Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[LGA Link N Train]

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I will say this, you'd be surprised at how often the MTA listens to those types of people. A good chunk of the reason the off-peak Staten Island express bus network is set up the way it is, is because of the people who felt they were too good to take the subway with "those people". (That isn't the only reason. Some people had disabilities and couldn't stand, use the stairs, or handle the crowds or things like that, or time-wise it wouldn't make sense to transfer for their particular commute). But there were specifically people who mentioned socioeconomic reasons for avoiding the subway (or as one woman called it, the "scumway"). To a lesser extent, the attitude was also shown for the local bus (talking about taking the bus with the "skells").

Most of it is the MTA's fault for not being transparent and showing their calculations and alternatives considered, but my point is that these people get what they want in the resulting chaos.

Hmph. And then they wonder why reliability is low. I'm not going to blame the lady who referred the subway as the "scumway" (heh heh) given the recent conditions that ... plagued it for the lack of a better term. ADA Reasons I can understand, though that comes at the fault of the  who did not upgrade the system to ADA Standards.....

Geez, this made me realize: what the heck is going on at 2 Broadway? Have  leaders become so wrapped up to the point of trying to keep things budget neutral to the point where they can barely make any meaningful improvements? Not to mention any laws and policies that the City/State has passed that make any meaningful improvements/expansion more difficult and expensive. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that aside, here's an idea may seem a little out there, but given a past discussion on this thread a few months ago, whereas Forest Hills Residents don't travel on the bus north/south of Queens Blvd (depending on the origin) once they reach 71st, Would it be a good idea to divert the QT3 to Forest Hills via Yellowstone? 

Northbound, I'm proposing that the QT3 diverts to Cooper-Yellowstone,turn on the QB Service lane to make another right turn to 70th Road, then Terminate at Austin Street. 

Southbound, - Buses will loop from 70th Road/Austin Street to Continental. Buses would make the stop that the Q23 does now, then loops back to Yellowstone via Queens Blvd. 

[B35 via Church]

56 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I had to read this a few times to understand it. So you're saying that the QT75 should go to Williamsburg Plaza in Place of the QT76. Via 48th Street/Avenue > Van Dam > Thompson > 44th Drive > 11th Street then continue to Brooklyn? Ehh, I can see this doing better than the QT1 and QT76 combined. (And it would better enhance Brooklyn-Queens Connections). But then where would the QT76 go?

If the backtracking of the proposed QT75 from Court Sq, to QBP, en route to Manhattan would end up being too problematic, yes - I would have the QT75 run to WBP instead of the QT76....

However, nothing on the QT75 would change between Northern Blvd & Jackson av.... When it hits Jackson, instead of making a right towards Queens Plaza, it would make a left towards 11th st,... When it hits 11th st, buses would parallel the QT1 routing into Brooklyn as far south as Broadway..... When it hits Broadway, from there it would make its way to WBP....

I wouldn't have anything on Van Dam - not the QT75, QT76, nothing.....

To answer your question, for all I care, the QT76 can address that gap @checkmatechamp13 mentioned in an earlier post, where he said:

On 5/6/2020 at 6:58 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

....Also, on the topic of Sunnyside, I don't like that service gap around 48th & 48th (lol) I think the QT2 should run up 48th Street to 48th Avenue in both directions to reach Steinway Street.

...

...Instead of the QT2 though, I'd use the QT76 to do it - As in, having the QT76 continue down 39th st, to 48th av, to 48th st, to 55th av, to 50th, to stand (right around the corner from the current WB Q67 stop at 55th av/50th st stop)....

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church So if that's the case, what would you have covering the western end of Greenpoint Avenue? Or you'd just have the QT75 be the Sunnyside-Greenpoint connector and call it a day?

And what would you do with the QT2? IIRC, you weren't fond of having two different routes down Steinway Street (which I agree with you on that. One route with reasonably spaced stops is enough, vs. one local and one limited)

[LGA Link N Train]

4 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

So if that's the case, what would you have covering the western end of Greenpoint Avenue?

If you don't mind, I'll answer this Question.

For the Western End of Greenpoint Avenue, I'd prefer the Q69 to go there and terminate at the B24's current terminal. Then I'd have the B24 run from Jackson Heights to Williamsburg covering the entirety of Greenpoint. 

[checkmatechamp13]

6 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If you don't mind, I'll answer this Question.

For the Western End of Greenpoint Avenue, I'd prefer the Q69 to go there and terminate at the B24's current terminal. Then I'd have the B24 run from Jackson Heights to Williamsburg covering the entirety of Greenpoint. 

I definitely don't mind hearing your opinion, but I still do want to hear B35's opinion so we can all compare ideas.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you want the QT69 to go over the Pulaski Bridge, take McGuiness Blvd to Greenpoint Avenue, and then Greenpoint Avenue to West Street (I'm assuming you're not going to have it take those side streets over to Manhattan Avenue just to have it turn onto Greenpoint a couple of blocks later). Then you want to have the B24 start at WBP, run up Bedford/Driggs & Manhattan Avenue to Greenpoint Avenue and continue down Roosevelt Avenue to Broadway/Roosevelt (and presumably leave the QT2 as-is covering the other part of the current B24). Is that correct? (Seems reasonable looking at a glance but I want to make sure that I understand your proposal correctly)

[Q43LTD]

I think with the current Q60, the short turn route should have been Jamaica LIRR to Queens Plaza. Now, with this new QT60 from Jamaica Center to Hunters Point Ferry, where could a short turn be? Court Sq?

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church So if that's the case, what would you have covering the western end of Greenpoint Avenue? Or you'd just have the QT75 be the Sunnyside-Greenpoint connector and call it a day?

And what would you do with the QT2? IIRC, you weren't fond of having two different routes down Steinway Street (which I agree with you on that. One route with reasonably spaced stops is enough, vs. one local and one limited)

- Greenpoint av (in full) would be covered by my B24 proposal - which is merely the current Greenpoint av leg of the B24....

- The QT2 (which would make more stops) I'd run along 21st st with the QT1... The latter, I suppose, can remain ending at the projects.... The former however, I would terminate with the QT76.... I'd much rather have a 21st st LTD running to Brooklyn, compared to a Steinway LTD..... The QT69, in turn, would become a "green" route & would run to QBP instead of Hunterspoint Ferry...

12 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I think with the current Q60, the short turn route should have been Jamaica LIRR to Queens Plaza. Now, with this new QT60 from Jamaica Center to Hunters Point Ferry, where could a short turn be? Court Sq?

33rd st...

Edited May 8, 2020 by B35 via Church

[NewFlyer 230]

On 5/6/2020 at 10:25 AM, B35 via Church said:

If I were to mutually terminate the Q24 & Q54 somewhere, it would not be at Sutphin .... One area of Jamaica where they could consider terminating some of these buses (in general), is down by the Liberty av side of York College... This way, you could still have buses running along Jamaica or Archer, while still serving enough of Downtown Jamaica (b/w Sutphin & Brewer)... Jamaica Ctr. itself, while ideal, can't really handle 2 more routes ending there.... One thing for sure is that I would not have the Q54 end w/ the Q56 over at 170th....

...Speaking of which, I have always believed that the reason both those routes (Q54/56) get utilized over there (over the Q110), is due to the fact that the Q110 turns off at 153rd.... Those folks that reside east of Merrick tend to take buses well past Jamaica/Archer - which is why I'd have the Q110 serve more of Jamaica av..... I can agree with Jamaica/Sutphin, but I was thinking more along the lines of over there by Jamaica Hospital / Jamaica - Van Wyck (to layover there at the current SB Q54 stop at 132nd/Jamaica).... As for the Q56, I'd just throw it inside 165th st terminal....

I'd also argue there not being a need for 2 Utopia routes.... While the redesign does address this, IMO, it has it serving WAY too much of Utopia (QT65) - and the cutting across to get to College Point after the fact, is beyond bonkers..... They decided to prioritize the north-south coverage that the Q31 offers, over the usage the Q30 garners (over the Q31).... At least they kept the QCC - Jamaica connection with that QT33 (although it only runs as far as Jamaica/Merrick)..... You think the Q31 is bad, holy shit if that QT65 ever comes to fruition - the current Q76 will resemble the 42nd st , compared to it..... We may joke in saying that the Q76 (and the Q31) is a glorified school bus on these parts, but at least a school bus still carries....

Although unfortunate, what you're mentioning (regarding its sluggishness) is a large part of the reason why I'd truncate the Q20a/b to Briarwood subway.... The star of the show is the Q44 & IMO Downtown Jamaica can do without the BPH on the Q20a/b clogging up Archer, while virtually everyone's gunning for the Q44.... When I'd come home from work, I'd always say to myself, why do they even run these things out here with barely a seated load (and I'm being generous with that), when the dam 44's always packed to the brim.... It wasn't an anomalous ordeal either, it was literally everyday... Empty ass NB Q20's along Archer & the masses on Q44's before it turned onto Sutphin... You're right about the usage of the Q20 in relation to the Q44 though - people would bite the bullet along Main & take the Q20 to Jamaica if they couldn't get on the Q44 (when 40'-ers were ran on them)... Now that there's more capacity on the Q44 per bus, pfft - those same people stopped biting bullets & started biting the dust instead when it came to the Q20..... This is an example of where/how artics should be used, not throwing artics onto a route simply because you want to cut service.... That doesn't excuse the (apparently intentional IMO) crawling of the Q20 along Main though.....

LMAO about the Q86... The distance between Main & QB along Union Tpke may look short on the map, but it can take quite the time for Q46 to get to subway from Main st. at times..... It would have been simpler/quicker to run it down to Briarwood for the subway connection.... I'm not buying that folks along Main st. are/have clamored for a 1 seat ride to Yellowstone & (the dead mall that is) Atlas Park.... The amount of bus routes proposed to run along QB b/w Kew Gardens & Forest Hills (QT11, 14, 60, 86, 87), along with the meandering of the QT86 & QT87, are absurd.... I have often said that a turn off a given corridor can make a world of difference for a bus route, but this clearly doesn't fit the bill... Even if you wanted to give Glendale & Forest Hills a 1-seat ride to Flushing, have it take Jewel to Main, instead of QB > Union Tpke > Main.... Oh, and then there's the ending of it in the middle of nowhere on the northern end of the thing; Linden/28th? Really..... I get cutting down of the number of buses terminating in Flushing, but come on....

As for the JFK depot routes inside 165th, while I happen to like the little engine that DOES (is what I like to dub the Q9... lol), that is the route I'd remove from 165th to run up Sutphin to end with the Q40 instead.... Yeah, the Q6 & the Q8 are the most prominent routes inside 165th by a wide margin (although I have to say, I do like the QT20 proposal).... IDK, if the Q24 were to be removed from ending at Archer/Merrick, I would consider moving the Q41 in that spot instead (to make space for the Q56)..... I can't agree with eliminating the Q41 outright....

The whole Jamaica area needs a bus route restructuring. I feel like part of the problem is that they have tied some routes together like the Q20/Q44, the Q25/ Q34 the Q30/Q31, the Q110-Q114. That’s why we have the Q20’s and the Q31’s in Jamaica carrying air, that’s why the Q110 still runs to Jamaica/Parsons-Hillside, the Q112 makes that weird backtrack just to go to Liberty Ave. If it wasn’t for routes being tied together as one, I’m sure the Q34 would have been eliminated back in 2010. The MTA would not have to do a massive redesign if they just tweak some routes when necessary. Like how hard is it to have the Q112 take a more direct route to Ozone Park? Why are they waiting for the redesign to do that. Or the Q55 to Jamaica. They could have at least experimented with that to see how it would work. 
 

 I think the Q24 would benefit if it took the Q41’s route (via Sutphin & 94th Ave) to reach Atlantic Ave. I would have it completely skip Jamaica Hospital and avoid the traffic that can plague the Van Wyck during rush hours. 
 

I like the Q110 to Jamaica Hospital idea. Once again the MTA could have easily tweaked the route to go there instead of sticking it with the rest of former Jamaica Bus line routes. 

 

I don’t get why they would terminate the QT86 over there by the Whitestone Expressway, it just feels so incomplete. That would be as if the Q64 were to be extended to Austin Street & Yellowstone Blvd. It’s just useless and doesn’t solve much besides wasting gas. I just don’t like concept of the route. Turing it off of Main Street to run to Kew Gardens will be just like bringing the Q74 back and that route didn’t do so well in comparison to the Q64.
 

I’m cool with the Q56 being in the bus terminal. I would perhaps keep the Q41 in there too since there will be room, unless you have another route you’d place in there to take the Q9’s spot. 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

So if I'm understanding correctly, you want the QT69 to go over the Pulaski Bridge, take McGuiness Blvd to Greenpoint Avenue, and then Greenpoint Avenue to West Street (I'm assuming you're not going to have it take those side streets over to Manhattan Avenue just to have it turn onto Greenpoint a couple of blocks later). Then you want to have the B24 start at WBP, run up Bedford/Driggs & Manhattan Avenue to Greenpoint Avenue and continue down Roosevelt Avenue to Broadway/Roosevelt (and presumably leave the QT2 as-is covering the other part of the current B24). Is that correct? (Seems reasonable looking at a glance but I want to make sure that I understand your proposal correctly)

Yes, you are correct with this, though the one thing that I didn't mention is that I would have the QT2 go to Jackson Heights via 48th Street-Roosevelt Avenue so that both legs of the B24 would remain connected. 

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I wouldn't have anything on Van Dam - not the QT75, QT76, nothing.....

I understand that the traffic on Van Dam usually consists of people getting on or off the LIE, but is it that there's no real demand for bus service on Van Dam that you wouldn't have anything run on Van Dam or no?

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

...Instead of the QT2 though, I'd use the QT76 to do it - As in, having the QT76 continue down 39th st, to 48th av, to 48th st, to 55th av, to 50th, to stand (right around the corner from the current WB Q67 stop at 55th av/50th st stop)....

Hmmm, seems like an odd place to terminate a bus in my point of view. 

[Q43LTD]

I wonder how many of these proposals could have been thought of without a redesign?

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Hmmm, seems like an odd place to terminate a bus in my point of view. 

It isn't the most ideal, but there aren't many places in an industrial area that are....

I wouldn't stub it at 48th st/Laurel Hill & quite frankly, I'd say there's more of a demand for bus service along 48th st (over 58th st) in industrial Maspeth.... One thing they're going to have to reconsider real quick (if it ever comes to fruition) is having QT77's utilize 48th st, south of 55th av - there are UPS trucks dispersing from both sides of that block, mid-block (48th st between 56th rd & 55th av).... I wouldn't run the thing down to 48th st/56th rd for that very reason..... Ending buses along 56th rd. would actually be more infeasible & no less of an oddity.... The current WB Q67 stop at 55th av/50th gets a pretty good amt. of usage throughout the day.... The stop after it (48th st/55th av) sees even more pax.....

...not to mention those industrial workers would have much quicker access to the at 46th st, compared to at Hunterspoint av with the QT77....

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I understand that the traffic on Van Dam usually consists of people getting on or off the LIE, but is it that there's no real demand for bus service on Van Dam that you wouldn't have anything run on Van Dam or no?

There are light industrial workers & schoolkids that use the QBP bound Q39 stop at 47th av/Van Dam - but the Ridgewood bound Q39 stop across the street, is somewhat of an afterthought (most folks are too busy walking eastward along Queens Blvd. to get to 33rd st. )....

If you're talking demand for service along Van Dam, south of 48th av, I would have to say that there isn't.... I think that folks that catch Q67's at Borden/Van Dam would rather have buses continue along Borden, etc. to get to the subway, over dealing with Van Dam and Thomson to get to Court. Sq. for the subway....

So to answer your question, I'd say the demand for Van Dam isn't remotely worth subjecting buses to that traffic.... What makes the Q39 a deterrent in the area, is that it uses both Van Dam (albeit for a short stint) and Thomson.... Even if those different private shuttle bus services transporting folks to [Court. Sq. or Hunterspoint subway] didn't exist, folks would rather hoof to 33rd - or even Court Sq....

15 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

With that aside, here's an idea may seem a little out there, but given a past discussion on this thread a few months ago, whereas Forest Hills Residents don't travel on the bus north/south of Queens Blvd (depending on the origin) once they reach 71st.

Would it be a good idea to divert the QT3 to Forest Hills via Yellowstone?

Depends what you'd do with the QT54....

Edited May 8, 2020 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

14 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I wonder how many of these proposals could have been thought of without a redesign?

Would you be any more or any less relieved if you dropped a deuce in a toilet bowl, compared to a urinal?

[Q43LTD]

18 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Would you be any more or any less relieved if you dropped a deuce in a toilet bowl, compared to a urinal?

Not really 

[XBht26]

77 proposed new local routes and they can't keep the numbers between 1 through 77 ? 🤷‍♂️

[B35 via Church]

30 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

49 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

1 hour ago, Q43LTD said:

I wonder how many of these proposals could have been thought of without a redesign?

Would you be any more or any less relieved if you dropped a deuce in a toilet bowl, compared to a urinal?

Not really 

I mean, people aren't going to forget how the current routes worked for them, because you've decided to wipe the slate clean & doodle a bunch of lines on a map - while suggesting subpar service levels across the board (on top of it).... It is something to be said though, how the term "direct" took on a whole new meaning, looking at some of these routings.... LOL !

28 minutes ago, XBht26 said:

77 proposed new local routes and they can't keep the numbers between 1 through 77 ? 🤷‍♂️

From the agency that apparently couldn't keep its books in order, being a stickler when it comes to numbers aint the MTA's forte....

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, XBht26 said:

77 proposed new local routes and they can't keep the numbers between 1 through 77 ? 🤷‍♂️

I noticed that too. There are a lot of numbers lacking in the 20's. 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Depends what you'd do with the QT54....

I'd probably have it end at Fresh Pond Road coming from Jamaica Center. 

[checkmatechamp13]

14 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I don’t get why they would terminate the QT86 over there by the Whitestone Expressway, it just feels so incomplete. That would be as if the Q64 were to be extended to Austin Street & Yellowstone Blvd. It’s just useless and doesn’t solve much besides wasting gas. I just don’t like concept of the route. Turing it off of Main Street to run to Kew Gardens will be just like bringing the Q74 back and that route didn’t do so well in comparison to the Q64.

It's close to College Point Depot and avoids the lack of terminal space in Downtown Flushing.

I suppose another idea would be to have the QT86 run up 130th Street to 20th Avenue to 132nd Street to 14th Avenue and terminate where the Q65 does now (where the proposed QT64 does) and have the QT64 turn onto 127th Street and terminate by the waterfront (or maybe run across 5th Avenue and terminate by College Point Blvd). That way it helps out the busiest portion of the QT84 and also provides a bit more coverage within College Point. The issue of course is that it messes up the idea of a 14th Avenue crosstown route.

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Yes, you are correct with this, though the one thing that I didn't mention is that I would have the QT2 go to Jackson Heights via 48th Street-Roosevelt Avenue so that both legs of the B24 would remain connected. 

I understand that the traffic on Van Dam usually consists of people getting on or off the LIE, but is it that there's no real demand for bus service on Van Dam that you wouldn't have anything run on Van Dam or no?

Hmmm, seems like an odd place to terminate a bus in my point of view. 

OK, so your idea seems reasonable then.

As for Van Dam, at the southern end you have the Q67 available to take people to the subway, and at the northern end, you're within walking distance of the (also the Q75 along 48th Avenue connects you to other subway lines as well) so considering the traffic that it deals with, it's not worth trying to figure out how to route a bus through there without negatively affecting passengers in other (less congested) portions of the route.

5 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I wonder how many of these proposals could have been thought of without a redesign?

Remember that they had the NE Queens bus study, but that only suggested some minor improvements. I'd say maybe 20% of the good ideas could've been minor tweaks (e.g. Have the Q112 run a more direct route through Jamaica), but the other 80%, you need to look at a whole region and figure out how to restructure the routes. So it could be done via a series of smaller restructurings but it's more than just tweaks to 1-2 routes at a time.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I will say this, you'd be surprised at how often the MTA listens to those types of people. A good chunk of the reason the off-peak Staten Island express bus network is set up the way it is, is because of the people who felt they were too good to take the subway with "those people". (That isn't the only reason. Some people had disabilities and couldn't stand, use the stairs, or handle the crowds or things like that, or time-wise it wouldn't make sense to transfer for their particular commute). But there were specifically people who mentioned socioeconomic reasons for avoiding the subway (or as one woman called it, the "scumway"). To a lesser extent, the attitude was also shown for the local bus (talking about taking the bus with the "skells").

Most of it is the MTA's fault for not being transparent and showing their calculations and alternatives considered, but my point is that these people get what they want in the resulting chaos.

Another example is the MTA cutting the off-peak SIM2 (primarily due to low ridership, but also partially because Tottenville residents complained about too many buses down Craig Avenue, being the final "nail in the coffin" so to speak). I managed to get a group of SIM2 riders together at a Community Board 3 meeting, but it was too little too late (also, I was only able to get them at one meeting, and that was after the service had already been cut. They sent a bunch of emails and stuff beforehand but the in-person meeting was about a month after the service was cut). Not quite the same as a "those people" argument, but a similarly selfish one. (But boy, the look on those board members' faces when I had a bunch of SIM2 riders in that meeting...wow...)

Yeah well the  is a public agency. They have received a lot of bad press over the years for not being good neighbors.  It is easy to push for something when it doesn't impact you directly as in having to live with something. Their responsibility is to look at all sides and weigh the pros and cons. All it takes is one person to dig their heels in.

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I'd probably have it end at Fresh Pond Road coming from Jamaica Center. 

I'm not sure if you realize what you're suggesting exactly.... You allude to the QT3 running from Brooklyn to Forest Hills (via Yellowstone), but the QT54 would run between Jamaica & (probably) Fresh Pond rd.... Thing with that is, one split would be a local & the other split would be LTD (or whatever you want to classify those blue routes as being).....

For what you'd try to accomplish, I would do away with the QT3 entirely & just split the QT54 into two segments (and of course, add the necessary amt. of service for each split)... I actually like the idea of running buses from WBP to Forest Hills & wouldn't see it as "out there", even if I didn't.... Easily a more sensible way to serve Yellowstone, than to have a bus meandering around Kew Gardens emanating up from Flushing/College Point (QT86)....

The whole point of the QT3 is to supply LTD/Super-LTD service along the entire QT54 route..... Either segment of the route wouldn't deserve faster service over the other...

Edited May 8, 2020 by B35 via Church

[NewFlyer 230]

5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

It's close to College Point Depot and avoids the lack of terminal space in Downtown Flushing.

I suppose another idea would be to have the QT86 run up 130th Street to 20th Avenue to 132nd Street to 14th Avenue and terminate where the Q65 does now (where the proposed QT64 does) and have the QT64 turn onto 127th Street and terminate by the waterfront (or maybe run across 5th Avenue and terminate by College Point Blvd). That way it helps out the busiest portion of the QT84 and also provides a bit more coverage within College Point. The issue of course is that it messes up the idea of a 14th Avenue crosstown route.

OK, so your idea seems reasonable then.

As for Van Dam, at the southern end you have the Q67 available to take people to the subway, and at the northern end, you're within walking distance of the (also the Q75 along 48th Avenue connects you to other subway lines as well) so considering the traffic that it deals with, it's not worth trying to figure out how to route a bus through there without negatively affecting passengers in other (less congested) portions of the route.

Remember that they had the NE Queens bus study, but that only suggested some minor improvements. I'd say maybe 20% of the good ideas could've been minor tweaks (e.g. Have the Q112 run a more direct route through Jamaica), but the other 80%, you need to look at a whole region and figure out how to restructure the routes. So it could be done via a series of smaller restructurings but it's more than just tweaks to 1-2 routes at a time.

 The QT64 will not get much ridership up there in College Point. It will carry air like the Q76 does now because it doesn’t go anywhere that most people want to go. I feel like most people want to direct service, not one that requires them to transfer multiple times for one trip. The MTA really did College a Point dirty with this redesign. 
 

I personally think that they should have the planned QT16 take the existing Q65’s route in College Point after Flushing. I would have the QT86 run up to the current Q25’s terminal via Linden Place, 28th Ave, the 130th street to 20th Ave, then head north up 127th Ave hen a left on 5th Ave to 119th street. 
 

The QT65 should terminate in Flushing so it doesn’t carry air. 
I don’t see the QT30 carrying too heavy. So I would have it start at 188th street and 64th Ave and run the existing to Q17 route to Flushing. However I would have it make limited stops on Kissena Blvd so it is not slowed down. Then I would have the route run up Union Street and Parsons Blvd to wherever they have the proposed QT16 end. I’m thinking it could also run LTD service on Parsons Blvd and Union street while my proposed QT84 is also running. 

As for what serves 20th Ave I would get rid of the MTA’s  proposed QT84 and it would assist my proposed reroute of the QT30. It would pretty much be similar to the Q20 today. Instead of continuing on 20th Ave to College Point Blvd, I would run the QT84 up 132nd to 14th Ave, make a left on 14th Ave and run to College Point Blvd & 15th Ave. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 5/7/2020 at 9:25 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Hmph. And then they wonder why reliability is low. I'm not going to blame the lady who referred the subway as the "scumway" (heh heh) given the recent conditions that ... plagued it for the lack of a better term.

 

I will blame her if she turns around and opposes all efforts to make the subway system safer/more secure/faster/otherwise more efficient and attractive just because she doesn't use it due to her biases. That attitude is far more common than you'd think. 

[LGA Link N Train]

4 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

I will blame her if she turns around and opposes all efforts to make the subway system safer/more secure/faster/otherwise more efficient and attractive just because she doesn't use it due to her biases. That attitude is far more common than you'd think. 

Can't argue with that. 

[LGA Link N Train]

13 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

 The QT64 will not get much ridership up there in College Point. It will carry air like the Q76 does now because it doesn’t go anywhere that most people want to go. I feel like most people want to direct service, not one that requires them to transfer multiple times for one trip. The MTA really did College a Point dirty with this redesign. 
 

I personally think that they should have the planned QT16 take the existing Q65’s route in College Point after Flushing. I would have the QT86 run up to the current Q25’s terminal via Linden Place, 28th Ave, the 130th street to 20th Ave, then head north up 127th Ave hen a left on 5th Ave to 119th street. 
 

The QT65 should terminate in Flushing so it doesn’t carry air. 
I don’t see the QT30 carrying too heavy. So I would have it start at 188th street and 64th Ave and run the existing to Q17 route to Flushing. However I would have it make limited stops on Kissena Blvd so it is not slowed down. Then I would have the route run up Union Street and Parsons Blvd to wherever they have the proposed QT16 end. I’m thinking it could also run LTD service on Parsons Blvd and Union street while my proposed QT84 is also running. 

As for what serves 20th Ave I would get rid of the MTA’s  proposed QT84 and it would assist my proposed reroute of the QT30. It would pretty much be similar to the Q20 today. Instead of continuing on 20th Ave to College Point Blvd, I would run the QT84 up 132nd to 14th Ave, make a left on 14th Ave and run to College Point Blvd & 15th Ave. 

Just to understand the Q76's ridership basis better, are a majority of Q76 riders within the vicinity of Francis Lewis Blvd itself?

I agree with you on the QT16 and QT65 (mainly due to the opposition of having a bus along 160th, though I'm not sure if the QT30 should be the route to serve Union/Parsons.

Personally, I'd have the QT30 cover the entirety of 188th Street. I think should start like the current Q30 does in Jamaica, but divert to 188th up until Utopia Parkway/46th Avenue, then continue its proposed route to Flushing. 

So if you move the QT84 to 14th Avenue, then whats serving 20th Avenue? 

[jaf0519]

14 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

 The QT64 will not get much ridership up there in College Point. It will carry air like the Q76 does now because it doesn’t go anywhere that most people want to go. I feel like most people want to direct service, not one that requires them to transfer multiple times for one trip. The MTA really did College a Point dirty with this redesign. 
The QT65 should terminate in Flushing so it doesn’t carry air. 
I don’t see the QT30 carrying too heavy. So I would have it start at 188th street and 64th Ave and run the existing to Q17 route to Flushing. However I would have it make limited stops on Kissena Blvd so it is not slowed down. Then I would have the route run up Union Street and Parsons Blvd to wherever they have the proposed QT16 end. I’m thinking it could also run LTD service on Parsons Blvd and Union street while my proposed QT84 is also running. 

As for what serves 20th Ave I would get rid of the MTA’s  proposed QT84 and it would assist my proposed reroute of the QT30. It would pretty much be similar to the Q20 today. Instead of continuing on 20th Ave to College Point Blvd, I would run the QT84 up 132nd to 14th Ave, make a left on 14th Ave and run to College Point Blvd & 15th Ave. 

I do have to admit that outside of Jackson Heights, the College Point area was done pretty badly by the MTA. The main problem I have in the area is with the QT84, as it is literally just to fill the areas not served by other routes. 20 Ave needed service and so did Francis Lewis Blvd north of Northern Blvd, but this combination the MTA made is just bad. 

While there is probably nothing that will get me to support the QT65 heading to Flushing over it not, if it were to terminate in Flushing, what would be the routing you would have it take? My main concern would be reliability, so I would rather have it operate via Northern Blvd to Main St over serving 45 or 46 Ave and Parsons Blvd, and having to deal with the approach to Roosevelt from the southeast on Kissena.

[B35 via Church]

9 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

 The QT64 will not get much ridership up there in College Point. It will carry air like the Q76 does now because it doesn’t go anywhere that most people want to go. I feel like most people want to direct service, not one that requires them to transfer multiple times for one trip. The MTA really did College a Point dirty with this redesign.

I personally think that they should have the planned QT16 take the existing Q65’s route in College Point after Flushing. I would have the QT86 run up to the current Q25’s terminal via Linden Place, 28th Ave, the 130th street to 20th Ave, then head north up 127th Ave hen a left on 5th Ave to 119th street.

The QT65 should terminate in Flushing so it doesn’t carry air. 
I don’t see the QT30 carrying too heavy. So I would have it start at 188th street and 64th Ave and run the existing to Q17 route to Flushing. However I would have it make limited stops on Kissena Blvd so it is not slowed down. Then I would have the route run up Union Street and Parsons Blvd to wherever they have the proposed QT16 end. I’m thinking it could also run LTD service on Parsons Blvd and Union street while my proposed QT84 is also running. 

As for what serves 20th Ave I would get rid of the MTA’s  proposed QT84 and it would assist my proposed reroute of the QT30. It would pretty much be similar to the Q20 today. Instead of continuing on 20th Ave to College Point Blvd, I would run the QT84 up 132nd to 14th Ave, make a left on 14th Ave and run to College Point Blvd & 15th Ave. 

The QT64 in College Point isn't much more than a substitute/compromise for maintaining some sort of direct link to Jamaica (that was lost by severing the Q25 & Q65).... Even if you wanted to argue that the Q25 doesn't carry as much as the Q65 in College Point, either one of those routes are more direct from end to end than this QT64... I see the thing carrying more air than the Q76 in NE Queens; streamlining those specific portions of the Q65, Q20b, Q76, and Q16 in NE Queens can't be all that advantageous for folks up there....

I don't have a problem with streamlining College Pt. Blvd service up there, nor do I have a problem with doing away with the current Q20a/b terminal, not even necessarily the concept of serving the College Pt. Mall through more of College Point (the neighborhood).... The problem I have routing-wise is that they left that area north of 20th av/130th st with nothing more than that practically useless QT64 along 14th.... North of Flushing, I'd have the QT86 fill that service gap in question via the current Q25 up to 7th av... However, I would continue it along 127th until Powell's Cove - where it would terminate.... 

I would have the QT84 be the 20th av route & I'd do away with the QT48 (which is only a rush hour route) to do it..... The QT84 instead would be a route running from Ft. Totten to College Pt. Blvd/58th rd.... The QT85 (instead of running down to Avery/College Pt. Blvd) would be cut back to Downtown Flushing... Avery isn't enough coverage for that part of College Pt. Blvd the Q58 serves & the QT6 only makes one stop along that part of College Pt. Blvd. (at 59th av) before gunning straight to Downtown Flushing....