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.
Lawrence St

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

OK, after viewing light buses during the evening rush rolling through Jamaica while playing follow the leader, I can see from an efficiency perspective why this Queens redesign has to be done, it's really a waste to have all this redundant service when there are like 3-5 seats being occupied.

Also, the buses themselves add to the congestion, I saw like 5 buses in a row at one point on Jamaica Ave, different routes, light.  It makes since for them to cut down on mileage, etc. What they're doing with downtown Jamaica and Flushing (de-cluttering) makes sense. I can't speak for western Queens, I don't use the bus over there.

I can see why a redesign has to be done; not necessarily this particular one, though....

They're trying to be too cute with these different service types for local routes.... It's pretty clear that the (real) focus of this redesign has less to do with de-cluttering (as if to say, service will be reallocated elsewhere) & more to do with simply axing service for the simple sake of it....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I can see why a redesign has to be done; not necessarily this particular one, though....

They're trying to be too cute with these different service types for local routes.... It's pretty clear that the (real) focus of this redesign has less to do with de-cluttering (as if to say, service will be reallocated elsewhere) & more to do with simply axing service for the simple sake of it....

That QT35 is more than enough proof of that...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is more of a reason to have 14th St style busways in Flushing and Jamaica rather than to de-clutter, whatever that means. 

This will mostly add travel times for people trying to connect from buses from one end of Jamaica (north and east) and the other (south and west), and also remove countless passengers' connections to the (E) and (J) and AirTrain (coming from the north and east) and the  (F) (coming from the west).

The MTA had shut down Jamaica Center and Sutphin-Archer Avenue last year during nights and weekends to do repairs and give both stations a wash.

Subway Riders weren't happy with the (J) shuttle from Crescent Street or 121st Street ending only at Jamaica Hospital and being told to transfer to the (E) at Van Wyck during overnight hours.

(E) riders had it slightly easy in the sense that their shuttle ran from Jamaica Center to Union Turnpike, but the (E) shuttles pretty much took up most of the bays on Archer Ave from Parsons to 153rd. The poor signage and lack of directions didn't help. 

Flushing's problem is pretty much figuring out how to balance the loads coming from Corona going to or thru Flushing to get to points east, and people from Bayside, Fresh Meadows, Little Neck going to Flushing all without cramming themselves on the same (7). There's also Citi Field and US Open Patrons at Willets Point to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More reactions from Rockaway, Maspeth, Glendale, Middle Village and Jackson Heights

https://www.rockawave.com/articles/simon-says-457/?fbclid=IwAR2wpCKI1xsDxFxX8AnJBo9G-CymjH-K5DPZMfMawRgzo97-mlhNOlp2fP8

https://qns.com/story/2020/01/10/maspeth-glendale-and-middle-village-residents-share-concerns-over-bus-redesign/

https://qns.com/story/2020/01/08/jackson-heights-residents-dismayed-with-bus-service-cuts-proposed-by-mta/

 

We now have over 100 signatures on our petition to stop the MTA from removing half the bus stops in Queens. Please help us get more and spread the word on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other transit forums. Thanks.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stops being a mile a part is what made the N6 Limited awesome and make the BX12,  M60, B46, Q25/53, Q113 awesome as well. Stops get removed and ridership increases.

 

Quote

29 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:
Q44 losing weekend service after 9:30pm makes no sense

I agree, it helps avoid the subway and late night track work delays.
 

Edited by N6 Limited
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Queens redesign comes aross to me as a political hit to cover up something else. 

In this case it is the ferries which are far more wasteful than the existing system and by doing something as crazy as what we have here, the focus will be on the multitiude of changes and not on the issue that should be the focus. The New York Post had an article on the cost of ferry service and in my opinion the cost is far higher per passenger than for local and express bus service. When an agency takes a long time to respond to Freedom of Information Law requests on something like ferry service where the information was avaiable, it becomes clear since it did not fit the goals of the mayor's agenda, the responses were "conveniently delayed" as on purpose. The practice is usually commonplace when the information that the person requesting it will harm the political goals of the agency or the elected official.

The mayor has signaled to the agency and his appointees that he plans to cut funding to the MTA and MTA bus and the penny pinchers must have had a heart attack. This is the end result of something that should have been divided into at least two different parts with Union Turnpike being a line of separation done at two different times as based on such a lage number of changes, The orders went down to come up with something like this disaster. I am not saying that changes did not have to be made quite the opposite but that by not doing the enitre borough of Queens, at one shot, the changes that should be made could have been done.   

It is quite clear that those who came up with this "redesign" are counting on the public just plain accepting it. That is not getting together with others and using everything to stop these changes now. The MTA will still try to ram through these changes even with public opposition and I would be very wary of any proposal to implement these changes after November 2020.

It is that time when a bigger can of worms will open thanks to our elected officials in Albany and City Hall.

6 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Stops being a mile a part is what made the N6 Limited awesome and make the BX12,  M60, B46, Q25/53, Q113 awesome as well. Stops get removed and ridership increases.

That may be fine for express and limited routes but for many local routes which carry  elderly riders like myself, it is totally wrong. 

You cannot use an arbitrary figure to determine whether a stop is needed or not as there are many stops that should remain close together especially with local routes are there are other factors that determine usage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NY1635 said:

The MTA had shut down Jamaica Center and Sutphin-Archer Avenue last year during nights and weekends to do repairs and give both stations a wash.

Subway Riders weren't happy with the (J) shuttle from Crescent Street or 121st Street ending only at Jamaica Hospital and being told to transfer to the (E) at Van Wyck during overnight hours.

(E) riders had it slightly easy in the sense that their shuttle ran from Jamaica Center to Union Turnpike, but the (E) shuttles pretty much took up most of the bays on Archer Ave from Parsons to 153rd. The poor signage and lack of directions didn't help. 

Flushing's problem is pretty much figuring out how to balance the loads coming from Corona going to or thru Flushing to get to points east, and people from Bayside, Fresh Meadows, Little Neck going to Flushing all without cramming themselves on the same (7). There's also Citi Field and US Open Patrons at Willets Point to consider.

I mean, the solution is "get the train past Flushing and Jamaica so buses don't have to go there in the first place". Of course, that's inconvenient for Misters "Look at my budget surpluses built on not investing in things."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not looked over the plan in detail previously, but here is what I think after reviewing it thoroughly:

Overall there are more routes I like than dislike, with most of the issues coming down to either not enough service, frequency wise or span wise, or too much service during late night hours. There are however several route that have glaring issues that frequency cannot change.

Frequency change:

QT3 Jamaica-Williamsburg via Metropolitan Ave

  • Should not have late night service 

QT6 Flushing-Ridgewood via Horace Harding Expwy/Grand Ave

  • Should not have late night service

QT7 Cambria Heights-Spring Creek via Linden Blvd

  • Should not have late night service on weekdays, as it only runs 19 hours on Saturday and Sundays

QT14 Electchester-JFK Airport via Jewel Ave/Lefferts Blvd

  • Should have higher frequency between Electhester and Forest Hills with short turns

QT22 Rockaway Park-Cedarhurst via Rockaway Beach Blvd/Beach Channel Dr

  • Should either be extended to JFK Depot Or Cedarhurst LIRR; Burnside/Rockaway is not a great terminal spot

QT24 Jamaica-Bushwick via Atlantic Ave/Broadway

  • Should not go past Broadway Junction

QT62 Cedarhurst-East New York via Rockaway Blvd

  • Should be truncated to JFK Depot or extended to Cedarhurst LIRR; Burnside/Rockaway is not a great terminal spot

Needs a change in frequency or service span:

  • QT35 Rockaway Park-Brooklyn College via Rockaway Beach Blvd/Flatbush Ave (better frequency)
  • QT38 Jamaica-Queens Village via Hillside/Hollis Aves (longer hours)
  • QT39 Jamaica-Cambria Heights via Hillside/Murdock Ave (24/7 as coverage between Hollis and Linden)
  • QT40 Jamaica-Cambria Heights via Merrick/Linden Blvds (longer span)
  • QT42 Jamaica-Green Acres Mall via Merrick Blvd (longer span)
  • QT43 Jamaica-Rosedale via Guy R. Brewer Blvd/Bedell St (longer span)
  • QT51 Flushing-Bay Terrace via Crocheron Ave/Bell Blvd (Weekdays only at a minimum, not just peak direction)
  • QT54 Jamaica-Williamsburg via Hillside/Metropolitan Aves (24/7, 60 min late nights)
  • QT55 Jamaica-Ridgewood via Jamaica/Myrtle Aves (60 min late nights)
  • QT56 Jamaica-Broadway Junction via Jamaica Ave (60 min late nights)
  • QT58 Flushing-Ridgewood via Corona/Grand Aves (24/7)
  • QT61 East Elmhurst-Columbus Circle via 23/Roosevelt Aves (longer span)
  • QT68 Jamaica-JFK Airport via Liberty Ave/Farmers Blvd (60 min late nights)
  • QT69 Jackson Heights-Hunters Point via Ditmars Blvd/21 St (longer span)
  • QT77 Elmhurst-Long Island City via Eliot Ave/21 St (longer span)
  • QT78 Middle Village-Roosevelt Island via 36 Ave/69 St (60 min late nights)
  • QT80 Astoria-Ridgewood via 30 Ave/58 St (longer span and more frequent during weekdays)
  • QT81 Astoria-Whitestone via Astoria Blvd/150 St (longer span)
  • QT82 Glendale-East Elmhurst via 80/National Sts (longer span and more frequency on weekdays)
  • QT83 Elmhurst-Howard Beach via Woodhaven/Cross Bay Blvds (24/7, 60 min late nights; more frequent overall)
  • QT84 Flushing-Bayside via 20 Ave/Francis Lewis Blvd (longer span)
  • QT86 College Point-Glendale via Main St/Yellowstone Blvd (24/7 to Kew Gardens (60 min); more freuquent overall)
  • QT87 Little Neck-Forest Hills via 73/Jewel Aves (weekday rush more frequent)

Bad:

QT44 SBS Jamaica-Fordham via Main St/Cross Bronx Expwy

  • Should be 24/7

QT50 Pelham Bay-LaGuardia Airport via Buckner Blvd/Roosevelt Ave

  • Bronx should have an airport route, but not the Q50. Something from the West Bronx, over the RFK Bridge.
  • Contradicts the Bronx proposal which maintained rush hour service to Co-op City. Should be left as a Flushing-Pelham Bay/Co-op CIty route

QT52 SBS Elmhurst-Arverne via Woodhaven/Cross Bay Blvds

  • If one had to be eliminated, the Q52 should have been eliminated and the Q53 should have been truncated from Woodside to Elmhurst. 
  • The Q52 side of the Wye already has the better subway service, and not it keeps the better bus connections? Doesn’t make much sense

QT74 Jackson Heights Shuttle

  • Just bring back the Q49 and maybe extend it to Flushing during the rush to maintain the Astoria Blvd connection with Flushing that skips Roosevelt Ave/108 St

QT75 Woodside-Bryant Park

  • Does too much between 48 St and Queens Plaza

Routes the MTA should add for coverage

  • QT90 Little Neck LIRR to Queens Village LIRR via Little Neck Pkwy/260 St/Jamaica Ave (Daily with hourly service outside the rush, timed to connect to the LIRR in either Little Neck or Queens Village)
  • QT91 Glendale (80 St/Myrtle Ave) to Woodside LIRR via 80 St/Grand Ave/65 Pl (Rush hours only)

As for express bus service, while I understand the need for costs to be cut, and that people relay on express buses in Queens, including myself, I would only add Sunday service to these routes, hourly on both:

  • QMT164 Bay Terrace-6 Ave 
  • QMT166 Fresh Meadows-6 Ave 

I would not maintain service on the 73 Ave corridor (QM5) or Union Tpke corridor past 188 St (QM6), as commuters in the area would have access to the QT32, QT33, QT34, or QT36 that would get them to the subway quicker than they would be able to today. 

I also have to disagree with the arguement from BrooklynBus regarding stop eliminations. I think that we need to look at a stop by stop basis of what stops to put back, not what stops to eliminate. I will admit that on some routes the MTA went a little overboard removing the stops, such as the QT12 on Horace Harding, which makes 9 stops between QCM and 188 St, compared to 34 stops on the Q88. But other routes like the Q64, literally stop every block from 164 St to 138 St. With routes like these, looking at what stop to eliminate each time, the trip from 164 St to Forest Hills would end up being maybe 10 or 11 stops, much more than the MTA’s recommendation of 4 stops, but less than the 17 stops it makes today. In this example I would say, start with the 4 stops, and see which you would add back, maybe Parsons Blvd, 150 St, 136 St, and wind up with 7 stops to the subway, a better compromise than what you would have gotten if you reviewed what to eliminate stop by stop.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaf0519 said:

I had not looked over the plan in detail previously, but here is what I think after reviewing it thoroughly:

Overall there are more routes I like than dislike, with most of the issues coming down to either not enough service, frequency wise or span wise, or too much service during late night hours. There are however several route that have glaring issues that frequency cannot change.

****Local Bus List****

As for express bus service, while I understand the need for costs to be cut, and that people relay on express buses in Queens, including myself, I would only add Sunday service to these routes, hourly on both:

  • QMT164 Bay Terrace-6 Ave 
  • QMT166 Fresh Meadows-6 Ave 

I would not maintain service on the 73 Ave corridor (QM5) or Union Tpke corridor past 188 St (QM6), as commuters in the area would have access to the QT32, QT33, QT34, or QT36 that would get them to the subway quicker than they would be able to today. 

 

I would add the QT82 under 'Bad'. It does too much of everything in that area and fails at it. The Penelope Ave sections of the Q38, the Q29, and Q47 should remain.

I don't see what the QT32 and crew have to do with the express bus. The QT34 and QT36 don't even go to Union Turnpike, they go to Jamaica. How is that faster?

Sure, Union Turnpike and 73rd Ave riders might get to the subway faster than under the existing network, but that's rather irrelevant, because the main issue with that commute is the subway. With all the GOs, long waits, service gaps, and service changes which occur, it can be unreliable. You miss one train, now you have to wait 12 minutes (if it is on time). There goes more than the time savings you got on the faster bus. Even with that taken into consideration, the express bus is still getting to Queens Boulevard faster than the bus. 

 

 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven

Share this post


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

That may be fine for express and limited routes but for many local routes which carry  elderly riders like myself, it is totally wrong. 

You cannot use an arbitrary figure to determine whether a stop is needed or not as there are many stops that should remain close together especially with local routes are there are other factors that determine usage.

 

Remix lets them load in a lot of data to create overlays, they can probably aggregate metrocard dips:  time of use, bus route and gps data to see stop usage, as well as heavily used transfer points. Maybe even filter by bus to bus and bus-subway transfers and sort by volume per route/location. They can also figure out round trips that way. Maybe with the QT10 they saw a lot of riders on the Q33 make return trips via the Woodhaven Blvd Station. 

 

  

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I don't see what the QT32 and crew have to do with the express bus. The QT34 and QT36 don't even go to Union Turnpike, they go to Jamaica. How is that faster?

Sure, Union Turnpike and 73rd Ave riders might get to the subway faster than under the existing network, but that's rather irrelevant, because the main issue with that commute is the subway. With all the GOs, long waits, service gaps, and service changes which occur, it can be unreliable. You miss one train, now you have to wait 12 minutes (if it is on time). There goes more than the time savings you got on the faster bus. Even with that taken into consideration, the express bus is still getting to Queens Boulevard faster than the bus. 

 

That's why I started using the LIRR, the Queens Blvd line delays were torture. 

At least they'll have a lot of routes that go straight up to a LIRR Station (or down to QV)

With the 

Edited by N6 Limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 3:16 AM, Q43LTD said:

After working OT on Christmas and New Years, and battling the flu, I'm gonna put in my input on these proposed routes. Bronx bus revamp of 1984, the Queens redesign would like for you to hold his beer.

** input on every proposed local route **

I'll do the express ones later

If things stand as proposed, how would this plan affect you if you still lived in Queens?

What would you have to do different (if anything)?

On 1/13/2020 at 7:46 AM, Interested Rider said:

When I started in 1979, it was "don't send me problems, send me solutions" to one where it became don't bother with suggestions as we know everything....

Lol, the irony - I want answers because I don't know shit.... to, you're my subordinate, I'm all-knowing - now shut up & get back to work....

Crazy thing is, the apparent mindset of upper management in enough of these workplaces nowadays is a composite of the two (let those that post on Glassdoor.com tell it anyway).....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the video BrooklynBus posted above:

Quote

"There is no way of sugarcoating this... We do not have some unlimited warchest"

- Andy Byford

Have enough Queens patrons stand unified & heavily armed in fighting against these proposals, you're gonna need it, Byford.....

Queens as a whole, tends to be docile when it comes to public transit concerns, so that turnout in Jackson Heights is rather telling.... Rest of Queens needs to follow suit.

Honestly now, you don't need unlimited funds not to suggest what's being proposed for the locals & the expresses with this plan here.... What would be appreciated is some competency (and a little something called a clue) - None of which will cost you a single schilling....

Now (like most, if not all of us that give a shit), I'm waiting to see how much of what's been proposed will be rescinded & how much of it will be retained in the final plan....

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

From the video BrooklynBus posted above:

Have enough Queens patrons stand unified & heavily armed in fighting against these proposals, you're gonna need it, Byford.....

Queens as a whole, tends to be docile when it comes to public transit concerns, so that turnout in Jackson Heights is rather telling.... Rest of Queens needs to follow suit.

Honestly now, you don't need unlimited funds not to suggest what's being proposed for the locals & the expresses with this plan here.... What would be appreciated is some competency (and a little something called a clue) - None of which will cost you a single schilling....

Now (like most, if not all of us that give a shit), I'm waiting to see how much of what's been proposed will be rescinded & how much of it will be retained in the final plan....

 

I predict they will take back about six of the proposals, and to pay for that, they will claim they need to remove a few good parts of the plan that people like. As far as bus stops, they will put back about 50 they intend to remove, but in the end, about 80 percent of the plan will remain in tact, and half the bus stops will be removed and it will be a bad plan for the majority of riders.

The politicians will claim victory saying that compromise was a good thing. The MTA will claim the process worked. The riders will suffer. Ridership will decline.

The MTA will declare success proclaiming the buses are operating 25 percent faster and resources were allocated more efficiently. They will dismiss the ridership losses claiming it was caused by the necessary fare increase, saying without the redesign, ridership would have declined further, also proving the redesign was a success.

Meanwhile traffic will increase and Uber will flourish causing the MTA to yell they need more bus lanes at $6 million a mile. And that's how the money from congestion pricing will be wasted, but the city will be happy because revenue from fines will be greater from more drivers violating the bus lanes. The MTA will then make  further service cuts because of the reduced ridership. Remember these words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

What about the elimination of the Little Neck Parkway extension of the Q36?

To be quite honest, it carries air, and the Q79 before it carried air.

The majority of LNP is a wide broad street with little traffic and only very-low density housing. It probably needs a bike lane rather than a bus for the purposes of local transportation.

  • LMAO! 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be quite honest, it carries air, and the Q79 before it carried air.

The majority of LNP is a wide broad street with little traffic and only very-low density housing. It probably needs a bike lane rather than a bus for the purposes of local transportation.

And Winchester Blvd is so much higher-density and higher ridership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

I would not maintain service on the 73 Ave corridor (QM5) or Union Tpke corridor past 188 St (QM6), as commuters in the area would have access to the QT32, QT33, QT34, or QT36 that would get them to the subway quicker than they would be able to today. 

Gotta disagree. There are many people who rely on seamless express bus service along the QM5 and QM6 east of 188th St. I've taken the first QM5 of the day on weekdays and Saturdays and there will already be 20-25 passengers onboard before getting to 188th St. In one instance, most of the boardings for the first Manhattan bound QM5 on a Saturday took place east of 188th St (then a few passengers boarded on 188th, with only 2 or 3 passengers boarding west of 188th while traveling along Union Tpke).

Also, in the rush for the MTA to try to claim efficiency by having full utilization of a given service, did it ever occur to them to have some redundancies in the event of bad weather, breakdowns, blackouts, etc (bad things happen - it's nice to know they're an alternative route)?

Case in point - In the new design, the Queens Blvd and 78th Ave ("Kew Gardens"...it's really Forest Hills) stop will no longer be served by Midtown express buses (unless I'm missing something). At present, there are a few buses that serve as a back-up when the E/F are having issues (I've used the X63, 64, 68 and QM18 when there were subway delays). It would be ashamed to lose some of what we already have.

Like many on here, if I really had to be somewhere, I'd rather drive or use Lyft than depend on the 'modern, cost-efficient' new design the MTA is giving us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 2:26 PM, Interested Rider said:

The whole Queens redesign comes aross to me as a political hit to cover up something else. 

In this case it is the ferries which are far more wasteful than the existing system and by doing something as crazy as what we have here, the focus will be on the multitiude of changes and not on the issue that should be the focus. The New York Post had an article on the cost of ferry service and in my opinion the cost is far higher per passenger than for local and express bus service. When an agency takes a long time to respond to Freedom of Information Law requests on something like ferry service where the information was avaiable, it becomes clear since it did not fit the goals of the mayor's agenda, the responses were "conveniently delayed" as on purpose. The practice is usually commonplace when the information that the person requesting it will harm the political goals of the agency or the elected official.

The mayor has signaled to the agency and his appointees that he plans to cut funding to the MTA and MTA bus and the penny pinchers must have had a heart attack. This is the end result of something that should have been divided into at least two different parts with Union Turnpike being a line of separation done at two different times as based on such a lage number of changes, The orders went down to come up with something like this disaster. I am not saying that changes did not have to be made quite the opposite but that by not doing the enitre borough of Queens, at one shot, the changes that should be made could have been done.   

It is quite clear that those who came up with this "redesign" are counting on the public just plain accepting it. That is not getting together with others and using everything to stop these changes now. The MTA will still try to ram through these changes even with public opposition and I would be very wary of any proposal to implement these changes after November 2020.

It is that time when a bigger can of worms will open thanks to our elected officials in Albany and City Hall.

That may be fine for express and limited routes but for many local routes which carry  elderly riders like myself, it is totally wrong. 

You cannot use an arbitrary figure to determine whether a stop is needed or not as there are many stops that should remain close together especially with local routes are there are other factors that determine usage.

 

The Mayor today stated that he will not contribute one more penny until the MTA receives a complete audit. That is what I call "chutzpah!"

The MTA knew about this before this garbage appeared and it is my opinion that this is the reason that the Queens redesign was issued in this form. 

The MTA is not the only agency that is impacted as the leaks have started and the inability of the elected officials both here and Albany to reduce spending in certain areas  has come back to haunt them

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And Winchester Blvd is so much higher-density and higher ridership?

It's the shortest link to the Douglaston Shopping Center, and hospital. Some of these purple routes look like they are a replacement to express routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question(s):

  • What does the Runtime metric on the Remix map of the redesign mean? Is that the entire round trip plus the layover time?
  • Layover I assume means how long a bus would wait at the terminus before leaving?
  • How is the Speed metric calculated? It seems really slow to be honest, even during rush hour - for some of the lines.

tVfFaq.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

It's the shortest link to the Douglaston Shopping Center, and hospital. Some of these purple routes look like they are a replacement to express routes.

It's physically shorter/quicker, but it bypasses so many residents. Even if ridership is relatively low on Little Neck Parkway, I'd say just spend the extra few minutes and go up LNP (also remember that you're also bypassing a densely populated area near Hillside Avenue in exchange for serving a more sparsely populated area near the HHE)

If it were a congested area then sure go ahead and bypass it, but those sections of Hillside Avenue & LNP are pretty free-flowing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

The Mayor today stated that he will not contribute one more penny until the MTA receives a complete audit. That is what I call "chutzpah!"

 

That would be nice if they could do that before enacting more and more taxes, fees and toll hikes

 

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

It's physically shorter/quicker, but it bypasses so many residents. Even if ridership is relatively low on Little Neck Parkway, I'd say just spend the extra few minutes and go up LNP (also remember that you're also bypassing a densely populated area near Hillside Avenue in exchange for serving a more sparsely populated area near the HHE)

If it were a congested area then sure go ahead and bypass it, but those sections of Hillside Avenue & LNP are pretty free-flowing. 

They wanted to minimize redundant routes so breaking it off Hillside ASAP is probably the result of that, also the Shopping Center is a source of jobs, the Remix app has that information.  By going past the shopping center and to the Hospital it increases the value of the network.

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.