because I'm not sure how many people would really be willing to take the  over the ; Sheepshead Bay to Canal St is 38-40 minutes on the  while Flatbush to Chambers is 30 minutes even. Also, the additional runtime from Sheepshead Bay to Kings Plaza looks to be schedule to be about 18-20 minutes, while the Q35 run from Kings Plaza to Nostrand Av is scheduled at 14 minutes. Add in the transfer option at Atlantic-Pacific, and it looks like the only reason to try to route Rockaway passengers to Sheepshead Bay would be as a relief valve if the Flatbush/Nostrand/Eastern Parkway corridor were running at or over capacity (and/or travel time and OTP on that corridor were degrading to the point that Brighton offered a clear advantage over Nostrand/Eastern); I'm not really convinced that either of these is the case at the moment.

On 5/5/2019 at 10:13 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

I am also proposing not a routing change, but a operations change. JFK Depot and Far Rockaway Depot have a combined total of 289 buses, with around 134 or so Orion VII Old Generation (OG) Hybrids, 51 Next Generation (NG) Hybrids, 29 Local XD60s for the Q10, and for the Q52, a fleet of SBS wrapped XD60s, which will be phased out and replaced with identical buses in a few weeks. The fleet of these two Depots can be better reorganized for simplified maintenance and improved reliability. To simply maintenance, improve fleet reliability, and make the routes more attractive, I suggest doing a fleet “swap”. What I am proposing is that the JFK local routes only use OG Hybrids, while the Far Rockaway Local routes only use Next Gens for their routes. This would improve reliability for there OGs and provide some pizzaz for the Far Rockaway routes, cus those OGS were so 15 years ago. I can guarantee you that you out some sexy-ass buses such as a Next Gen or an Xcelsior on a poor performing route and you just added passengers back on the bus cause those buses are fire bro. 🔥🔥🔥

Honestly, I really don't think it works that way; for the most part people want reliable buses with nice things. There's an appreciable difference between a bus with announcements, USB ports, and WiFi and a bus without these things; however, the dividing line between those things isn't really between NGs and OGs, but rather between the 2017 and 2018 buses. Also, if the route is poor-performing and unreliable you could probably put a golden chariot on it and people would still take them if they showed up but for the most part will still refuse to plan their commutes around something that doesn't show up.

Also, in general, what's the consensus on bus service in the Rockaways? Are the buses out there actually running with a low enough frequency and reliability that the network out there needs an overhaul?

Edited May 8, 2019 by engineerboy6561

[R68OnBroadway]

If the lack of a connection to the  is such a problem, then just send the Q35 to Newkirk Plaza via Flatbush and Foster and call it a day...

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

11 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

If the lack of a connection to the  is such a problem, then just send the Q35 to Newkirk Plaza via Flatbush and Foster and call it a day...

I'd rather keep the Q35 as it is. Subjecting it to traffic north of Flatbush/Nostrand is unnecessary. 

[Lex]

16 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

If the lack of a connection to the  is such a problem, then just send the Q35 to Newkirk Plaza via Flatbush and Foster and call it a day...

It's not.