Lex Posted February 11, 2021 Share #1526 Posted February 11, 2021 28 minutes ago, Cait Sith said: Not to mention the 15-20 minute "expresses" when it's actually one big ol' service cut....everyone knows about my gripes with the 101st Avenue route(I forgot what QT thing it is). That's one gigantic service cut. But folks see that as an improvement somehow, especially from those that have never ridden both the Q8 and the Q112(which offends me the most tbh). That QT5 would be far more palatable if it had either secondary status (a separate route on the same corridor) or far more stops (which would actually work toward its justification). To be honest, the list of proposals reads more as taking Jarrett Walker's words as holy text (I honestly get the impression that his works are meant to apply to smaller cities/towns with a CBD and maybe a couple of spots that barely qualify as downtown areas), rather than possibly using them in tandem with what existing riders are saying. Look, I get that resources are limited, but people have limits to what they'll accept. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 11, 2021 Share #1527 Posted February 11, 2021 19 hours ago, Lawrence St said: Well what exactly is the point of station agents right now? I dont want anyone loosing their job, but all they do is sit in the booth and watch a movie, and get an attitude when someone comes up to ask them a question. I won't pretend to know everything that they do, as I now use OMNY most of the time unless I buy a pass from the MVM, but the point remains that they are a target for being laid off, and it is an example of where the wants to go, and that is to cut costs everywhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 11, 2021 Share #1528 Posted February 11, 2021 17 hours ago, jaf0519 said: Q65 and Q65 LTD to the QT65: I think it is great that they are using the Q65 as a connection between north of Northern and south of Flushing without serving Downtown Flushing. There is not a need for every bus to serve Flushing. Therefore I am not against the reduction in service as demand would also be reduced. The routes that passengers would folk to like the QT16 and the 46 Ave buses should be slightly increased to cover it. At the most a rush hour only purple bus between Main St and Electchester-Jewel Ave or maybe Queens College would be the most i would add. Overall is Good (+) or just okay QT87 New Route: Definitely like the coverage provided. Frequency for 73 Ave is fine as higher ridership areas have QT33 east of 188 St. If I were planning it I don’t know if I would have even given it weekend service east of Main St, so I think the MTA is good with that. Overall is Great (++) surpassed my expectations QM4 and QM44 to the QMT162: No problem with the elimination of off-peak service. I can recall many trips where I was one of two or three passengers in both directions. It’s nice but the MTA should not have to pay for a private shuttle. Don’t necessarily have any issues with the cut to the 3 Ave express, but maybe move the remaining bus off 6 Ave to Madison so it is in the middle. For any coverage maybe have the off peak QMT165’s stop at 164 St/HHE and Kissena/HHE before getting on the highway. Overall is Good (+) Just by looking at these routes, the MTA didn’t do a bad job. It wasn’t an A+ job, but it was fine. It is routes like the Q53 and Q49 that were destroyed that really make it seem like the whole redesign is atrocious when there is more good then bad. Also, I take the Q46 to St. John’s. Normally that is fine but because of the pandemic and safety measures meaning entrances on campus are closed, whenever I have class my walk to class went from maybe 200 feet from the bus stop to over 8/10 of a mile. This has made me think, why not have the QT32 operate via the Grand Central Pkwy service road between Kew Gardens and 188 St. Even add stops so there is a connection to buses at Main St, Parsons Blvd, 164 St, Utopia, and 188 St. Yeah it wouldn’t be a super limited but it would add more coverage in the area. My issue with the QT65 is that I can't picture there being too much demand north of the LIRR, and the streets are too narrow on top of it (and if you move it a bit east onto wider streets, you're already in QT64 territory). That, and I don't think it has any business going into St. Albans (I think a separate route down Brinkerhoff should cover the present-day Q42). Keep in mind that east of Springfield Blvd, the QT87 is covering for the present-day Q30, so you're going to need it to run the full length (also, I talked to some of the planners, and one of their goals was to minimize the amount of short-turns/branches within any given route, so for example, extending the QT12 out to Little Neck on weekends-only wouldn't be something they'd really go for. Also, just so you know, the QMT166 (Fresh Meadows - 6th Avenue) is the route they plan to run off-peak. Or do you believe that they should run the QMT165 instead, and add a couple of stops in Electchester? 11 hours ago, B35 via Church said: The word it appears that you're looking for in regards to Andy Byford, is the imprint that he left behind.... Most certainly sorely needed. You emphasize capability as if that potential to get it "right" supersedes what the MTA will allow.... Potential means squat if it never comes to fruition.... You're of the belief that it will ultimately end up being an improved system... My belief is that they're not trying to improve too much of anything for the commuter, nor will there be any accidental or otherwise coincidental occurrence of this redesign resulting in a system-wide improvement (not saying you're saying/implicating that, but I'm still making the point).... I would go as far as to say that they're intentionally worsening the system overall, for reasons VG8's mentioned in this page of the discussion alone... Thanks for that...yup imprint is the word I was looking for And as far as coming to fruition, that's the point of what I'm saying with regards to the SIM system...the overall improvement ended up coming (months after implementation, and with a lot of chaos in the meantime, but once it settled down, I would definitely say the SIM system is better than the old X system in an overall sense). The problem of course is that all the chaos and back-and-forth between August 2018 and April 2019 should've been while they were still in the planning phase and not while the new system was actually implemented. 11 hours ago, B35 via Church said: AFAIC, the time for giving the MTA the benefit of the doubt has long past; which is what I'm essentially getting at when I mention the foundation of the MTA needing a serious change... Very good chance I'll be maggot food before that happens.... Hope you live long enough to see that transpire.... The notion of a public transit agency that's been known to f*** people over, being forthright with their concern of the riding public where we've been seeing ridership losses system-wide for years now, wanting better for us riders during the unfortunate circumstances (patronage-wise) due to Covid, addressing it with a redesign? Not happening, don't believe it, can't see it.... They'll use that opportunity (dwindled usage due to Covid) to justify trimming the budget that much further instead..... The thing is that they had the opportunity...we were supposed to see a 40% reduction in service in May 2021 (with public hearings taking place around now). And that plan was shelved once it became clear that Biden was going to win. But I'm sure if the MTA really wanted to, they would've gone right ahead and made some service cuts anyway (like they're doing in Boston). 11 hours ago, B35 via Church said: As far as if not now, then when? I read these responses that's tantamount to there being a "right" time to do a redesign (this isn't the first that sentiment's been brought up on here ).... The notion that a decrease in system-wide ridership being a (better) time to go about engaging in a redesign, conveys a lapse in logic.... There is also the train of thought that says, you don't want to risk losing the riders you have left, either..... Yes, you'll lose riders with any redesign, but coming off of basically consecutive/annual ridership losses for quite some time now, what you stand to accomplish at this point is expediting the ongoing hemorrhaging, with no where close to being a commensurate amount of growth/usage - let alone the amount of growth (to possibly occur from this redesign) trumping the number of losses system-wide.... That's how I see it.... YMMV. I would disagree with that general logic (for example, Houston, which was the very first system to start this whole redesign-mania was going through a ridership decline, and its redesign turned out to be pretty successful). Actually, bringing it back to my home borough, ridership on the Staten Island express bus system was higher in 2019 (the first full year of the SIM system) than in 2017 (the last full year of the "X" system). The other thing is that, with ridership patterns changing now (with work-from-home being more prevalent, and more emphasis being placed on off-peak service needs), it's the chance to make those changes that adjust to those ridership patterns. 11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: It's funny you mention that there's nothing wrong and bring up the Q46. The Q46 plan is an absolute mess. The route is going to be split into a "local" service for west of Springfield and east of that there's going to be a "subway express" that is pretty much nonstop west of it. This pretty much screws up anyone who is coming from east of Springfield and needs something on Union west that isn't the subway, whether or not that is St. John's, a transfer to a north-south bus west of Springfield (which is pretty much all of them) or any of the other destinations on Union. The local service is west of 188th Street, not Springfield Blvd (which makes a big difference because it means you make the connection to routes on Francis Lewis Blvd & 188th Street...not to mention Main Street would still be a stop). 11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: My whole thing is that at least with the Bronx plan, the final plan is not crazy and you can see where it comes from. I agree with the stop balancing and the general thrust of, there needs to be a redesign. However, the entire four-line dichotomy they've got going on is inherently flawed, and if you toss that out then you pretty much need to start over the plan. I don't think that that aspect of the Queens redesign is necessarily flawed. The thing is that Queens is unique in that it has a heavy mix of both grid and feeder routes (compared to Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Manhattan, which are generally grid-based, and Staten Island, which is generally hub-and-spoke based). So I can see where they get the idea of (attempting to) separate it into grid routes (the red and green routes) and feeder routes (the purple routes). The blue long-distance routes, I think some of them should have the stop spacing of the red routes, but I do think there's a place for them in the network. 10 hours ago, B35 via Church said: I don't see the basic need for a redesign being the problem... Their so-called stop balancing is a misnomer, as it goes too over the top.... One individual route being confined to being either a local, limited, super limited, or quote-unquote subway dash route is the issue I take with that whole bit... They're trying to be too cute with that.... The Q46 (speaking of which/for example) having a local & a LTD variant is not the problem with the network.... Not in the slightest. All in all, if they end up amending that facet of the redesign, then that would be an admission that the very basis of the thing was an abject failure. In the Q46 example, I don't see it as any different compared to the current rush hour service pattern where the Q36/43 are LTD-only, and the Q1/76/77 (and I guess the Q2/3, but that's for a minimal distance) are local-only. It's just expanding that concept to run all-day, and along more corridors. 6 hours ago, Lex said: That QT5 would be far more palatable if it had either secondary status (a separate route on the same corridor) or far more stops (which would actually work toward its justification). To be honest, the list of proposals reads more as taking Jarrett Walker's words as holy text (I honestly get the impression that his works are meant to apply to smaller cities/towns with a CBD and maybe a couple of spots that barely qualify as downtown areas), rather than possibly using them in tandem with what existing riders are saying. Look, I get that resources are limited, but people have limits to what they'll accept. For the QT5, I think their logic is that it's not too far from the QT24 & QT67, and those effectively function as the local routes. But I do agree it could add a few more stops. I think if anything, Atlantic Avenue lends itself more to hosting a blue long-distance route, given that it is more industrial, but that would be pointless given that the already runs between the general endpoints (Broadway Junction & Jamaica...and the QT24 is being cut back to Sutphin Blvd on top of that). As for the whole Jarrett Walker frequency/coverage spiel, that was to prevent the disaster that was the original Staten Island redesign. What happened was that they consolidated all of the Midtown lines onto 5th Avenue, and people along Lexington Avenue complained. So then they shifted some lines onto Lexington Avenue, but then the people who benefitted from those lines being on 5th Avenue complained. The same thing happened with the SIM23/24 (people were complaining that service was removed from 34th Street and they were consolidated with the NYCT lines along 42nd Street....then they were shifted to 34th Street and all the people who benefitted from them being on 42nd Street complained). The same thing with the meandering vs. straight routes and more stops vs. fewer stops. For example, with the SIM2, the original plan had it going straight down Huguenot Avenue, but people complained and the route was changed to swing over to Arden Avenue, but then some people complained who preferred it running down Huguenot Avenue (thankfully, this one was resolved before the new system was implemented). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted February 11, 2021 Share #1529 Posted February 11, 2021 13 hours ago, Cait Sith said: Not to mention the 15-20 minute "expresses" when it's actually one big ol' service cut....everyone knows about my gripes with the 101st Avenue route(I forgot what QT thing it is). That's one gigantic service cut. But folks see that as an improvement somehow, especially from those that have never ridden both the Q8 and the Q112(which offends me the most tbh). The route you are talking about is the QT5. I don’t know what they were thinking with that proposal because the Q8 sees a lot of offs and on along 101 Ave outside of the transfer stops like Woodhaven, Lefferts, etc. So already a lot of people will be stranded or forced to walk to Liberty Ave or Atlantic Ave. Then the MTA is proposing to combine the Q110 and Q112 together like that’s a smart idea given how bad Liberty Ave traffic can be and they are proposing to eliminate the Q41. It’s like the MTA stuck up the milder finger to Richmond Hills/ Ozone Park residents. I’m actually not surprised that they wanted to do away with the Q41 because I always viewed it as a fast alternative to the Q8, Q24, and Q112 in Richmond Hills. I remember when I used to use it coming from Jamaica a lot of people would get off between Atlantic Ave and 109th Ave. By Lefferts Blvd you’d be left with about 5 people on the bus. Then during the evenings buses were pretty light compared to the Q8 and Q112 more so traveling to Jamaica then coming from Jamaica. As terrible as the reliability was back then (2012-2015 when I used to take it) I would prefer it over the Q112 or Q8 due to just how fast it was. I don’t think it should be eliminated because people definitely use the route, but maybe they should cut the Howard Beach part and terminate it to the Rockaway Blvd station with the Q112 because from Howard Beach almost everyone is off by Rockaway Blvd and the same goes from Jamaica. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 12, 2021 Share #1530 Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: I would disagree with that general logic (for example, Houston, which was the very first system to start this whole redesign-mania was going through a ridership decline, and its redesign turned out to be pretty successful). Actually, bringing it back to my home borough, ridership on the Staten Island express bus system was higher in 2019 (the first full year of the SIM system) than in 2017 (the last full year of the "X" system). The other thing is that, with ridership patterns changing now (with work-from-home being more prevalent, and more emphasis being placed on off-peak service needs), it's the chance to make those changes that adjust to those ridership patterns. The local service is west of 188th Street, not Springfield Blvd (which makes a big difference because it means you make the connection to routes on Francis Lewis Blvd & 188th Street...not to mention Main Street would still be a stop). I don't think that that aspect of the Queens redesign is necessarily flawed. The thing is that Queens is unique in that it has a heavy mix of both grid and feeder routes (compared to Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Manhattan, which are generally grid-based, and Staten Island, which is generally hub-and-spoke based). So I can see where they get the idea of (attempting to) separate it into grid routes (the red and green routes) and feeder routes (the purple routes). The blue long-distance routes, I think some of them should have the stop spacing of the red routes, but I do think there's a place for them in the network. All I know is the express bus network proposed as is is not going to fly in Queens. They have been told that and we're not settling for this for that. Either they keep the same level of service or add, but nothing less than that, and we will sue if need be to keep that service. I've already spoken with some attorneys about it in the past and we are up for entertaining that idea going forward. It was getting very close to that with the Bronx redesign then they backed off after the huge uproar. They added service on Staten Island for the express bus service. That's the only way we'll settle for anything similar in Queens and Brooklyn. Edited February 12, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 12, 2021 Share #1531 Posted February 12, 2021 "your previous content has been restored" - Yeah, 2 whole characters of my previous content.... Yeah, GFY. ============================================================ Anyway, this is going to be a condensed version... f*** it: 4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Thanks for that...yup imprint is the word I was looking for And as far as coming to fruition, that's the point of what I'm saying with regards to the SIM system...the overall improvement ended up coming (months after implementation, and with a lot of chaos in the meantime, but once it settled down, I would definitely say the SIM system is better than the old X system in an overall sense). The problem of course is that all the chaos and back-and-forth between August 2018 and April 2019 should've been while they were still in the planning phase and not while the new system was actually implemented. Sure, no problem.... There's definitely something to be said when the MTA (and our good friend Cuomo ) keeps driving away talent like that, with their ego-maniacal f*** shit.... With respect to what you're saying regarding the capability of these planners (and what was done with the SIM network as an example of it), to be fair here, our express bus network is far less extensive than any individual borough's local bus network..... I'm rather indifferent to the SIM network, but even though we don't have much of a sample size, it's still quite a leap to want to compare what was done with the SIM network, to what we have before us with this Queens redesign, in hopes that the (amended) Queens redesign will be just as good as you deem the SIM network.... In laymens, even being fair, I can only go by what I see - and with this Queens redesign so far, I wouldn't think there's any stark potential to do better whatsoever.... Kinda reminds me of people's criticisms with the artwork behind the Spring Creek depot decal... You couldn't get me to believe the person that was responsible for that unimaginative eyesore to draw up an absolute masterpiece of a depot decal..... Nope. 4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: The thing is that they had the opportunity...we were supposed to see a 40% reduction in service in May 2021 (with public hearings taking place around now). And that plan was shelved once it became clear that Biden was going to win. But I'm sure if the MTA really wanted to, they would've gone right ahead and made some service cuts anyway (like they're doing in Boston). You say that like we're somehow in the clear of future cuts with these redesigns.... 4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: I would disagree with that general logic (for example, Houston, which was the very first system to start this whole redesign-mania was going through a ridership decline, and its redesign turned out to be pretty successful). Actually, bringing it back to my home borough, ridership on the Staten Island express bus system was higher in 2019 (the first full year of the SIM system) than in 2017 (the last full year of the "X" system). The other thing is that, with ridership patterns changing now (with work-from-home being more prevalent, and more emphasis being placed on off-peak service needs), it's the chance to make those changes that adjust to those ridership patterns. Well, the MTA does too much following & not enough leading.... Too little innovation.... That is a large part of the problem here & is a reason NYC is so far behind when it comes to advancements/enhancements (technological or otherwise) in relation to public transit.... You appear to be of a certain mindset that these redesigns is tantamount to progression, when it is anything but... If I'm to believe that the MTA honestly cared about the riding public, I'd say that it's flat out stupid to sit there twiddling your damn thumbs & watching so much patronage on these buses citywide fall by the wayside year after year after year after year - to then want to hop on a bandwagon of cities engaging in network redesigns & conveying (lying) to the riding public that these redesigns are customer focused & customer driven.... Shit's disgustingly laughable To your last point, I'd say that these redesigns (the Queens one in-particular) aren't really trying to address changing ridership patterns.... They're more along the lines of, [concocting routes that are designed to sardine as much people on them as possible, on the cheap] & [for lack of a better term, throwing shit on a wall & expecting enough people to stick to it, with some of those other routes].... 4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: I don't think that that aspect of the Queens redesign is necessarily flawed. The thing is that Queens is unique in that it has a heavy mix of both grid and feeder routes (compared to Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Manhattan, which are generally grid-based, and Staten Island, which is generally hub-and-spoke based). So I can see where they get the idea of (attempting to) separate it into grid routes (the red and green routes) and feeder routes (the purple routes). The blue long-distance routes, I think some of them should have the stop spacing of the red routes, but I do think there's a place for them in the network. The categories themselves I don't think are flawed, but I do think the assigning of a route to solely either one of those 4 categories is very flawed.... @Cait Sith's gripe with that QT5 is the quintessential example. 4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: In the Q46 example, I don't see it as any different compared to the current rush hour service pattern where the Q36/43 are LTD-only, and the Q1/76/77 (and I guess the Q2/3, but that's for a minimal distance) are local-only. It's just expanding that concept to run all-day, and along more corridors. By telling me that you don't see the difference with how the Q46 is ran (1 route with a LTD/local setup) & how the Hillside routes are ran (multiple routes, some that do have a LTD/local setup & some that are just locals with no LTD variant), it's like telling me the Green Acres branch of the Q5 & the proposed QT42 are exactly the same, operationally/logistically... They most certainly are not, even though they have the same routing.... 4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: For the QT5, I think their logic is that it's not too far from the QT24 & QT67, and those effectively function as the local routes. But I do agree it could add a few more stops. I think if anything, Atlantic Avenue lends itself more to hosting a blue long-distance route, given that it is more industrial, but that would be pointless given that the already runs between the general endpoints (Broadway Junction & Jamaica...and the QT24 is being cut back to Sutphin Blvd on top of that). Q24: Brooklyn - Jamaica route, no LTD variant Q56 : Brooklyn - Jamaica route, no LTD variant Q8: Brooklyn - Jamaica route, no LTD variant QT5: - Voilà - Brooklyn - Jamaica route, SUPER LIMITED!!! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 12, 2021 Share #1532 Posted February 12, 2021 5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: The local service is west of 188th Street, not Springfield Blvd (which makes a big difference because it means you make the connection to routes on Francis Lewis Blvd & 188th Street...not to mention Main Street would still be a stop). I don't think that that aspect of the Queens redesign is necessarily flawed. The thing is that Queens is unique in that it has a heavy mix of both grid and feeder routes (compared to Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Manhattan, which are generally grid-based, and Staten Island, which is generally hub-and-spoke based). So I can see where they get the idea of (attempting to) separate it into grid routes (the red and green routes) and feeder routes (the purple routes). The blue long-distance routes, I think some of them should have the stop spacing of the red routes, but I do think there's a place for them in the network. In the Q46 example, I don't see it as any different compared to the current rush hour service pattern where the Q36/43 are LTD-only, and the Q1/76/77 (and I guess the Q2/3, but that's for a minimal distance) are local-only. It's just expanding that concept to run all-day, and along more corridors. The difference is that there are proposed to be few or no stops on the western leg. Today, an LTD bus also stops at, say, 164 St and Utopia, so bus passengers from there can also transfer and head to the eastern reaches of the route. Under the new plan, these people now have a three-legged transfer since the bus no longer stops at those cross-streets. I know that bus distances in Eastern Queens are long, because I used to live there. The proposed split into east and west is going to inconvenience many people, who will simply just choose the car because pretty much everyone in Eastern Queens has one. It's the aggressive NICE-ification of the routes, except even NICE is not this aggressive, because the buses are simply closed door in the peak direction (e.g. an eastbound bus will still do pickups at bus stops, just not dropoffs before the county line.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 12, 2021 Share #1533 Posted February 12, 2021 10 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: All I know is the express bus Enough said... 10 hours ago, B35 via Church said: With respect to what you're saying regarding the capability of these planners (and what was done with the SIM network as an example of it), to be fair here, our express bus network is far less extensive than any individual borough's local bus network..... I'm rather indifferent to the SIM network, but even though we don't have much of a sample size, it's still quite a leap to want to compare what was done with the SIM network, to what we have before us with this Queens redesign, in hopes that the (amended) Queens redesign will be just as good as you deem the SIM network.... In laymens, even being fair, I can only go by what I see - and with this Queens redesign so far, I wouldn't think there's any stark potential to do better whatsoever.... Kinda reminds me of people's criticisms with the artwork behind the Spring Creek depot decal... You couldn't get me to believe the person that was responsible for that unimaginative eyesore to draw up an absolute masterpiece of a depot decal..... Nope. The thing is that the SIM network was a complete disaster when it was first implemented (and much of that was due to the poor planning/lack of planning). But yet within about 8 months, they managed to build it up to a respectable level (and again, this was absolutely due to public outrage due to how badly they screwed up...they even had to have an emergency pick two months in, in order to fix the most egregious issues). But my point is that when you hold their feet to the fire, they are capable of fixing their mistakes (and with Queens, obviously we're hoping that all that chaos that we had to go through for 8 months on Staten Island can get hashed out in the planning phase, rather than it impacting people's actual commutes) But in any case, the way I see it, the problems with this iteration of the Queens redesign are not as egregious as they were at this stage of the process for the SIM redesign (obviously, the Queens issues are on a much larger scale as you mentioned). So if they figured out how to make a comeback from the Staten Island disaster, I do feel cautiously optimistic that they can resolve the vast majority the issues with the Queens redesign before implementation. And the other reason I feel cautiously optimistic is because this time around, the public is armed with more information regarding schedules. (e.g. Some of those NE Queens routes being rush hour-only and some SE Queens routes losing overnight service) Just imagine if a month before implementation, they announced that (because that's literally how it happened out here...and they admitted their mistake but it was too late to correct it because the pick had already been finalized). In other words, this time around they gave themselves more time to correct for errors which is crucial. 11 hours ago, B35 via Church said: You say that like we're somehow in the clear of future cuts with these redesigns.... Well, I'll put it this way: For the non-SIM express routes, they're definitely going to try to get away with as much as possible as far as cuts go. For the local routes, using Queens as an example, I can generally see how this could be considered cost-neutral...while there's plenty of cuts, I also see where additions have been made...not necessarily to the right routes/corridors, but I can see how the overall quantity of service remains the same...but at the same time I wouldn't be totally surprised if you told me that this plan saves $X million) The other thing is that in The Bronx (which is closer to implementation than Queens) I can definitely see how the local proposal is cost-neutral (again, the express is definitely a cut with some bones thrown in, no denying that). 13 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Well, the MTA does too much following & not enough leading.... Too little innovation.... That is a large part of the problem here & is a reason NYC is so far behind when it comes to advancements/enhancements (technological or otherwise) in relation to public transit.... You appear to be of a certain mindset that these redesigns is tantamount to progression, when it is anything but... If I'm to believe that the MTA honestly cared about the riding public, I'd say that it's flat out stupid to sit there twiddling your damn thumbs & watching so much patronage on these buses citywide fall by the wayside year after year after year after year - to then want to hop on a bandwagon of cities engaging in network redesigns & conveying (lying) to the riding public that these redesigns are customer focused & customer driven.... Shit's disgustingly laughable The way I see it, it was Andy Byford's idea to do a citywide redesign (Staten Island was already in the works when he was hired, but that was done at the request of politicians, not initiated by the MTA). So pre-Byford, I would absolutely agree that the MTA had no interest in stemming the ridership decline. Post-Byford...I'd still say that there's only so far that you can twist the guy's vision (and again, keeping in mind that there's some aspects of the current system that you absolutely must keep...there will always be some form of bus service on Union Turnpike, Northern Blvd, Junction Blvd, etc) 13 hours ago, B35 via Church said: To your last point, I'd say that these redesigns (the Queens one in-particular) aren't really trying to address changing ridership patterns.... They're more along the lines of, [concocting routes that are designed to sardine as much people on them as possible, on the cheap] & [for lack of a better term, throwing shit on a wall & expecting enough people to stick to it, with some of those other routes].... I can't say I disagree with any part of this statement. The other thing is, some routes are just plain circuitous for no reasons (e.g. Q38, B24) and there's some gaps that should've probably been filled a long time ago (e.g. 39th Street south of Northern Blvd) and some of those issues are being addressed (while unfortunately creating new issues like the QT88) 13 hours ago, B35 via Church said: The categories themselves I don't think are flawed, but I do think the assigning of a route to solely either one of those 4 categories is very flawed.... @Cait Sith's gripe with that QT5 is the quintessential example. To be fair, with some routes, I think it was more that they couldn't think of a group that truly applied, so they just picked the closest one (e.g. The QT33/38/39 that don't skip any stops west of 188th Street, but are still considered purple dash routes because they're feeders). With the QT5, I think the issue is more that any portion of it is intended to be a super-limited (If you add a few stops, it becomes a red route and if you add even more it becomes a green route). But I don't think that it's a situation where it warrants closer stop spacing in one area than another) 13 hours ago, B35 via Church said: By telling me that you don't see the difference with how the Q46 is ran (1 route with a LTD/local setup) & how the Hillside routes are ran (multiple routes, some that do have a LTD/local setup & some that are just locals with no LTD variant), it's like telling me the Green Acres branch of the Q5 & the proposed QT42 are exactly the same, operationally/logistically... They most certainly are not, even though they have the same routing.... To phrase it differently, I think they're basically looking to consolidate it into a short-turn local/long-distance limited scenario in both cases. (Under the current scenario, the Q1/76/77 cover Hillside west of Springfield/Francis Lewis respectively, and the Q36/43 cover the areas out east...those get turned into the QT18 and QT36 respectively the same way the Q46 gets turned into the QT11 and QT32 and the Merrick routes get consolidated into the QT18 for all local stops and the QT40/41/42 for the outlying branches) In other words, I don't think all-day limited stop service is a bad thing. I think it's debatable as to the exact manner of execution (for example, I think the QT11 could just as easily be routed to Springfield Blvd like the current short-turn local, and leave Fresh Meadows with the QT33/87 for service towards the Queens Blvd express stops) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 12, 2021 Share #1534 Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: we're hoping that... You mean you're hoping.... Enough said. Edited February 12, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 13, 2021 Share #1535 Posted February 13, 2021 5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: The thing is that the SIM network was a complete disaster when it was first implemented (and much of that was due to the poor planning/lack of planning). But yet within about 8 months, they managed to build it up to a respectable level (and again, this was absolutely due to public outrage due to how badly they screwed up...they even had to have an emergency pick two months in, in order to fix the most egregious issues). But my point is that when you hold their feet to the fire, they are capable of fixing their mistakes (and with Queens, obviously we're hoping that all that chaos that we had to go through for 8 months on Staten Island can get hashed out in the planning phase, rather than it impacting people's actual commutes) But in any case, the way I see it, the problems with this iteration of the Queens redesign are not as egregious as they were at this stage of the process for the SIM redesign (obviously, the Queens issues are on a much larger scale as you mentioned). So if they figured out how to make a comeback from the Staten Island disaster, I do feel cautiously optimistic that they can resolve the vast majority the issues with the Queens redesign before implementation. And the other reason I feel cautiously optimistic is because this time around, the public is armed with more information regarding schedules. (e.g. Some of those NE Queens routes being rush hour-only and some SE Queens routes losing overnight service) Just imagine if a month before implementation, they announced that (because that's literally how it happened out here...and they admitted their mistake but it was too late to correct it because the pick had already been finalized). In other words, this time around they gave themselves more time to correct for errors which is crucial. There is something to be said when you need a kick in the ass to reach your full potential (or close enough to it) every... single... time.... To me, that's implicating that they actually don't have the capability (that you believe they do anyway), if they're relying that heavily on public criticism to get it right..... I don't expect these planners to know everything, but with the quality of a lot of these routes (and especially headway) suggestions in the Queens redesign (JMO, YMMV), it leaves me to question where (or even, IF) they got their college degrees/educated at..... Regardless, both of those sentiments can't be true at the same time ([they possess the capability to get it right], but at the same time, [supposedly be so dumbfounded/ignorant enough to initially pump out a plan like they did w/ this Queens redesign & need that much help from the public (feet to the fire sentiment)]... I simply don't buy the latter notion.... It's more plausible that they are intentionally trying to gauge how much BS they can get away with before enough (or should I say, the "right") people complain, before some serious change is seriously attempted to be rectified, let alone actually being rectified.... Look at what you're saying in that second paragraph though.... You're way more hopeful/optimistic than I am with this whole thing & even you're comparing the egregiousness of the initial stages of the respective redesigns (SIM redesign vs Queens redesign)..... Great teams don't end up constantly getting blown out in the first stages of games & have to rely (key word) on some miraculous comeback to win games every time... Analogous, yes - but this is how I'm seeing what you're relaying here to me.... It's actually quite sad to read anyone convey such a feeling..... Nobody having to rely on & utilize public transportation in any city should ever have to feel hesitant to be optimistic in that transit provider.... At the same time, the MTA makes it way too easy to be skeptical, pessimistic, and despondent with whatever future plans/endeavors they have (or said to have) in store.... 5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Well, I'll put it this way: For the non-SIM express routes, they're definitely going to try to get away with as much as possible as far as cuts go. For the local routes, using Queens as an example, I can generally see how this could be considered cost-neutral...while there's plenty of cuts, I also see where additions have been made...not necessarily to the right routes/corridors, but I can see how the overall quantity of service remains the same...but at the same time I wouldn't be totally surprised if you told me that this plan saves $X million) The other thing is that in The Bronx (which is closer to implementation than Queens) I can definitely see how the local proposal is cost-neutral (again, the express is definitely a cut with some bones thrown in, no denying that). Not sure if it's the case or not, but to me, it's as if you're conveying cuts/net negatives like they're happenstantial... I'm saying they're going in to these redesigns head-first with the aim/end goal of trying to cut corners/save a buck..... You would think the end goal would be to enhance the rider experience.... Regardless, we (as in commuters) shouldn't even be having this discussion. Forget Queens (by itself), I want to see how much they end up trimming the budget by, when all these redesigns are done & eventually implemented - and scoff at it in the process. 5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: The way I see it, it was Andy Byford's idea to do a citywide redesign (Staten Island was already in the works when he was hired, but that was done at the request of politicians, not initiated by the MTA). So pre-Byford, I would absolutely agree that the MTA had no interest in stemming the ridership decline. Post-Byford...I'd still say that there's only so far that you can twist the guy's vision (and again, keeping in mind that there's some aspects of the current system that you absolutely must keep...there will always be some form of bus service on Union Turnpike, Northern Blvd, Junction Blvd, etc) No real issue with what's being said here..... Only minor thing I'll say is that (although his expertise/knowledge was well respected to those of us that are more transit savvy; those that aren't, may not have realized (or cared) how polarizing he could have been if he'd have racked up more tenure here in NYC), one man was not going to totally change the tyrannical culture that's been permeating throughout this agency for decades.... As with most things of this nature, it starts at the top. 6 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: To be fair, with some routes, I think it was more that they couldn't think of a group that truly applied, so they just picked the closest one (e.g. The QT33/38/39 that don't skip any stops west of 188th Street, but are still considered purple dash routes because they're feeders). With the QT5, I think the issue is more that any portion of it is intended to be a super-limited (If you add a few stops, it becomes a red route and if you add even more it becomes a green route). But I don't think that it's a situation where it warrants closer stop spacing in one area than another) What you're saying here aligns with my point; this is what pigeonholing ends up yielding. While one could argue that the Q8 should have a LTD variant, I don't think anyone's going to sit here & argue that the problem with the Q46 (for example) is that it has a local & a LTD variant that falls under the Q46 umbrella/schedule (as opposed to calling the Q46 local [the Q46] & calling the Q46 LTD [the Q45] or something).... 6 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: To phrase it differently, I think they're basically looking to consolidate it into a short-turn local/long-distance limited scenario in both cases. (Under the current scenario, the Q1/76/77 cover Hillside west of Springfield/Francis Lewis respectively, and the Q36/43 cover the areas out east...those get turned into the QT18 and QT36 respectively the same way the Q46 gets turned into the QT11 and QT32 and the Merrick routes get consolidated into the QT18 for all local stops and the QT40/41/42 for the outlying branches) In other words, I don't think all-day limited stop service is a bad thing. I think it's debatable as to the exact manner of execution (for example, I think the QT11 could just as easily be routed to Springfield Blvd like the current short-turn local, and leave Fresh Meadows with the QT33/87 for service towards the Queens Blvd express stops) See last statement above (regarding the Q8 & Q46 examples). I'm not arguing against all day LTD service (lol), I'm arguing solely "limiting" a bus route into being solely LTD or a subway dash or whatever, when it doesn't have to be... This is essentially segueing into the removal of too many bus stops, but I'm going to keep this (talking point) right where its at for the time being.... example: Like, why it is okay/permissible to combine the Q88 portion west of 188th st with the Q30 portion east of 188th on over to & QCC (proposed QT12) into being a LTD only - but at the same time, detach the Q46/Union Tpke corridor into solely being a quote-unquote subway dash only route east of 188th (proposed QT32) & being a LTD only route west of 188th (proposed QT11).... That is complicating matters along the Union Tpke. corridor, because they're trying to be cheap with that proposed QT11, is how I see it..... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 13, 2021 Share #1536 Posted February 13, 2021 1 hour ago, B35 via Church said: There is something to be said when you need a kick in the ass to reach your full potential (or close enough to it) every... single... time.... To me, that's implicating that they actually don't have the capability (that you believe they do anyway), if they're relying that heavily on public criticism to get it right..... I don't expect these planners to know everything, but with the quality of a lot of these routes (and especially headway) suggestions in the Queens redesign (JMO, YMMV), it leaves me to question where (or even, IF) they got their college degrees/educated at..... Regardless, both of those sentiments can't be true at the same time ([they possess the capability to get it right], but at the same time, [supposedly be so dumbfounded/ignorant enough to initially pump out a plan like they did w/ this Queens redesign & need that much help from the public (feet to the fire sentiment)]... I simply don't buy the latter notion.... It's more plausible that they are intentionally trying to gauge how much BS they can get away with before enough (or should I say, the "right") people complain, before some serious change is seriously attempted to be rectified, let alone actually being rectified.... Look at what you're saying in that second paragraph though.... You're way more hopeful/optimistic than I am with this whole thing & even you're comparing the egregiousness of the initial stages of the respective redesigns (SIM redesign vs Queens redesign)..... Great teams don't end up constantly getting blown out in the first stages of games & have to rely (key word) on some miraculous comeback to win games every time... Analogous, yes - but this is how I'm seeing what you're relaying here to me.... It's actually quite sad to read anyone convey such a feeling..... Nobody having to rely on & utilize public transportation in any city should ever have to feel hesitant to be optimistic in that transit provider.... At the same time, the MTA makes it way too easy to be skeptical, pessimistic, and despondent with whatever future plans/endeavors they have (or said to have) in store.... Not sure if it's the case or not, but to me, it's as if you're conveying cuts/net negatives like they're happenstantial... I'm saying they're going in to these redesigns head-first with the aim/end goal of trying to cut corners/save a buck..... You would think the end goal would be to enhance the rider experience.... Regardless, we (as in commuters) shouldn't even be having this discussion. Forget Queens (by itself), I want to see how much they end up trimming the budget by, when all these redesigns are done & eventually implemented - and scoff at it in the process. No real issue with what's being said here..... Only minor thing I'll say is that (although his expertise/knowledge was well respected to those of us that are more transit savvy; those that aren't, may not have realized (or cared) how polarizing he could have been if he'd have racked up more tenure here in NYC), one man was not going to totally change the tyrannical culture that's been permeating throughout this agency for decades.... As with most things of this nature, it starts at the top. What you're saying here aligns with my point; this is what pigeonholing ends up yielding. While one could argue that the Q8 should have a LTD variant, I don't think anyone's going to sit here & argue that the problem with the Q46 (for example) is that it has a local & a LTD variant that falls under the Q46 umbrella/schedule (as opposed to calling the Q46 local [the Q46] & calling the Q46 LTD [the Q45] or something).... See last statement above (regarding the Q8 & Q46 examples). I'm not arguing against all day LTD service (lol), I'm arguing solely "limiting" a bus route into being solely LTD or a subway dash or whatever, when it doesn't have to be... This is essentially segueing into the removal of too many bus stops, but I'm going to keep this (talking point) right where its at for the time being.... example: Like, why it is okay/permissible to combine the Q88 portion west of 188th st with the Q30 portion east of 188th on over to & QCC (proposed QT12) into being a LTD only - but at the same time, detach the Q46/Union Tpke corridor into solely being a quote-unquote subway dash only route east of 188th (proposed QT32) & being a LTD only route west of 188th (proposed QT11).... That is complicating matters along the Union Tpke. corridor, because they're trying to be cheap with that proposed QT11, is how I see it..... He acts as if the is so incompetent that they just so happened to have a disaster of a rollout on Staten Island. Their planners, some of them a bit arrogant, yes. I've met most of them, but they are not dumb. They go in with a plan on what they want to do, then they see if they can do it and if it will fly, and yes, some of those changes are for the purpose of cutting service. Then there's also the DOT that has their stance on things as well in terms of how many buses they want running down a particular corridor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 13, 2021 Share #1537 Posted February 13, 2021 3 hours ago, B35 via Church said: There is something to be said when you need a kick in the ass to reach your full potential (or close enough to it) every... single... time.... To me, that's implicating that they actually don't have the capability (that you believe they do anyway), if they're relying that heavily on public criticism to get it right..... I don't expect these planners to know everything, but with the quality of a lot of these routes (and especially headway) suggestions in the Queens redesign (JMO, YMMV), it leaves me to question where (or even, IF) they got their college degrees/educated at..... Regardless, both of those sentiments can't be true at the same time ([they possess the capability to get it right], but at the same time, [supposedly be so dumbfounded/ignorant enough to initially pump out a plan like they did w/ this Queens redesign & need that much help from the public (feet to the fire sentiment)]... I simply don't buy the latter notion.... It's more plausible that they are intentionally trying to gauge how much BS they can get away with before enough (or should I say, the "right") people complain, before some serious change is seriously attempted to be rectified, let alone actually being rectified.... Look at what you're saying in that second paragraph though.... You're way more hopeful/optimistic than I am with this whole thing & even you're comparing the egregiousness of the initial stages of the respective redesigns (SIM redesign vs Queens redesign)..... Great teams don't end up constantly getting blown out in the first stages of games & have to rely (key word) on some miraculous comeback to win games every time... Analogous, yes - but this is how I'm seeing what you're relaying here to me.... It's actually quite sad to read anyone convey such a feeling..... Nobody having to rely on & utilize public transportation in any city should ever have to feel hesitant to be optimistic in that transit provider.... At the same time, the MTA makes it way too easy to be skeptical, pessimistic, and despondent with whatever future plans/endeavors they have (or said to have) in store.... I'll rephrase: I think that the end result will be an overall improvement in the network, but the method by which it is reached will be more due to political pressure rather than actual deep-thinking done by the planners. (As was the case in The Bronx...in the draft plan, there were a whole bunch of changes proposed for the East Bronx and between the huge crowd that turned out in Co-Op City, and the decent-sized crowd in Pelham Bay, they ended up reverting most of those changes, and the main thing that was left was the Central Bronx changes, which was mostly positive changes). But that's the thing, looking at how they left the Bx8/40/42 alone in that portion, I can almost picture them just literally throwing up their hands and saying "Screw it, leave it as is". Though I will say this, some of the planners seem to be more open to feedback than others, and I think that will bode well for the boroughs they're in charge of (in terms of actually fine-tuning it based on feedback rather than just an all-or-nothing type of deal). I have high hopes for the Brooklyn redesign...the guy came up to me and introduced himself personally, and we had some pretty detailed conversations that he seemed very attentive to. 3 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Not sure if it's the case or not, but to me, it's as if you're conveying cuts/net negatives like they're happenstantial... I'm saying they're going in to these redesigns head-first with the aim/end goal of trying to cut corners/save a buck..... You would think the end goal would be to enhance the rider experience.... Regardless, we (as in commuters) shouldn't even be having this discussion. Forget Queens (by itself), I want to see how much they end up trimming the budget by, when all these redesigns are done & eventually implemented - and scoff at it in the process. I'll put it this way (and I hate bringing up the SIM network over and over, but it's the only portion of the network that actually saw its redesign implemented). Throughout the planning process (from 2015 - 2018) they kept emphasizing cost-neutrality. In March 2018, they came up with the off-peak SIM network (SIM1C/3C/4C & SIM2). I later found out that the whole plan was originally supposed to be completely cost-neutral, but one of the planners pushed to get the SIM2 to run off-peak and so they added $1 million to the budget. And by March 2018, they had already announced their intention to redesign the citywide bus network and the first aspect of it (the SIM network) already had $1 million added to the budget. So make of that what you will. (And then since the initial rollout was such a disaster they had to add even more money...were the overall improvements worth a few million dollars? Who knows, I'm just glad the bulk of the chaos is over...they'll need to take another look at the express network when they come back to do our local network, so hopefully we can hammer out the remaining issues and get some sizeable improvements). Long story short, in the end...I think it's very likely that they might have to add some money for these redesigns (even if their intention was to be cost-neutral or cost-reducing). 3 hours ago, B35 via Church said: No real issue with what's being said here..... Only minor thing I'll say is that (although his expertise/knowledge was well respected to those of us that are more transit savvy; those that aren't, may not have realized (or cared) how polarizing he could have been if he'd have racked up more tenure here in NYC), one man was not going to totally change the tyrannical culture that's been permeating throughout this agency for decades.... As with most things of this nature, it starts at the top. Good point. 3 hours ago, B35 via Church said: What you're saying here aligns with my point; this is what pigeonholing ends up yielding. While one could argue that the Q8 should have a LTD variant, I don't think anyone's going to sit here & argue that the problem with the Q46 (for example) is that it has a local & a LTD variant that falls under the Q46 umbrella/schedule (as opposed to calling the Q46 local [the Q46] & calling the Q46 LTD [the Q45] or something).... See last statement above (regarding the Q8 & Q46 examples). I'm not arguing against all day LTD service (lol), I'm arguing solely "limiting" a bus route into being solely LTD or a subway dash or whatever, when it doesn't have to be... This is essentially segueing into the removal of too many bus stops, but I'm going to keep this (talking point) right where its at for the time being.... example: Like, why it is okay/permissible to combine the Q88 portion west of 188th st with the Q30 portion east of 188th on over to & QCC (proposed QT12) into being a LTD only - but at the same time, detach the Q46/Union Tpke corridor into solely being a quote-unquote subway dash only route east of 188th (proposed QT32) & being a LTD only route west of 188th (proposed QT11).... That is complicating matters along the Union Tpke. corridor, because they're trying to be cheap with that proposed QT11, is how I see it..... My understanding of their logic (not saying I agree with it) is that it had to do with ease of day-to-day scheduling, if riders are concentrated to a particular route, rather than switching back and forth between routes (so you won't get so much variance in crowding levels). But then in this case, like you said, it's more-or-less taking the existing local/limited-stop pattern and giving them different numbers. Maybe they think that Fresh Meadows provides some level of stability to ridership levels...not really sure.... As for why they chose that pattern for Union Turnpike but not HHE, maybe they feel like ridership along HHE is more uniformly distributed, whereas Union Turnpike is more distributed into shorter-distance and longer-distance ridership bases. (I mean FWIW the existing Q88 doesn't really have short-turns, whereas the existing Q46 does, albeit it relates back to the local/limited-stop setup). FWIW, while we're in that general part of Queens I do think their plan for splitting up the Q27 (into the QT15 & QT31) was a decent one. I do agree (with you) that with Union Turnpike, they want to force as many people as possible onto the QT11, to avoid having to add service to the longer-distance QT32...that much is obvious by the fact that they bypassed St. John's), and I think that's wrong. The same thing is an issue along Hillside Avenue with the QT36 (though I don't think it would be so terrible if they had the QT34 run along Hillside up to Little Neck Parkway...but under the current setup...24 minute headways after 7pm...ouch....even if it only affected the areas east of Little Neck Parkway that still needs to be improved/increased) 1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: He acts as if the is so incompetent that they just so happened to have a disaster of a rollout on Staten Island. Their planners, some of them a bit arrogant, yes. I've met most of them, but they are not dumb. They go in with a plan on what they want to do, then they see if they can do it and if it will fly, and yes, some of those changes are for the purpose of cutting service. Then there's also the DOT that has their stance on things as well in terms of how many buses they want running down a particular corridor. They had 1 hour+ gaps between peak and off-peak service because they copy-pasted different pieces of old schedules onto new routes. They combined multiple routes into the original SIM4C & SIM7 and ran them with such a bare-bones schedule that buses barely got halfway down the line before they had to bypass stops due to overcrowding. What do you call that if not incompetence? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 13, 2021 Share #1538 Posted February 13, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: They had 1 hour+ gaps between peak and off-peak service because they copy-pasted different pieces of old schedules onto new routes. They combined multiple routes into the original SIM4C & SIM7 and ran them with such a bare-bones schedule that buses barely got halfway down the line before they had to bypass stops due to overcrowding. What do you call that if not incompetence? Laziness and a desire to see how much they can pack the buses before they need to add more service. That is really what these redesigns are about... How much can we cut to lower the cost of running this service, both with shorter runtimes AND packed buses? Mark Holmes made a comment to me in one meeting about how they want to maximize the buses they have out there running, and so did Jessica Cignarella (similar comment), who I believe you also met. Now they are going in the opposite direction, which is, let's see how much we can pack the buses before people complain. I have met most of the dispatchers (both NYCT ones and MTA Bus ones) since my group covers all express bus lines and of course Sarah Wyss and Mark Holmes multiple times in person. None of them are incompetent, trust me. Mark Holmes is interesting I will say. He definitely checks out the routes and knows about them, but I think his challenge is he doesn't use a lot of them in person, just checks them out on BusTime, but he definitely knows what some of the problems are, as he seems rather familiar with the layout of different streets and such. For example, we were talking about most northern part of the BxM11 (redesigned route) and I was arguing about how there is usage by the City border and how that segment needs to be kept, and then he was discussing the street layout and why they ended it where they did. We've also discussed a number of Queens express bus routes like the QM1, QM15 and that QM2, QM3, QM20 mess along 59th St (I am running together two or three meetings we had with that comment, since one meeting was mainly about the Bronx express bus redesign, though we did cover a few other things, like BM service, and some Staten Island stops). Sarah Wyss, she and I have never really discussed any routes in particular; she has generally just taken notes on the complaints I have mentioned that riders have, and made promises to have some Staten Island stops restored, but with Holmes, we definitely discussed schedules on a number of lines, as it was something that a number of riders complained to me about. One thing he did say that was odd was something about them not being able to change certain runtimes on some lines, but that appeared to be specifically for Bus. Not sure if it's some contractual agreement or what, but he didn't elaborate, and I got the impression that he wasn't at liberty to say. One thing you have to take into consideration is that the unions talk often with the about runtimes. Not too long ago (but pre COVID), drivers on certain lines were complaining like crazy that they didn't have enough runtime, with increasing congestion and Vision Zero, so they went and adjusted schedules (and before you say it wasn't Staten Island, I know that - it was for Bronx lines, but my point stands). There are a lot of factors... The passengers want the buses to be right on time. The drivers are stressed out when they have very tight schedules and so on, and it seems as if the schedulers are also under pressure to cut the runtimes, and bring down the cost of the trips. That's why I addressed Craig Cipriano directly in the one meeting he attended to let him know that what was going on was not ok, and I addressed again recently at an (MT) Board meeting. He's the guy at the top, so obviously he agrees with some of the changes they are trying to make. Edited February 13, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 13, 2021 Share #1539 Posted February 13, 2021 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: Laziness and a desire to see how much they can pack the buses before they need to add more service. That is really what these redesigns are about... How much can we cut to lower the cost of running this service, both with shorter runtimes AND packed buses? Mark Holmes made a comment to me in one meeting about how they want to maximize the buses they have out there running, and so did Jessica Cignarella (similar comment), who I believe you also met. Now they are going in the opposite direction, which is, let's see how much we can pack the buses before people complain. Now you're going against your on logic. When you had first met Mark Holmes & Jessica Cignarella, they were saying "how they want to maximize the buses they have out there running", and that was at the time that the SIM network was first implemented. In any case, if those gaps were intentional, they wouldn't have scrambled to make an attempt to cover them just before implementation. The SIM10 was originally supposed to start at 4:10am. Then the first four trips were converted to SIM1C trips...then the union caught wind and they had to turn those back into SIM10 trips, and add actual SIM1C trips. Ask anybody from any department of the MTA (from the union, Road Operations, Operations Planning, if you you know any B/Os who had those particular trips as their run). It was purely accidental. You want to call it laziness, you want to call it incompetence, you want to call it an oversight...whatever term you want to use, it was a screw-up which caused a higher-up to lose his job. And if they were really so focused on packing the buses, they wouldn't have bothered with those park-and-ride express routes. The SIM5X/6X were guaranteed to have low-ridership from the start (and they knew that from the second they thought of those routes), and the SIM4X/8X weren't performing so hot either. And that's the other thing too...if it were something intentional, they wouldn't have changed their protocol to include the schedules as part of the proposal that the public could comment on. Take a look at the Bronx express schedules...now that was intentional. You don't think they would've liked to show the proposed schedules at the last minute when it's too late to actually do anything? 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: I have met most of the dispatchers (both NYCT ones and MTA Bus ones) since my group covers all express bus lines and of course Sarah Wyss and Mark Holmes multiple times in person. None of them are incompetent, trust me. Mark Holmes is interesting I will say. He definitely checks out the routes and knows about them, but I think his challenge is he doesn't use a lot of them in person, just checks them out on BusTime, but he definitely knows what some of the problems are, as he seems rather familiar with the layout of different streets and such. For example, we were talking about most northern part of the BxM11 (redesigned route) and I was arguing about how there is usage by the City border and how that segment needs to be kept, and then he was discussing the street layout and why they ended it where they did. We've also discussed a number of Queens express bus routes like the QM1, QM15 and that QM2, QM3, QM20 mess along 59th St (I am running together two or three meetings we had with that comment, since one meeting was mainly about the Bronx express bus redesign, though we did cover a few other things, like BM service, and some Staten Island stops). Sarah Wyss, she and I have never really discussed any routes in particular; she has generally just taken notes on the complaints I have mentioned that riders have, and made promises to have some Staten Island stops restored, but with Holmes, we definitely discussed schedules on a number of lines, as it was something that a number of riders complained to me about. One thing he did say that was odd was something about them not being able to change certain runtimes on some lines, but that appeared to be specifically for Bus. Not sure if it's some contractual agreement or what, but he didn't elaborate, and I got the impression that he wasn't at liberty to say. Here's the thing: It doesn't have to be stupidity that leads to incompetence...it could be just sheer pride/arrogance, or even laziness. For example (earlier in the planning process) when I asked Sarah Wyss about why they didn't add a second South Shore - Downtown route, she said "Well, they have the SIR anyway", and when I mentioned the HOV lane, she said "Well, the SIR has an HOV lane all the way to the ferry". That's objectively not true...if a person wants to get from the South Shore to Downtown, the SIM2 is the best bet in almost all circumstances (unless there's insanely heavy traffic on the expressway and that person is going to an area in the vicinity of a SIR stop). I would hope she possesses the capability to look at a SIR schedule and a SIM2 schedule and see that that, but if she's so focused on "trains are better than buses in any and all circumstances" then she's not going to bother... And when I saw her just after the redesign was implemented (basically that Tuesday on the very first week it was implemented) we were discussing splitting the routes up to bring back something resembling the X3/4, the X7/9, etc (in other words, the old New Dorp via Hylan, Eltingville via Father Capodanno pattern). The big thing she got out of that was that I wanted to have a SIM5 branch running straight up Hylan...so I looked her in the eye and explained it very slowly from scratch. I'm willing to bet money she understood perfectly what I was asking for, but with her focus on consolidating routes, she attempted to set up a strawman argument just to be able to justify why her ideas were right at any cost. Mark Holmes, I'll say at a minimum he is much more open to feedback and constructive criticism, so that's good. 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: One thing you have to take into consideration is that the unions talk often with the about runtimes. Not too long ago (but pre COVID), drivers on certain lines were complaining like crazy that they didn't have enough runtime, with increasing congestion and Vision Zero, so they went and adjusted schedules (and before you say it wasn't Staten Island, I know that - it was for Bronx lines, but my point stands). There are a lot of factors... The passengers want the buses to be right on time. The drivers are stressed out when they have very tight schedules and so on, and it seems as if the schedulers are also under pressure to cut the runtimes, and bring down the cost of the trips. That's why I addressed Craig Cipriano directly in the one meeting he attended to let him know that what was going on was not ok, and I addressed again recently at an (MTA) Board meeting. He's the guy at the top, so obviously he agrees with some of the changes they are trying to make. Right, and that's exactly what caused the issues with the schedules...they said "the SIM3 is the old X10...the SIM6 is the old X7" and they just copied huge chunks of the schedule (if not the whole thing) without regards to coordinating the different portions. And that also resulted in the opposite problem (SIM34 riders were originally complaining about how many half-empty SIM3 buses were passing by, because the SIM3 had the old X10 schedule even though it was mostly meant to accommodate X42 riders). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 13, 2021 Share #1540 Posted February 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Now you're going against your on logic. When you had first met Mark Holmes & Jessica Cignarella, they were saying "how they want to maximize the buses they have out there running", and that was at the time that the SIM network was first implemented. In any case, if those gaps were intentional, they wouldn't have scrambled to make an attempt to cover them just before implementation. The SIM10 was originally supposed to start at 4:10am. Then the first four trips were converted to SIM1C trips...then the union caught wind and they had to turn those back into SIM10 trips, and add actual SIM1C trips. Ask anybody from any department of the MTA (from the union, Road Operations, Operations Planning, if you you know any B/Os who had those particular trips as their run). It was purely accidental. You want to call it laziness, you want to call it incompetence, you want to call it an oversight...whatever term you want to use, it was a screw-up which caused a higher-up to lose his job. And if they were really so focused on packing the buses, they wouldn't have bothered with those park-and-ride express routes. The SIM5X/6X were guaranteed to have low-ridership from the start (and they knew that from the second they thought of those routes), and the SIM4X/8X weren't performing so hot either. And that's the other thing too...if it were something intentional, they wouldn't have changed their protocol to include the schedules as part of the proposal that the public could comment on. Take a look at the Bronx express schedules...now that was intentional. You don't think they would've liked to show the proposed schedules at the last minute when it's too late to actually do anything? Here's the thing: It doesn't have to be stupidity that leads to incompetence...it could be just sheer pride/arrogance, or even laziness. For example (earlier in the planning process) when I asked Sarah Wyss about why they didn't add a second South Shore - Downtown route, she said "Well, they have the SIR anyway", and when I mentioned the HOV lane, she said "Well, the SIR has an HOV lane all the way to the ferry". That's objectively not true...if a person wants to get from the South Shore to Downtown, the SIM2 is the best bet in almost all circumstances (unless there's insanely heavy traffic on the expressway and that person is going to an area in the vicinity of a SIR stop). I would hope she possesses the capability to look at a SIR schedule and a SIM2 schedule and see that that, but if she's so focused on "trains are better than buses in any and all circumstances" then she's not going to bother... And when I saw her just after the redesign was implemented (basically that Tuesday on the very first week it was implemented) we were discussing splitting the routes up to bring back something resembling the X3/4, the X7/9, etc (in other words, the old New Dorp via Hylan, Eltingville via Father Capodanno pattern). The big thing she got out of that was that I wanted to have a SIM5 branch running straight up Hylan...so I looked her in the eye and explained it very slowly from scratch. I'm willing to bet money she understood perfectly what I was asking for, but with her focus on consolidating routes, she attempted to set up a strawman argument just to be able to justify why her ideas were right at any cost. Mark Holmes, I'll say at a minimum he is much more open to feedback and constructive criticism, so that's good. Right, and that's exactly what caused the issues with the schedules...they said "the SIM3 is the old X10...the SIM6 is the old X7" and they just copied huge chunks of the schedule (if not the whole thing) without regards to coordinating the different portions. And that also resulted in the opposite problem (SIM34 riders were originally complaining about how many half-empty SIM3 buses were passing by, because the SIM3 had the old X10 schedule even though it was mostly meant to accommodate X42 riders). The schedules were laziness. The packed buses... On Staten Island, I'd say pre COVID, they achieved their goal. How many complaints were there about packed SIM1 buses Downtown and packed SIM6 and SIM10 buses in Midtown? Sure they scrambled to add more service on some lines, but they are still maximizing their resources, when they have most of the seats filled or standing room only. That was the goal, then if you need to add service, you add a bus here and there as needed. The running most of the SIMs down 5th was arrogance because they though having the double bus lanes, everything would be fine. Mark Holmes, he wasn't that open when he met with me. It wasn't until we had people calling and yelling about their bus lines being at risk that he changed his tune. When you attend a Town Hall Meeting with hundreds of angry people, that changes things. Photo below is mine... Edited February 13, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 14, 2021 Share #1541 Posted February 14, 2021 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: The schedules were laziness. The packed buses... Were often a result of improper scheduling in the beginning of the redesign. One of the planners literally said so himself: https://www.silive.com/news/erry-2018/09/5a4d9f2f4b4884/a-sitdown-with-the-mta-25-expr.html Quote Another remaining issue that the MTA is looking to address is large gaps in service between peak and off-peak hours. Many riders have complained that after missing the last peak service bus they must wait up to an hour for off-peak service to begin, and vice versa. "There's been an issue with how some of the peak and off-peak routes transition into each other and we are addressing that," said Hawkins. "What happens is, one, it's frustrating to have that long time period where you can't get a bus. But then the other issue is that the first bus, or first couple buses, that get down there after that are just getting absolutely slammed," he continued. Quote "One thing we did not put out in the public process was about the schedules, the spans of service, the frequencies. I think that's one of the things we learned, that we really need to get that more into the outreach process," said Hawkins. 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: On Staten Island, I'd say pre COVID, they achieved their goal. How many complaints were there about packed SIM1 buses Downtown and packed SIM6 and SIM10 buses in Midtown? Sure they scrambled to add more service on some lines, but they are still maximizing their resources, when they have most of the seats filled or standing room only. That was the goal, then if you need to add service, you add a bus here and there as needed. And how much of that overcrowding is because people want to pile onto the first bus that comes? You have a route scheduled every 5-6 minutes, you get a 10-15 minute gap, and then you'll have one packed bus, a moderately crowded bus a couple of minutes behind, and then 2 empty buses a couple of minutes behind that. The issue in a lot of cases is the bunching rather than the amount of service itself. In any case, we offered them alternatives that would help save them money (splitting up all the Hylan routes to better balance the loads and shorten the runtimes) and they only listened in one instance (the SIM11), so the MTA definitely takes the blame in that regard. 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: The running most of the SIMs down 5th was arrogance because they though having the double bus lanes, everything would be fine. To be honest, while I do agree that running some down Lexington was the right thing to do, I don't think it was the worst thing in the world to run them all down 5th. 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: Mark Holmes, he wasn't that open when he met with me. It wasn't until we had people calling and yelling about their bus lines being at risk that he changed his tune. When you attend a Town Hall Meeting with hundreds of angry people, that changes things. Photo below is mine... Good, glad to hear his attitude improved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 14, 2021 Share #1542 Posted February 14, 2021 11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Were often a result of improper scheduling in the beginning of the redesign. One of the planners literally said so himself: https://www.silive.com/news/erry-2018/09/5a4d9f2f4b4884/a-sitdown-with-the-mta-25-expr.html And how much of that overcrowding is because people want to pile onto the first bus that comes? You have a route scheduled every 5-6 minutes, you get a 10-15 minute gap, and then you'll have one packed bus, a moderately crowded bus a couple of minutes behind, and then 2 empty buses a couple of minutes behind that. The issue in a lot of cases is the bunching rather than the amount of service itself. In any case, we offered them alternatives that would help save them money (splitting up all the Hylan routes to better balance the loads and shorten the runtimes) and they only listened in one instance (the SIM11), so the MTA definitely takes the blame in that regard. To be honest, while I do agree that running some down Lexington was the right thing to do, I don't think it was the worst thing in the world to run them all down 5th. Good, glad to hear his attitude improved. I don't think the learned much, but we'll see. In other words, driving down costs is still what they are laser-focused on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1543 Posted February 15, 2021 On 2/13/2021 at 2:26 AM, checkmatechamp13 said: I'll rephrase: I think that the end result will be an overall improvement in the network, but the method by which it is reached will be more due to political pressure rather than actual deep-thinking done by the planners. (As was the case in The Bronx...in the draft plan, there were a whole bunch of changes proposed for the East Bronx and between the huge crowd that turned out in Co-Op City, and the decent-sized crowd in Pelham Bay, they ended up reverting most of those changes, and the main thing that was left was the Central Bronx changes, which was mostly positive changes). But that's the thing, looking at how they left the Bx8/40/42 alone in that portion, I can almost picture them just literally throwing up their hands and saying "Screw it, leave it as is". Though I will say this, some of the planners seem to be more open to feedback than others, and I think that will bode well for the boroughs they're in charge of (in terms of actually fine-tuning it based on feedback rather than just an all-or-nothing type of deal). I have high hopes for the Brooklyn redesign...the guy came up to me and introduced himself personally, and we had some pretty detailed conversations that he seemed very attentive to. If your belief is that the planners are capable of righting the ship, but the means with which a net positive/overall improvement in the amended rendition of the redesign'll mostly occur is by way of political pressure IYO, then by default, the MTA is handcuffing/stymieing their own planners.... That would make me question just how much free-reign/autonomy these planners really have.... This is why I say that they are being told what to do to a large extent (with a budgetary focus being inculcated into them) & their creativity/expertise/however you wish to categorize it, doesn't amount to much of a hill of beans like we on the outside looking in think it might.... Basically, just re-draw the routes & shut up. While I can see political pressure being a factor behind the altering of some of the routes in the plan, overall, I still see this plan ending up being one significant net negative.... Not for nothing, but most of the CB's in Queens are not all that vocal when it comes to public transit.... There is way too much that has to be fixed for this redesign to end up looming as an improvement to the current network, way I see it.... The MTA is not in it to truly improve the network, they're in it to "improve" the budget..... Just looking at the service levels & spans alone, leaves much to be desired..... On 2/13/2021 at 2:26 AM, checkmatechamp13 said: I'll put it this way (and I hate bringing up the SIM network over and over, but it's the only portion of the network that actually saw its redesign implemented). Throughout the planning process (from 2015 - 2018) they kept emphasizing cost-neutrality. In March 2018, they came up with the off-peak SIM network (SIM1C/3C/4C & SIM2). I later found out that the whole plan was originally supposed to be completely cost-neutral, but one of the planners pushed to get the SIM2 to run off-peak and so they added $1 million to the budget. And by March 2018, they had already announced their intention to redesign the citywide bus network and the first aspect of it (the SIM network) already had $1 million added to the budget. So make of that what you will. (And then since the initial rollout was such a disaster they had to add even more money...were the overall improvements worth a few million dollars? Who knows, I'm just glad the bulk of the chaos is over...they'll need to take another look at the express network when they come back to do our local network, so hopefully we can hammer out the remaining issues and get some sizeable improvements). Long story short, in the end...I think it's very likely that they might have to add some money for these redesigns (even if their intention was to be cost-neutral or cost-reducing). I never bought into that cost-neutrality bit from jump anyway; I would mock it just about every chance I got.... It's a sly way of conveying that they're not going to be adding/increasing service in any way, shape, or form (of course, they can't just come out & say that).... In other words, the absolute max. would amount to a bunch of musical chairs/robbing peter to pay paul going on, resulting in no additional monies spent to improve anything.... Thing is, when you keep nipping at service levels of these (current) bus routes over the course of years, it's going to eventually get to a point where there isn't much left to cut.... The MTA likes to feign like there's an excess of bus service, when it's simply not the case.... In your home borough (and I'm not trying to be funny, but) being that they spent additional money to revamp the SI exp. bus network, it would have me deeply worried over what the SI local bus network would resemble.... Not as much with the routings (like how they f***ed up a good chunk of Queens with), but more with county-wide service levels; even for whatever SI - Brooklyn route{s} would result from it.... I mean, the fight/push for better exp. bus service (over that of local service) has always been more potent in SI anyway, compared to the other 3 outerboroughs..... On 2/13/2021 at 2:26 AM, checkmatechamp13 said: My understanding of their logic (not saying I agree with it) is that it had to do with ease of day-to-day scheduling, if riders are concentrated to a particular route, rather than switching back and forth between routes (so you won't get so much variance in crowding levels). But then in this case, like you said, it's more-or-less taking the existing local/limited-stop pattern and giving them different numbers. Maybe they think that Fresh Meadows provides some level of stability to ridership levels...not really sure.... As for why they chose that pattern for Union Turnpike but not HHE, maybe they feel like ridership along HHE is more uniformly distributed, whereas Union Turnpike is more distributed into shorter-distance and longer-distance ridership bases. (I mean FWIW the existing Q88 doesn't really have short-turns, whereas the existing Q46 does, albeit it relates back to the local/limited-stop setup). FWIW, while we're in that general part of Queens I do think their plan for splitting up the Q27 (into the QT15 & QT31) was a decent one. I do agree (with you) that with Union Turnpike, they want to force as many people as possible onto the QT11, to avoid having to add service to the longer-distance QT32...that much is obvious by the fact that they bypassed St. John's), and I think that's wrong. The same thing is an issue along Hillside Avenue with the QT36 (though I don't think it would be so terrible if they had the QT34 run along Hillside up to Little Neck Parkway...but under the current setup...24 minute headways after 7pm...ouch....even if it only affected the areas east of Little Neck Parkway that still needs to be improved/increased). Right, that's what I'm saying.... If you make the individual route schedules less convoluted by pigeonholing routes into one of 4 categories (as opposed to having 1 route having multiple variants; as in LTD/local), it makes it a little easier to analyze service on a route overall.... At the same time, service along corridors with this redesign thus far are being butchered to where [there are only LTD service or "subway dash" service along them] or [some combination/overlap of LTD & "subway dash" service], with no corresponding local variant in either case.... That, I say, is straight up wrong.... What they're doing with Union Tpke. would make more sense for express bus service (having one route geared to serving most the pax. west of 188th & another route geared to picking up pax. east of 188th), being that exp. bus service isn't an open-door service..... For local service OTOH, it's a piss-poor idea to structure service that way along Union Tpke. for reasons @bobtehpanda already mentioned.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1544 Posted February 15, 2021 (edited) The whole Queens redesign draft was/is an unmitigated disaster. The plans they released for southwest Queens (Ridgewood, Glendale, Maspeth, Middle Village) look like they were drawn up by someone who has never ridden a bus nor even set physical foot in that area. I mean really, a route blending the Q38, Q39, and Q67; and a route connecting Roosevelt Island with Middle Village... Whose ass are they pulling these ideas out of? Edited February 15, 2021 by R10 2952 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1545 Posted February 15, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, R10 2952 said: The whole Queens redesign draft was/is an unmitigated disaster. The plans they released for southwest Queens (Ridgewood, Glendale, Maspeth, Middle Village) look like they were drawn up by someone who has never ridden a bus nor even set physical foot in that area. I mean really, a route blending the Q38, Q39, and Q67; and a route connecting Roosevelt Island with Middle Village... Whose ass are they pulling these ideas out of? There's multiple coverage gaps in the southern part of Middle Village was this new proposal, given how they basically combined segments of the Q38 and Q67, while eliminating all segments on the two routes not part of the combined route. To add insult to injury, without the Q29 and the Q47 existing, and with the combined Q38/67 routing ending around 10 PM, most of Middle Village would have no bus service from 10 PM - 6 AM unless you live near Woodhaven Boulevard or Metropolitan Avenue. They really destroyed the network in that area for no good reason. Many people take the bus to Roosevelt Avenue, and to Jackson Heights. Now both buses that operate to Jackson Heights would no longer exist. And then there's the express buses that they're also screwing up. The Fresh Pond segment of the QM24/QM34 just isn't all that hot in either peak. The majority of the ridership comes from Eliot Avenue. Even with the new routing, there's zero stops in Maspeth (which it has to pass through). Maspeth, pre-covid had been inquiring about potential express bus service too. Edited February 15, 2021 by BM5 via Woodhaven 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1546 Posted February 15, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, B35 via Church said: If your belief is that the planners are capable of righting the ship, but the means with which a net positive/overall improvement in the amended rendition of the redesign'll mostly occur is by way of political pressure IYO, then by default, the MTA is handcuffing/stymieing their own planners.... That would make me question just how much free-reign/autonomy these planners really have.... This is why I say that they are being told what to do to a large extent (with a budgetary focus being inculcated into them) & their creativity/expertise/however you wish to categorize it, doesn't amount to much of a hill of beans like we on the outside looking in think it might.... Basically, just re-draw the routes & shut up. While I can see political pressure being a factor behind the altering of some of the routes in the plan, overall, I still see this plan ending up being one significant net negative.... Not for nothing, but most of the CB's in Queens are not all that vocal when it comes to public transit.... There is way too much that has to be fixed for this redesign to end up looming as an improvement to the current network, way I see it.... The MTA is not in it to truly improve the network, they're in it to "improve" the budget..... Just looking at the service levels & spans alone, leaves much to be desired..... I will say this: The meetings hosted by the MTA themselves were surprisingly well-attended. The one in Jackson Heights from what I heard had a 2 hour wait to get in...the one in Ridgewood had a 30 minute wait, for Jamaica I got in with minimal wait but people who got in shortly after me had a long wait, Astoria & Elmhurst Hospital weren't packed but had a respectable-size crowd. And pretty much all of them had elected officials attending, or in some cases were even hosted by those elected officials (I attended all of those I mentioned except Jackson Heights). So while Queens residents might not generally be too politically involved, they turned out quite nicely for these meetings. And FWIW, on Staten Island and The Bronx, the MTA reps were usually the lower-level planners and customer service reps. But for Queens, they brought in the higher-level planners for pretty much all of them. (For Staten Island & The Bronx I think I saw some higher-level planners once for each one, and those were meetings where Byford himself was present). 8 hours ago, B35 via Church said: In your home borough (and I'm not trying to be funny, but) being that they spent additional money to revamp the SI exp. bus network, it would have me deeply worried over what the SI local bus network would resemble.... Not as much with the routings (like how they f***ed up a good chunk of Queens with), but more with county-wide service levels; even for whatever SI - Brooklyn route{s} would result from it.... I mean, the fight/push for better exp. bus service (over that of local service) has always been more potent in SI anyway, compared to the other 3 outerboroughs..... Honestly that was the first thing I thought when I heard the second announcement regarding the January 2019 changes. (When they put the first $1 million in to start off the redesign I wasn't too worried, but after they added another round of money I started asking where exactly that money is coming from). I hope we are both wrong with our fears for the local network... 8 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Right, that's what I'm saying.... If you make the individual route schedules less convoluted by pigeonholing routes into one of 4 categories (as opposed to having 1 route having multiple variants; as in LTD/local), it makes it a little easier to analyze service on a route overall.... At the same time, service along corridors with this redesign thus far are being butchered to where [there are only LTD service or "subway dash" service along them] or [some combination/overlap of LTD & "subway dash" service], with no corresponding local variant in either case.... That, I say, is straight up wrong.... I think it comes down to what BrooklynBus mentioned a while back, that if their goal is to eliminate 50% of stops, start off with 70% so when you give back 20% you look like the good guy. I mean, some of these orange routes are skipping areas like Queens Center Mall and Jamaica Center for crying out loud! I don't have too much of a problem with a LTD-only setup, because if you look closely, they make more stops than a typical LTD. (For example, take a look at the QT15 vs. the Q27 LTD or the QT19 vs. the Q113/114). For lines like the QT12 (where they were more aggressive on removing stops) I can see them putting back a few stops anyway that they kind of expected too (again, that whole negotiating tactic I mentioned). 8 hours ago, B35 via Church said: What they're doing with Union Tpke. would make more sense for express bus service (having one route geared to serving most the pax. west of 188th & another route geared to picking up pax. east of 188th), being that exp. bus service isn't an open-door service..... For local service OTOH, it's a piss-poor idea to structure service that way along Union Tpke. for reasons @bobtehpanda already mentioned.... The funny thing (well maybe not so funny) is I thought the same thing for the Hylan expresses. I can picture a supplemental S79 variant via Father Capodanno & Giffords Lane working out pretty decently alongside the current S79...but to have the SIM1/7/10 running most of the S79 route (save the last couple of miles to the mall) is wasteful and detrimental all around (it was an issue when the rush hour X1 did it, it was an issue when the SIM system first started, and it remains an issue to this day...one of the things holding the SIM system back from reaching its full potential..."better than before" is a nice start for the overall system, but not a good end goal). Edited February 15, 2021 by checkmatechamp13 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1547 Posted February 15, 2021 9 hours ago, R10 2952 said: The whole Queens redesign draft was/is an unmitigated disaster. The plans they released for southwest Queens (Ridgewood, Glendale, Maspeth, Middle Village) look like they were drawn up by someone who has never ridden a bus nor even set physical foot in that area. I mean really, a route blending the Q38, Q39, and Q67; and a route connecting Roosevelt Island with Middle Village... Whose ass are they pulling these ideas out of? This area is horrbly connected. (I call it the "cipher zone"). It's the current system that looks like it was drawn up by someone who has never set foot in the area. The redesign, while of course not perfect, would still be an improvement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1548 Posted February 15, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: I will say this: The meetings hosted by the MTA themselves were surprisingly well-attended. The one in Jackson Heights from what I heard had a 2 hour wait to get in...the one in Ridgewood had a 30 minute wait, for Jamaica I got in with minimal wait but people who got in shortly after me had a long wait, Astoria & Elmhurst Hospital weren't packed but had a respectable-size crowd. And pretty much all of them had elected officials attending, or in some cases were even hosted by those elected officials (I attended all of those I mentioned except Jackson Heights). So while Queens residents might not generally be too politically involved, they turned out quite nicely for these meetings. And FWIW, on Staten Island and The Bronx, the MTA reps were usually the lower-level planners and customer service reps. But for Queens, they brought in the higher-level planners for pretty much all of them. (For Staten Island & The Bronx I think I saw some higher-level planners once for each one, and those were meetings where Byford himself was present). Which in-turn, portrays just how bad the Queens redesign was, if you have people from areas/CB districts of Queens that are not normally vocal about public transit, that ended up attending these meetings with the formidability that they did.... There's something to be said about that..... In any case, how much actual change (to the redesign) will result from it, remains to be seen..... As far as the planners are concerned, my issue has less to do with them & more to do with just how constrained they possibly likely are by their higher-ups, if the desire is to want to truly drum up a better redesign on the planners' end.... But if these planners are actually on board with the MTA's program to drum up a lackadaisical bus network for the borough for their (the higher-ups') nefarious reasons, well, for lack of better phraseology, f**k them too..... The fact that lower level planners attended the SI & Bronx ones & that the higher level planners attended the Queens ones, doesn't mean much of anything to me - for the same reason I do not believe there will be a stark 180 with the quality of any revamping of this initial rendition of the redesign..... Hate to put it like this, but the higher level planners being there to absorb the smoke from angry critics is part of what they signed up for when they took the job/position..... 2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Honestly that was the first thing I thought when I heard the second announcement regarding the January 2019 changes. (When they put the first $1 million in to start off the redesign I wasn't too worried, but after they added another round of money I started asking where exactly that money is coming from). I hope we are both wrong with our fears for the local network. So do I.... I mean, it's exhausting to have to put up (and vocalize) the crap that this agency does, with (dis)respect to us riders.... I mean, it would be a shame if they were to draw up a more usable/enhanced network in SI (routing-wise) - to then purposely run blatantly run inadequate service levels on all the lines; akin to NICE/Nassau county or something.... SI catches flack for being the "forgotten borough" by some critics, but I'm going to be quite livid if the MTA, in any facet, propose suburban level frequencies for the island..... 2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: I think it comes down to what BrooklynBus mentioned a while back, that if their goal is to eliminate 50% of stops, start off with 70% so when you give back 20% you look like the good guy. I mean, some of these orange routes are skipping areas like Queens Center Mall and Jamaica Center for crying out loud! I don't have too much of a problem with a LTD-only setup, because if you look closely, they make more stops than a typical LTD. (For example, take a look at the QT15 vs. the Q27 LTD or the QT19 vs. the Q113/114). For lines like the QT12 (where they were more aggressive on removing stops) I can see them putting back a few stops anyway that they kind of expected too (again, that whole negotiating tactic I mentioned). While you can argue that there are too many cumulative bus stops throughout the current borough/network, they simply went overboard with proposing ridding themselves of so many of them.... Especially considering the inadequate frequencies.... More riders waiting for a bus per stop, over less stops along a route, gives off the impression that there's a rider increase along a given corridor - when it's anything but..... I live in an area where more often than not, this B35 LTD doesn't make that drastic a difference over the local.... So maybe I'm a bit jaded when I see an entire region of the largest borough in the city riddled with LTD & subway dash routes with no local counterpart to them, IDK.... While I'm not advocating for emptier buses (which is how some people tend to view local buses, compared to their LTD/SBS counterpart), I'm simply not a fan of having people sardine onto a bus, just because it makes less stops than a local.... The MTA is not going to give commensurate service to these proposed LTD only routes either, which only compounds matters, the way I see it.... If you're going to solely provide a corridor with LTD only service, you better make it worthwhile frequency-wise - and by that I mean every 6 or better throughout most of the day, at minimum.... On 2/14/2021 at 9:48 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said: I don't think the learned much, but we'll see. In other words, driving down costs is still what they are laser-focused on. They haven't learned anything... Leopards don't change their spots & old dogs aint learning new tricks. Lazily attempting pacification methods & truly learning from mistakes, are two drastically different things..... 10 hours ago, R10 2952 said: The whole Queens redesign draft was/is an unmitigated disaster. The plans they released for southwest Queens (Ridgewood, Glendale, Maspeth, Middle Village) look like they were drawn up by someone who has never ridden a bus nor even set physical foot in that area. I mean really, a route blending the Q38, Q39, and Q67; and a route connecting Roosevelt Island with Middle Village... Whose ass are they pulling these ideas out of? Yeah, that QT77 & QT78 are abominable from start to finish.... There is nothing about those routes that entails straighter/more direct.... The complete opposite of an improvement to current bus service (not that the Q38/39/67 are anything to write home about in their own rights, but they're exponentially better than those aforementioned proposed QT routes).... Edited February 15, 2021 by B35 via Church 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1549 Posted February 15, 2021 What's very interesting about the split into local/subway-dash service is that LA Metro, which is probably the biggest transit agency running the most "limited/rapid" whatever bus routes, is moving in the opposite direction as the MTA on this. LA is mostly going to get rid of the rapid/local distinction altogether, and instead run one service pattern with stop spacing that splits the difference, because they found that the rapid/local frequency split made connections worse and increased overall travel time. And I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that Metro routes aren't long or congested. Personally, in conjunction with all-door boarding, that would make more sense to me than the current plan with the Q46. Union Turnpike traffic isn't gridlocked like Hillside, and most of the worst delay is everyone boarding at the front at Kew Gardens. It would be a lot more efficient if people could just swarm onto any bus at any door for the Q46 given that there are almost always multiple buses at the boarding area anyways during the rush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 15, 2021 Share #1550 Posted February 15, 2021 (edited) 58 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said: What's very interesting about the split into local/subway-dash service is that LA Metro, which is probably the biggest transit agency running the most "limited/rapid" whatever bus routes, is moving in the opposite direction as the MTA on this. LA is mostly going to get rid of the rapid/local distinction altogether, and instead run one service pattern with stop spacing that splits the difference, because they found that the rapid/local frequency split made connections worse and increased overall travel time. And I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that Metro routes aren't long or congested. Personally, in conjunction with all-door boarding, that would make more sense to me than the current plan with the Q46. Union Turnpike traffic isn't gridlocked like Hillside, and most of the worst delay is everyone boarding at the front at Kew Gardens. It would be a lot more efficient if people could just swarm onto any bus at any door for the Q46 given that there are almost always multiple buses at the boarding area anyways during the rush. They just want to force more people on that QT11 by having it additionally serve the more western portion of the Q46; being cheap.... The demand for a route like that is virtually nil..... Lion's share of Q23 riders from the north tank out at Forest Hills subway.... Speaking of which, the northern portion of the Q23 (Forest Hills - E. Elmhurst) would be a successful route by itself.... No plausible reason whatsoever to have a route of sorts (said portion of the Q23 in question) even swinging down to Union Tpke - let alone running along Union Tpke. to ultimately terminate at the Fresh Meadows shopping ctr.... While I don't condone the breaking up of service along Union Tpke. as proposed, I can't concur with the Q46 being solely a LTD route either (which is what it sounds like you're conveying) - regardless of fare payment method.... Hillside doesn't get gridlocked like it used to (even before covid) anymore either, but in regards to Union Tpke., you said it yourself - it doesn't really get bogged down with traffic like that.... So how detrimental (or useless) is local service really along Union Tpke.... I get that everyone wants faster service, but I'm just not as willing to make the sacrifice (or otherwise go all-in with it) by chucking away local coverage so readily as a means of doing so.... See, I find that people like to make like it's the number of stops buses are making that's by far & large the main reason for slower bus speeds, when it's just not the case here in NYC..... Edited February 15, 2021 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.