Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[B35 via Church]

8 minutes ago, Cain said:

That is a shame... although with all of the cuts they are proposing in the Queens Redesign, would that mean I would expect Artics?

Depends on the route.... But in general, no - just less 40 footers.....

As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Edited February 1, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Cait Sith]

Photo creds goes to NovaBus 5000.

[N6 Limited]

The signals on Liberty Ave are timed for 25 seconds of green. Every bus route in NYC is going to need TSP if NYCDOT thinks 25 secs is reasonable.

[7-express]

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plan-subsidize-late-night-uber-lyft

 

Looks like Queens would be a prime target to trial this out in.  So there goes any hope of reasonable express bus service or restoration of cut service spans from the draft.

[Jova42R]

The 3 things I like:

QT61 to Columbus Circle

QT50 to LGA

Sunday QMT162 (QM4) service

[LTA1992]

10 hours ago, 7-express said:

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plan-subsidize-late-night-uber-lyft

 

Looks like Queens would be a prime target to trial this out in.  So there goes any hope of reasonable express bus service or restoration of cut service spans from the draft.

Byford isn't even gone and we're already making worse decisions?

[Future ENY OP]

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

Byford isn't even gone and we're already making worse decisions?

.... Welcome to the new regime of the  where we take your money and spend it on lavish things that have no meaning to helping the riding public. 

[Future ENY OP]

12 hours ago, 7-express said:

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plan-subsidize-late-night-uber-lyft

 

Looks like Queens would be a prime target to trial this out in.  So there goes any hope of reasonable express bus service or restoration of cut service spans from the draft.

This is by far the worse idea. It affects Queens & Brooklyn mostly.. The bigger question is why approve a 52 billion dollar capital plan budget if the biggest thing being done is cut more service. What a slap in the face. 
 

[LGA Link N Train]

16 hours ago, 7-express said:

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plan-subsidize-late-night-uber-lyft

 

Looks like Queens would be a prime target to trial this out in.  So there goes any hope of reasonable express bus service or restoration of cut service spans from the draft.

This makes no sense. 

Its no surprise that the  lost sight of its core purpose. If they’re a company that’s meant to transport people, then why are they REALLY BAD at it?

[7-express]

It's the new popular business thinking.  Outsource everything you don't want to do to someone else, even if it's kind of part of the core of your business.  Sadly, this will just mean worse lives for most of us that have no choice but to live far away from the train.

[Mtatransit]

On 2/4/2020 at 10:26 PM, 7-express said:

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plan-subsidize-late-night-uber-lyft

 

Looks like Queens would be a prime target to trial this out in.  So there goes any hope of reasonable express bus service or restoration of cut service spans from the draft.

MTA copying other cities again.... hub and spoke, grid, coverage vs ridership... It seems like they completely forgot, they serve NYC, not some system in the suburbs.

 

Uber... good luck, the more people that take it, the more money it will cost the MTA. The Chief "innovation" officer got to do better than this.

[FamousNYLover]

All need to be scrapped again and redraw again.

They need to keep same bus route numbers for all Queens bus routes.

Only bus route thats are kept same numbers are Q22, Q35, Q52 SBS, Q60, etc.

[LGA Link N Train]

The total number of routes that even keep their numbers are the following:

Q22

Q24

Q30 - Kind of 

Q31 - Kind of

Q35

Q44+

Q50 

Q52+ 

Q54

Q55

Q56

Q58

Q59

Q60 

Q66

Q69 

Q70+

I think that’s it.

Edited February 6, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, FamousNYLover said:

All need to be scrapped again and redraw again.

They need to keep same bus route numbers for all Queens bus routes.

I don’t mean to double post. But if the  wants to renumber everything, they should at least keep a little bit of consistency. Some of the number placements don’t make sense in certain areas. Especially if you look at the routes all within the 60’s and 80’s range.

The only routes that are consistent in my opinion are:

1-6, (sans 5 and 7) since they all cover Western Queens and Brooklyn. 

Nearly everything in the 30’s-40’s range seems to be some sort of limited-zone route. 

Maybe I can say that SOME routes in the 60’s to 80’s range are consistent since they cover central/NE Queens as local routes. 

[LTA1992]

5 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

All need to be scrapped again and redraw again.

They need to keep same bus route numbers for all Queens bus routes.

Only bus route thats are kept same numbers are Q22, Q35, Q52 SBS, Q60, etc.

That makes no sense s most routes are new.

Secondly, there is rationality.

The higher the number, the more local the service. Usually. In terms of stop distance.

Edited February 6, 2020 by LTA1992

[B35 via Church]

7 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

All need to be scrapped again and redraw again.

They need to keep same bus route numbers for all Queens bus routes.

Only bus route thats are kept same numbers are Q22, Q35, Q52 SBS, Q60, etc.

LOL... You gotta be kidding me...., I'd rather the network be left as is, over having the network be "redrawn" again...

You don't get a second chance to make a first impression.... If this is the best they can come up with, I don't want to see a Queens draft plan 2.0 (and I'm not expecting some stark, satisfactory alteration of/for the final plan of this thing either).... If this wasn't the best they could come up with, that means the current rendition of the draft plan was half-assed (which is a slap in the face to Queens commuters)....

[N6 Limited]

11 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

MTA copying other cities again.... hub and spoke, grid, coverage vs ridership... It seems like they completely forgot, they serve NYC, not some system in the suburbs.

 

Uber... good luck, the more people that take it, the more money it will cost the MTA. The Chief "innovation" officer got to do better than this.

Don't forget, eastern Queens is basically the suburbs. If you look at the map you can see they are actually balancing coverage vs ridership, or a lot of corridors served would have been stripped off the map. 

As for Uber, It depends on how it will be implemented. If it'll be run like Uber pool, then they'd most likely save money and the passenger gets train to door service.

.

5 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I don’t mean to double post. But if the  wants to renumber everything, they should at least keep a little bit of consistency. Some of the number placements don’t make sense in certain areas. Especially if you look at the routes all within the 60’s and 80’s range.

The only routes that are consistent in my opinion are:

1-6, (sans 5 and 7) since they all cover Western Queens and Brooklyn. 

Nearly everything in the 30’s-40’s range seems to be some sort of limited-zone route. 

Maybe I can say that SOME routes in the 60’s to 80’s range are consistent since they cover central/NE Queens as local routes. 

 

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

That makes no sense s most routes are new.

Secondly, there is rationality.

The higher the number, the more local the service. Usually. In terms of stop distance.

Yes, if you look at the list of routes on remix map, its grouped by  Blue, Red, Purple, then Green routes, the only outliers are the routes which kept their existing numbers.

[B35 via Church]

16 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

 If you look at the map you can see they are actually balancing coverage vs ridership, or a lot of corridors served would have been stripped off the map.

In Eastern Queens..... Such as what?

There's not that much coverage in that part of Queens to begin with, to try to make like there's this gesture of good faith as far as balancing coverage & ridership for those folks.....  What they did for that region is introduce direct service to new areas & introduce a new service pattern that would have buses transporting folks to/from the subway faster.... Coverage out there is more or less the same... Assuming zero ridership losses out there with this new plan, that would amount to status quo, not any balancing of coverage & ridership....

The part of Queens that's probably the best example of balancing coverage & ridership is actually in Western Queens.... Currently, there are way too many people taking Q69's & Q100's... With the plan, I do believe ridership in that region of Queens will be a little more spread out (on different routes).....

[N6 Limited]

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

In Eastern Queens..... Such as what?

There's not that much coverage in that part of Queens to begin with, to try to make like there's this gesture of good faith as far as balancing coverage & ridership for those folks.....  What they did for that region is introduce direct service to new areas & introduce a new service pattern that would have buses transporting folks to/from the subway faster.... Coverage out there is more or less the same... Assuming zero ridership losses out there with this new plan, that would amount to status quo, not any balancing of coverage & ridership....

The part of Queens that's probably the best example of balancing coverage & ridership is actually in Western Queens.... Currently, there are way too many people taking Q69's & Q100's... With the plan, I do believe ridership in that region of Queens will be a little more spread out (on different routes).....

In eastern Queens, density is lower and therefore the coverage is sufficient, can't have a bus route every other block, wouldn't make sense.

By sending the Francis Lewis Rt to 120th Ave, they threw in a bone, because I'm sure they'd prefer to not even serve that corridor.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

11 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

By sending the Francis Lewis Rt to 120th Ave, they threw in a bone, because I'm sure they'd prefer to not even serve that corridor.

 

That section of 120th should be served by the main 120th Avenue route (QT41), not the Francis Lewis route (QT73). 

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

In eastern Queens, density is lower and therefore the coverage is sufficient, can't have a bus route every other block, wouldn't make sense.

By sending the Francis Lewis Rt to 120th Ave, they threw in a bone, because I'm sure they'd prefer to not even serve that corridor.

Lol, threw in a bone.....

Anyway, you stated to @Mtatransit that the MTA is actually balancing coverage vs. ridership.... Then you conveyed to the guy that if they weren't, then a lot of corridors served would have been stripped... I ran with that sentiment & then asked you, what are these "lot of corridors" that would've been stripped - and all you got for me is the sending of the Francis Lewis route to 120th...

Telling me that [density is lower] & [coverage is sufficient] out there, is supporting my point - Coverage is already low out there in Eastern Queens & what's being offered with the plan isn't much different as far as coverage goes.... The only real difference is the discontinuation of service along most of Little Neck Pkwy. & the introduction of service along Winchester <> Douglaston Pkwy.... This isn't about "can't have a bus route every other block", it's about where is this supposed balancing of coverage vs. ridership taking place at in that region of Queens & you have yet to convey how that's the case....

So your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain this actuality of a balancement of coverage vs. ridership in Eastern Queens that the plan is offering, if coverage is essentially being maintained out there & frequency is being altered..... A balancement of sorts basically means that, for whatever frequency is being diminished, commensurate coverage is being added (or vice versa - for whatever coverage is being diminished, commensurate service is being added to those remaining fewer corridors).... Neither of the two is being suggested with this plan out there....

40 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

That section of 120th should be served by the main 120th Avenue route (QT41), not the Francis Lewis route (QT73). 

Agreed.... I'm quite sure those folks down there share that sentiment as well.

Edited February 8, 2020 by B35 via Church

[bobtehpanda]

On 2/7/2020 at 4:51 PM, N6 Limited said:

In eastern Queens, density is lower and therefore the coverage is sufficient, can't have a bus route every other block, wouldn't make sense.

There isn't a bus every block in eastern Queens. Good luck walking the "block" between Union Turnpike and Hillside, or Horace Harding and Northern, or between Little Neck Parkway and Springfield.

Do you have any other useless things to parrot which don't really apply to the situation?

[Q43LTD]

On 2/8/2020 at 7:56 AM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

That section of 120th should be served by the main 120th Avenue route (QT41), not the Francis Lewis route (QT73). 

I agree. I would send the QT73 to Laurelton or Rosedale, but I'm pretty sure they don't want a bus to Flushing

[QM1to6Ave]

On 2/8/2020 at 8:27 AM, B35 via Church said:

Lol, threw in a bone.....

Anyway, you stated to @Mtatransit that the MTA is actually balancing coverage vs. ridership.... Then you conveyed to the guy that if they weren't, then a lot of corridors served would have been stripped... I ran with that sentiment & then asked you, what are these "lot of corridors" that would've been stripped - and all you got for me is the sending of the Francis Lewis route to 120th...

Telling me that [density is lower] & [coverage is sufficient] out there, is supporting my point - Coverage is already low out there in Eastern Queens & what's being offered with the plan isn't much different as far as coverage goes.... The only real difference is the discontinuation of service along most of Little Neck Pkwy. & the introduction of service along Winchester <> Douglaston Pkwy.... This isn't about "can't have a bus route every other block", it's about where is this supposed balancing of coverage vs. ridership taking place at in that region of Queens & you have yet to convey how that's the case....

So your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain this actuality of a balancement of coverage vs. ridership in Eastern Queens that the plan is offering, if coverage is essentially being maintained out there & frequency is being altered..... A balancement of sorts basically means that, for whatever frequency is being diminished, commensurate coverage is being added (or vice versa - for whatever coverage is being diminished, commensurate service is being added to those remaining fewer corridors).... Neither of the two is being suggested with this plan out there....

Agreed.... I'm quite sure those folks down there share that sentiment as well.

Exactly right! By setting the limitation from the beginning that this must be cost-neutral, the  is pretending that there was exactly the right amount of service already, and it just needs to be spread out differently. But if you are truly redesigning a network from the ground up, why would you start with such a silly assumption?? I don't think anyone out there would say that Queens has sufficient bus coverage, considering how little subway coverage there is relative to the total size of the borough. Obviously, the answer is that the  just wants to pretend they are improving things as usual without actually investing more money or resources. I wonder about the cost of the redesign process itself--I bet all that money could have just been put into making the existing service more frequent and people would be happy. 

[Cain]

41 minutes ago, QM1to6Ave said:

Exactly right! By setting the limitation from the beginning that this must be cost-neutral, the  is pretending that there was exactly the right amount of service already, and it just needs to be spread out differently. But if you are truly redesigning a network from the ground up, why would you start with such a silly assumption?? I don't think anyone out there would say that Queens has sufficient bus coverage, considering how little subway coverage there is relative to the total size of the borough. Obviously, the answer is that the  just wants to pretend they are improving things as usual without actually investing more money or resources. I wonder about the cost of the redesign process itself--I bet all that money could have just been put into making the existing service more frequent and people would be happy. 

Along similar lines... The LGA AirTrain is slated to cost 2 billion after all is said and done.  LIRR to AirTrain would cost 15 bucks peak and about 12 bucks off peak. Not great but not terrible.

Why not use that money to improve the Q70-SBS & Q48 (in the future QT50 which would serve the Bronx and Flushing) buses which would be much more useful & practical. Those buses already service Woodside, Jackson Heights, and Flushing to LGA relatively well. With the M60-SBS coming from upper Manhattan, they serve LGA functionally. They could use the funds to upgrade buses to make them more luggage friendly, make bus lanes, HOV lanes on Grand Central, etc..