Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Cain]

One thing that has irked me for a long time is why there is no bus on Roosevelt Ave from 111 St to 74 St, Most of those stations are not even ADA compliant. They could run a circulator route with 2 to 4 buses along this less than 2 mile segment. One major issue NYCT and NYCDOT need to figure out is the intense traffic and double parking here.

[7-express]

10 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

And speaking of the Q44 why is it still detouring through Union street/Parsons Blvd. After Flushing I believe it should travel up Linden Place and use the Whitestone Expressway. It can make a stop at 14th and 20th Ave but speed the thing up for Bronx riders. The Q44 is already one of the longest routes in Queens. 

It serves the population center around Mitchell-Linden and Whitestone and during rush hours, this can actually be faster than the congested Whitestone Expressway.  Also, the Linden Place/Whitestone Expressway intersection isn't exactly artic friendly.

[7-express]

6 hours ago, Cain said:

The Q16 terminating here might be due giving this corridor some coverage as the Q58 is re-routed and Q98 being a SBS.

There is a Rec Center with Pool/skating rink, Western Beef (re-opened) and Home Depot at the loop that the new Q16 route would make. Perhaps bus layover in downtown Flushing is too congested?

P.S. I actually like this change to be honest (and I am biased as I do live off the Q16 and use that gym often).

My concern is that the Q16 might get bogged down in traffic big time.  The intersection of Roosevelt and College Point in front of Skyview can be a huge chore to get through and it could tank reliability.  The Q58 doesn't have those issues since it turns further south on College Point Blvd.

[Cain]

16 minutes ago, 7-express said:

My concern is that the Q16 might get bogged down in traffic big time.  The intersection of Roosevelt and College Point in front of Skyview can be a huge chore to get through and it could tank reliability.  The Q58 doesn't have those issues since it turns further south on College Point Blvd.

College Pt and Roosevelt has needed some new infrastructure there for years since the Skyview Mall was built... That place needs an overpass (or tunnel?) to handle the foot traffic going towards the mall. Also the intersection should eliminate that "middle area" where cars get stuck causing gridlock and add new traffic and light pattern to allow for turning cars. Widen the road on Roosevelt Ave going east on the mall side to allow for three lanes (left turn, go straight, right turn), that sidewalk does not see much foot traffic.

They have the new Q58 and Q16 turning into here and I can only see this as a choke point if these fixes are not added.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Alright, so here's my final set of comments regarding proposals in this plan. You can read my comments on routes in Central Queens and Northeast Queens in the corresponding links. Feel free to respond if you wish. I'll probably respond to some other comments later on. 

Jamaica, SE & SW Queens

Q1/Q6 Combo - I feel like some of the MTA folks came here over the years, looked at some of the comments made about the Q1, and then did the exact opposite. I personally don't know how I feel over this, I get wanting to improve / increase access to JFK in SE Queens but I think there's other way to do that. Regardless, I don't think Braddock Avenue should be / remain part of the Q1. Have such a route terminate at Springfield Boulevard, no way Braddock Avenue deserves the headways that they are proposing. I actually would create a separate route for Braddock Avenue, but not tie it to Jamaica (I don't feel like there's too much demand towards Jamaica from that section to begin with, and there might be more demand to points north). Here's how I would do it:

• Q1: 165th Street Bus Terminal to Hillside Blvd & Springfield Blvd, daytime local 
• Q6: 165th Street Bus Terminal to JFK Cargo Plaza or North Boundary Road
• Q82: Braddock Ave & 243rd Street to Union Turnpike  station, via Braddock Ave, Springfield Blvd, Union Turnpike (Local)
  • Runs from 5 AM - 1 AM Daily, every 10 minutes rush hours, 15 minutes off peak on weekdays, every 20 minutes off peak on weekends
• Q46 & Q48: I would slightly increase the headways to every 15 minutes off peak on weekdays for each (7.5 minutes combined). Also, I would look towards potentially increasing the 'rush' / LTD section for both routes on weekdays to Springfield Boulevard, since the Q1 would operate local service.

Also, you don't need a Q1/Q6 combo and the Q43 on Hillside during late night hours. This is why I personally would have split that red combo route, just for the sake of consistent pattern. Anyways, I would retain most of the existing Q36 as is, and have the Q82 designation used for the Braddock Ave route (see my comments). During overnight hours, the Q36 would be local with the Q43. 

I wouldn't outright cut the Boundary Road part of the existing Q6. You could have the Q7 serve it, but I do think that perhaps buses should branch between Cargo Plaza (current Q7 terminal) and North Boundary Road (current Q6 terminal). The proposed headways would be frequent enough to have decent service on each of the branches. The other option would be to extend the Q115 to Boundary Road. 

Q5, Q85, Q86 - Alright, so they're sending the Q5 to serve both its Rosedale Branch and the Q85s Rosedale Branch, on top of extending it down to Huxley Street to provide more coverage in Rosedale. I definitely agree with the decision with improving access in Rosedale, it's kinda ridiculous that the Q111 is the only thing in that part of Rosedale. It would have been kinda interesting if their proposed Q5 route was labeled Q86 instead. Interesting that they have the Q85 apparently operate 24/7 to Green Acres Mall. 

Q7 - I don't have a problem with it serving Boundary Road, but I have it problem with it being a replacement to the Q6. Also, I think a connection to/from the B13 at Crescent Street would have been more beneficial than sending it to 75th Street . This would make it a long(er) route than what is proposed, but thoughts on having it serve Crescent Street, then operating it to Ridgewood Terminal via Cypress Avenue? 

One other thing, is that they have the map wrong on that northern end, since Eldert Lane is a one-way northbound, and 75th Street is a one-way southbound. They have the Q7 doing the reverse on that map, although the stop list suggests its going down the correct alignment on those streets. 

Q8 - So I guess they're not going with sending it to Brookdale? Well, if this is the trade-off for not having it basically skip almost all of 101st Avenue, then I guess that's not so bad. Interesting choice with having New Lots Ave  as the terminal, wonder how that would do in the long run.

Q9, Q10/Q64 Combo, Q37 - While I'm okay with extending the Q9, I don't believe that it should come at the expense of the Q10. They're also having the Q37 slightly replace it too, but I'm still not sold on that. There really was no need to toy with that part of the Q10 IMO. Also the Q10/Q64 I find unnecessary, especially since most points from areas along the Q64 to points along the Q10 could be reached in a similar amount of time, if not faster by taking any of the north-south routes to either some other route in Jamaica. Making it a one-seat ride doesn't make it all of a sudden faster, because it has to go out to Forest Hills first, then go down Queens Boulevard, and then down Lefferts. Furthermore, how many riders actually benefit fro such service? I think it's best to keep those two routes separate. 

Q24 - I would probably keep the route as it currently is, with the exception of doing what they proposed with the Jamaica turnaround. I disagree with cutting the route to Broadway Junction for the sake of creating this B53, not with it at all. If they manage to revert something up there from Queens in later drafts, something tells me they would instead do it with the Q56 instead of the Q24 because it parallels the  more and due to the ADA access point they brought up with the B53. No matter what though, having the Q24 or the Q56 up to WBP would be brutal. 

Q36, Q57, Q82 - I'm fine with the Q2 serving UBS Arena from Hillside Ave, but there's no need for two Hillside Avenue services both serving UBS Arena and Hempstead Avenue. I'm still not all with that Q57 route, but at the very least, I would flip the terminals on the eastern end (Q57 ends at UBS Arena, Q82 ends in Floral Park). This is for two reasons, one of them being how long that Q57 is. The second one is, if you're gonna serve UBS Arena and provide service for workers (from NYC) headed there, the Q57 reaches a lot more areas directly, whereas the Q82 serves many of the same general areas the Q2 does. Also, I would rename the Q82 back to the Q36, and provide overnight service. The one thing is having the Q36 operate every 40 minutes similar to the Q43, that way combined Q36/Q43 service overnight on Hillside Avenue is every 20 minutes. That would also mean it would be ideal to connect it with the  at 179th Street. 

The Q82 would be used for a Braddock Avenue - Union Turnpike route instead (see Q1 comments).

Q42 - This looks like a somewhat humble/decent proposal at first glance route-wise, until you see the specifics of service levels. They have off-peak service on weekdays being every 60 minutes or better??? Also, when is it better than 60 minutes, and what would those frequencies be? Anyways, on Saturdays I would actually start this route around 6:30 AM or 7:00 AM, and have service run until 11:00-11:30 PM. Sundays I would have service start at 7 AM, and end at 11 PM (so basically shifting the service spans an hour later). I would also expand weekday service until 11 PM at the very least. Additionally, you could also have the Q65 operate to Addisleigh Park via the Q42 instead of Liberty Avenue. It would be almost a similar runtime with the Q65, and would provide more frequent and 24/7 service in that area for less funds than how they sorted it out there. 

Q43 - Not opposed to the frequency changes or the LTD / 'rush' segment. Perhaps during evenings and definitely late nights though, I would have it as a local. Traffic isn't as much of an issue and ridership is much lighter during those time periods. 

Q44 - I'm not opposed to having it go to Fordham, but that's gonna make it a pretty long route, on top of it being the workhorse it currently is. How long would this route be, and would it beat the S78 in length?

Q51 - Personally I think it may be headed too far along the Q4, I think that perhaps ending it with the Q26 would be sufficient. Also I think the off-peak headways on weekdays for such a route is a little too frequent. I'd be willing to give a chance and see how demand from SW Queens (& SE Queens in the process) to Gateway Mall picks up, but if it were not to do too well, I would cut it back to Rockaway Boulevard. Either that, or swap the routing along Sutter Ave to Euclid Ave  with the proposed Q109. 

Q77 - I can't really comment too much on this route because I don't know how many people would be affected by such a change, but the one thing I'm wondering is if they'll still provide school trippers from 145th Ave or not. 

Q78 - I've read comments from some which aren't too hot on this proposal, and others who are. Generally speaking, I'm good with this proposal, especially since the Q26 covers most of the Q27s stint on Springfield Blvd. The one suggestion would probably to extend service into JFK (Cargo Plaza), but that's about it. 

Q83 - The way they have this route doing that 'rush' portion I can't agree with, especially when it drags the Q65 into it, that far out. Like I said in the Q42 part, I would probably have the Q65 operate to Addisleigh Park if anything, because it would provide more service for about the same resources. The Q83 also doesn't need a 'rush' pattern like that 24/7. 

Q109 - So they relabeled the Q41 into the Q109 although it's not insanely different? Interesting. I wouldn't have the route down the same backtrack the Q112 does to get into Jamaica Center though. I would keep it serving Jamaica LIRR, and then serve Jamaica Center. I'm perfectly fine with cutting the route off from Lindenwood and Howard Beach, the Q21 should be the one local route doing that and I'm glad that's why they decided to do with this plan. Sending the route to Euclid Avenue though, I can't really comment on that. 

Also, too bad the full map of the redesign labeled 109th Avenue as '100th Ave' LOL. 

Q111, Q114, Q115 - Okay, so what they're doing here, there's parts I like and don't like. First off, the Q111 and Q114 virtually express from Farmers Blvd to Liberty Avenue (I know the Q114 would have a stop at Linden), is something that could work during rush hours. But I question the need to have it during off-peak hours. What I would do, is have either the Q111 or Q114 make LTD stops during the daytime, while the other one goes express from Farmers Blvd to Liberty during rush hours, and join the other as a LTD during other daytime periods . I would say to have the 114 make LTD stops as is (because it goes to ridership generators in both directions - Jamaica, 5 Towns, and Far Rockaway), and have the Q111 be the express during rush hours since it mainly serves residential areas south of Farmers (and during off-peak hours it would run LTD). So during rush hours, I would have buses signed up as Q111X to differentiate it from Q111 Local/LTD service. 

During overnight hours, though, I wouldn't have the Q111, Q114, and Q115 all running overnight as they propose, as that would be a waste. This seems to be a common theme that they overdo it with the whole local/limited/rush pattern, where routes somehow cannot have different service patterns depending on the time of day. During the overnight hours, I would have the Q111 and Q114 run local, and run them with the same frequencies as they currently have (every 30 minutes each - every 15 combined). Maybe have a small period of overlap when the Q111, Q114, and Q115 all operate local together at night & early morning depending on when LTD service runs, but that's about it. 

For example, like say from 4:30 AM to 6:30 AM on Saturday, you decide to provide a similar service level to existing ones on Brewer towards Jamaica, but you think LTD service is excessive, you could have say the Q111, Q114, and Q115 (the way I would have it, is a route from JFK Airport) all operate every 30 minutes, meaning service operates every 10 minutes combined. 

With the Q115, I don't mind it as a route, but I would actually consider to send it to North Boundary Road in JFK Airport, via Farmers Blvd. 

 

Western Queens

B24 Dissolving, B32, B53, B62, Q68, Q104 - I'm deciding to tackle all of these together because what I had in mind affects all those routes.

First off I'm perfectly fine with breaking up the B24 into two routes. Although I'm generally okay with the Q68 proposal as it is, I don't like what they did with the eastern end, and that is essentially mesh it into a B24/B32 combo, and then send it down Broadway to Broadway Junction. JFC...that's brutal. I also do think that there's some merit in providing a Williamsburg - Greenpoint - Astoria, and have seen some transferring being done between B62 and Q66/Q69 in the past. However, I do not think the B62 should be the route. Also speaking about the B62, really, they're running it on McGuinness?? You gotta be kidding me. 

So where the Q104 comes into all of this, is because I'm planning to create a route which combines the 48th Street portion of the Q104 and the Greenpoint Avenue segment of the B24, with a little variation. Here's a map of my proposal, which are the following:

• B32 - WBP to Astoria Projects, serving more of Manhattan Avenue than the existing route, serving parts of Vernon Blvd before touching Court Square (5 AM - 11 PM to Astoria, 6 AM - 12 AM to Williamsburg Daily)
• B62 - Downtown Brooklyn to Queens Plaza, serving Manhattan Avenue. It would also operate via Jay Street, Sands Streets, and Flushing Ave (their proposal has nothing serving the projects besides the B69 and the B67 (weekdays).
• B104 - Nassau Avenue  to Broadway & Northern Blvd, via Greenpoint Ave & 48th Street. Offers connections to the B43 and B48 for Williamsburg (not served by the B32 or B62) Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, and Prospect-Lefferts Gardens

The B53 I would personally scrap, even as WBP - Broadway Junction route. The Q104 would either run from Roosevelt Island to Broadway & Northern, or according to one of my alternative plans, would be merged with the Q66. I would also probably try to get RIOC operate their bus service up to Bird S. Coler, honestly the ridership the Q102 gets up there doesn't even warrant having buses go up there (it's a pretty long deviation), although I wouldn't outright get rid of it with no other service going there. 

Q18 - I don't agree with straightening it out the way they have it. Straighter is not always better, and there's quite a bit of riders getting on buses at Calamus Avenue and at Garfield/50th Avenues on 69th Street. The grid also is very broken in that area, so that's why they have buses operating like that. I might be one of the few to have this opinion, but that's where I stand on it. The only thing I would change is having buses take Borden Avenue instead of Jay Avenue, meaning that I would have Q18 terminate at the existing westbound Q67 stop at Borden & Grand (instead of an 69th & Grand).

Q39, Q103, Q105  - While I'm not against a split of the Q103, I'm really not with how they went about this. I don't know how I feel about having the Q39 existing north/west of Queens Plaza taking on the Q103 . I get it replaces parts of the Q103, but IDK if that's the way to do it.  Also, if the Q39 is gonna replace the Q67 in Maspeth, then it also better operate on 53rd Drive. That area is very hilly, and is cut off from Borden Ave. Like I said in my previous comments, if that span of service remains, the Q67 better operate via 48th Avenue at night instead of via Borden Ave between Van Dam and 48th Street. 

I'm generally okay with the Q105 route, but I still think that there should be a connection to the  . Furthermore, I don't agree with leaving Vernon Boulevard just south of Queensbridge with nothing, and I think there's more demand for Hunters Point South and the LIC Waterfront along 31st Street than along Northern Boulevard. I would kill three birds with one stone and have the Q105 operate to Queensbridge, down Vernon Boulevard to the , and on to the Waterfront at Hunters Point. Existing Q102 riders to Roosevelt Island can either take the Q105 to the  at Queensbridge or take it to Broadway for the bus to Roosevelt Island. 

Q63, Q66, Q80 - I'm personally not a fan of this route for various reasons. This route seems like various individual purposes just being merged into one route. It's objectively worse than the former Q63 in the first draft. It replaces the Q66 on the western part of its route, and acts as a Broadway crosstown on the eastern end. The problem is that Grand Avenue is not all that, while Woodhaven Blvd / Queens Center Mall is (which it misses). While I'm personally glad there's still a bus connection from LIC to Jackson Heights and Flushing via the Q66, the Q63 looks like it would perform kinda meh on paper, especially considering that the Q52 and Q53 both serve Broadway (south of Roosevelt Ave). 

I've thought about it a little more, and what I would do with this route is terminate it at Queensbridge on the eastern end, because there's really no point with the Q66 in the draft proposed to also serve Queens Plaza and Hunters Point South (although I don't think it should go all the way there, I've suggested to send it to Columbus Circle instead). What I would do though. On the eastern end, I would change it (drastically) by sending it via Roosevelt Avenue to Main Street. If you want service up to Grand Ave, the Q52, Q53, and the Q80 (my proposed version of it) would provide that service.

In response, I would have the Q80 operate to Jackson Heights via Broadway, so that Middle Village and Glendale riders still get access to the , and now also have direct access to Elmhurst Hospital for the first time (which is difficult to do currently if you don't live near the Q53). And no, having riders get off at Grand Avenue is not adequate because the  is atrocious, doesn't stop at Elmhurst Hospital, and makes what is currently a 15-20 minute trip to Jackson Heights (outside rush hours) into a much longer trip. People go to Jackson Heights as well, not just for the subway, and of those who take the subway, many more would rather get off at Roosevelt Ave than dealing with waiting for the  train and then taking Q38 or Q29 buses. What I would also potentially consider is having Q80 buses extended south to 85th Street - Forest Parkway , for connectivity purposes and to give riders another option for Lower Manhattan, and Brooklyn from parts of Glendale (instead of taking or backtracking on the Q54/Q55 to the , and then transferring again). 

Here's a map of what I would do.

Q69 - I'm not opposed to having such a 'rush' pattern, although it won't be necessary all the time. Personally, I would have provided a LTD service during daytime hours (6 AM - 9 PM on weekdays, 8 AM - 8 PM on weekends) from 30th Avenue to Vernon Blvd (7), since there would be more overlap with the B32. I would have buses stop at the following locations:

• 30th Avenue
• Broadway
• 36th Avenue
• 41st Avenue
• Court Square (44th Drive)
• Vernon Blvd - Jackson Avenue  

And to/from Hunters Point South. Since the B32 would not operate 24/7 like the B62 would have along 21st Street, I would have provided the Q69 with overnight service, making all stops.

Lack of Bronx - Western Queens Service - I'm kinda disappointed that such a service wasn't devised. Clearly it didn't happen with the Bronx redesign, so if it doesn't happen now it's not gonna occur this way. I think there's demand for such a route. I would design a route (labeled Q71), which operates between Elmhurst Hospital, Jackson Heights, Woodside, Astoria, and The Hub.

Here's a map of the route. It would be a LTD service, operating between 6 AM and 12 AM on weekdays, 7 AM to 12 AM on Saturdays, 8 AM to 11 PM on Sundays. I would start it off with 15 minute headways during rush hours, 20 minutes during middays, and 30 minutes at all other hours. Then if there's more demand as a result later on, add service as necessary.

Edited April 2, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Cait Sith]

15 hours ago, IAlam said:

 

I wouldn't say that a bad idea from a coverage stand point. But I can already see drivers struggling to cross over with Van Wyck traffic causing delays.
 

 

This I was about to mention this, I can see seasonal rider ship on the Q16 with people using this to get from the park to Main St Sta. the current Q58 isn't very useful for people going to the park facilities and friends would constantly complain about the hike from Mets or Flushing when trying to go there. I told them about the proposed change and they already love it.

I don't.

I see the Stengel deadheads every day and they manage with the Van Wyck traffic just fine lol. Won't be much of a struggle for them really. They just gotta go straight down Queens Blvd, right on Hillside and left onto the service road.

The only stupid thing about any route terminating at Jamaica-Van Wyck/Jamaica Hospital, is the turnaround. It's clear that they have no good idea as to what to do with Jamaica Hospital now that they straightened out the Q24. Using it as a terminal is already a bad idea as it stands.

 

6 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Q8 - So I guess they're not going with sending it to Brookdale? Well, if this is the trade-off for not having it basically skip almost all of 101st Avenue, then I guess that's not so bad. Interesting choice with having New Lots Ave  as the terminal, wonder how that would do in the long run.

 

Q24 - I would probably keep the route as it currently is, with the exception of doing what they proposed with the Jamaica turnaround. I disagree with cutting the route to Broadway Junction for the sake of creating this B53, not with it at all. If they manage to revert something up there from Queens in later drafts, something tells me they would instead do it with the Q56 instead of the Q24 because it parallels the  more and due to the ADA access point they brought up with the B53. No matter what though, having the Q24 or the Q56 up to WBP would be brutal. 

Q36, Q57, Q82 - I'm fine with the Q2 serving UBS Arena from Hillside Ave, but there's no need for two Hillside Avenue services both serving UBS Arena and Hempstead Avenue. I'm still not all with that Q57 route, but at the very least, I would flip the terminals on the eastern end (Q57 ends at UBS Arena, Q82 ends in Floral Park). This is for two reasons, one of them being how long that Q57 is. The second one is, if you're gonna serve UBS Arena and provide service for workers (from NYC) headed there, the Q57 reaches a lot more areas directly, whereas the Q82 serves many of the same general areas the Q2 does. Also, I would rename the Q82 back to the Q36, and provide overnight service. The one thing is having the Q36 operate every 40 minutes similar to the Q43, that way combined Q36/Q43 service overnight on Hillside Avenue is every 20 minutes. That would also mean it would be ideal to connect it with the  at 179th Street.

I still stand with the prediction that the Q8 to New Lots is a precursor of what will happen to the B15. Anything is better than the first draft proposal of the line. Sending it to Brookdale didn't make much sense from the jump. It just felt like an excuse to have an express-type service going there.

For the Q24, cutting it back from Broadway Junction actually means that it might run properly again. Before it was extended back to Lafayette, it actually ran better and bunched less. The B53 is an excuse for them to give the B32 the kibosh(and I still say that should've went to Astoria instead of the B62), that's all it really is honestly.

The Q57...while I still disagree with the merger and extension....the stop spacing they did along Liberty was actually sensible(for once). Liberty Avenue traffic and double parking will make the line insufferable, and I'm ready to see the shenanigans(if this actually goes through). This merger, along with the Q10/Q64 merger are two ideas that could've been done way, way better.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Cait Sith

[checkmatechamp13]

21 hours ago, Kingsbridgeviewer382 said:

I've seen and ridden Q48's that were pretty packed so its a bit farfetched to say that it carries air. Also, the Q50 is only going to Co-Op City during rush hours when the Bronx re-design takes effect in late June, so I can see why the MTA is going for a LaGuardia extension for the Q50. It can be argued that it should skip Flushing entirely, but that would anger those in The Bronx that stay all the way to Flushing and vice-versa.

Were they packed coming into/out of LaGuardia, or on the Corona/Flushing segment?

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Q44 - I'm not opposed to having it go to Fordham, but that's gonna make it a pretty long route, on top of it being the workhorse it currently is. How long would this route be, and would it beat the S78 in length?

It definitely wouldn't beat the S78 in length. The last I recall, the S78 was something like 17.8 miles, while the Q44 is only 14 and change. So a roughly 1 mile extension wouldn't make it longer than the S78 (the S74 might still be longer. I think that's like 16 and change offhand)

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Also, too bad the full map of the redesign labeled 109th Avenue as '100th Ave' LOL. 

Word...probably somebody not familiar with that part of Queens was reading off some handwritten notes or something. The same way the S93 used to list a transfer to the B20 (instead of B70) at 92nd & Fort Hamilton Parkway.

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Q18 - I don't agree with straightening it out the way they have it. Straighter is not always better, and there's quite a bit of riders getting on buses at Calamus Avenue and at Garfield/50th Avenues on 69th Street. The grid also is very broken in that area, so that's why they have buses operating like that. I might be one of the few to have this opinion, but that's where I stand on it. The only thing I would change is having buses take Borden Avenue instead of Jay Avenue, meaning that I would have Q18 terminate at the existing westbound Q67 stop at Borden & Grand (instead of an 69th & Grand).

The street grid isn't broken in that part of Maspeth. There's through streets between 69th Street & 65th Place roughly every quarter mile...there's quarter-mile residential blocks in my neighborhood and somehow we manage.

That being said, there's a bus route on both 65th Place and 69th Street, so it's not like the current scenario where one route is attempting to cover both corridors by meandering between the two. Q47/B57 connect to QBL express trains, the Q18 connects to the  and LIRR, both connect to the QBL local trains, and for the few that need the opposite connection, they can walk to the other corridor (or use the Q32/Q70 or  between those points). 

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I'm generally okay with the Q105 route, but I still think that there should be a connection to the  . Furthermore, I don't agree with leaving Vernon Boulevard just south of Queensbridge with nothing, and I think there's more demand for Hunters Point South and the LIC Waterfront along 31st Street than along Northern Boulevard. I would kill three birds with one stone and have the Q105 operate to Queensbridge, down Vernon Boulevard to the , and on to the Waterfront at Hunters Point. Existing Q102 riders to Roosevelt Island can either take the Q105 to the  at Queensbridge or take it to Broadway for the bus to Roosevelt Island. 

The immediate area south of the Queensboro Bridge is rather desolate. I don't think it's worth extending the Q105 from Queensboro Plaza just to cover that little pocket (when the Q69 is already covering the more lively portion of Vernon Blvd). 

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Lack of Bronx - Western Queens Service - I'm kinda disappointed that such a service wasn't devised. Clearly it didn't happen with the Bronx redesign, so if it doesn't happen now it's not gonna occur this way. I think there's demand for such a route. I would design a route (labeled Q71), which operates between Elmhurst Hospital, Jackson Heights, Woodside, Astoria, and The Hub.

Here's a map of the route. It would be a LTD service, operating between 6 AM and 12 AM on weekdays, 7 AM to 12 AM on Saturdays, 8 AM to 11 PM on Sundays. I would start it off with 15 minute headways during rush hours, 20 minutes during middays, and 30 minutes at all other hours. Then if there's more demand as a result later on, add service as necessary.

I'd just run it straight up I-278 (get off at Astoria Blvd and have a stop at Steinway Street and at 31st Street) and then keep going to The Hub. But I definitely agree they should've made a route from western Queens to The Hub.

@Union Tpke

Quote

I definitely think the proposed QT47 via Lakewood Avenue & 130th Street was a better route than the present-day Q9. More centralized within the neighborhood, and down a more suitable street (130th Street is wider than Lincoln Street, and the Van Wyck Expressway divides the neighborhood in that area). Especially considering that it's being extended down 130th Street on the southern end anyway. If they're worried about reliability of service along Liberty Avenue, they can just add some "Q57" short-turns between Jamaica & Lefferts Blvd and call it a day.

Why do you think they changed it?

My guess is that they wanted a route covering part of Liberty Avenue as a backup to the proposed Q57 (Since that route would be coming from eastern Queens). But even if they wanted that, they could've just shifted it over to 130th Street south of 109th Avenue, instead of Rockaway Blvd.

Quote

The Q10, I don't think it needs to be combined with the Q64, but as mentioned, there's a little bit of logic to the combination.

It will be weird that the westbound stop will be east of Union Tpke at 80th Road, while the eastbound stop will be at 78th/Union. It makes sense, given that there is no space at the south side of 80th Road/Kew Gardens Road, but it will be weird. This would significantly change the balance of users at the subway station. The 78th Avenue mezzanine/end will become packed. I wonder if some people will board the Q10 heading south at Forest Hills to get a better chance of getting the seat.

Looking at some other comments, I think a Q46/Q10 combination makes more sense to accomplish the purpose of connecting the Q10 with the Q44. (I knew northbound would be fairly straightforward, but it didn't occur to me that southbound buses could simply make a loop on 77th Avenue to get from the north side of Queens Blvd to the south side). 

In that case, the present-day Q10 riders would board where the Q46 riders board, but the Q46 riders would board where the present-day Q10 riders board, so passenger loads should be fairly even).

But yes, under the proposed Q10/Q64 combination, I would imagine that a certain amount of riders would simply exit at Forest Hills to avoid the hassle at Kew Gardens (especially those coming from the QBL local trains). 

Quote

The Q11, should still be tied in with Woodhaven Blvd. I think leaving it as a standalone shuttle (especially at those frequencies) will just have people staying on the  train all the way to Howard Beach.

Wouldn't that have been duplicative?

Not any more than the present-day Q15/15A are duplicative, or the Q46 branches are duplicative. If there's demand for a certain frequency of buses along a corridor, I wouldn't consider having some branches at the outer end to be duplicative.

That being said, the Q11 doesn't necessarily have to join the Q11 at Rockaway Blvd (as proposed) or Pitkin Avenue (current setup). You could have it run through Lindenwood with the Q21, and then run across 157th Avenue to continue towards Hamilton Beach/Old Howard Beach. (Long story short, I think the Woodhaven local route should have three branches. Whether you want to call it Q11, Q21, Q21A, etc doesn't make a difference).

For those riders strictly looking to head to the train at Rockaway Blvd (which again, if they're in that much of a hurry, they're probably already walking it out to the Howard Beach station anyway), it might take a few extra minutes, but for anybody looking to reach points north along Woodhaven Blvd, it would save them the transfer. (Plus, if they implement a three-legged transfer policy, riders in a hurry would be able to transfer to the Q52/53 at 157th Avenue, instead of having to wait until Pitkin Avenue or Rockaway Blvd).

Quote

I think they still should've branched the Q12 and had some buses run along Marathon Parkway.

Why not revert to the original draft proposal given that the N20G already serves areas on the City Line?d connection?

They could. They'd just have to make an arrangement to make sure that the open-door segment starts at Marathon Parkway instead of Glenwood Street. (Since the Q43 is taking away a good chunk of n26 passengers from NICE, they could get them back at the last couple of stops on Northern Blvd by the City Line). 

Quote

For the Q13, I think the QT51 routing (basically, a Crocheron/35th Avenue route) was fine. It just needed to run full-time.

Why do you think that route is superior?

It provides coverage along 35th Avenue, and also a more direct route from Bayside to Flushing (rather than dipping down to Northern & Bell)

Quote

The Q16/61/62 split doesn't make any sense. I think the original plan for the QT85 (basically, a Q16/Q28 combination) was a good idea. And then just run the QT48/49 (proposed Q61/62) full-time.

What are they even thinking with the Q16/61/62? What frequency would you have these routes run at?

For the Q16/28 combination, I'd probably run at the present-day Q28 frequencies, and then go from there.

For the QT48/49, probably every 15 minutes peak, 20-30 minutes off-peak to start.

For the QT51, probably every 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak to start.

Quote

I still think the Q67 should run down Hunterspoint Avenue instead of Borden Avenue. I also think it should be truncated to end at Court Square.

What do you think about the loss of the direct Sunnyside-Ridgewood connection?

If the Q67 ran down Hunterspoint Avenue (at least as far as Greenpoint Avenue), you'd at least be able to get to LaGuardia Community College and the western (more industrial) part of Sunnyside. I definitely think the Q67 should at least do that to avoid the traffic backups at Borden & Van Dam. 

East of Greenpoint Avenue, the question becomes whether to dip back down to Borden Avenue, or go a little further into Sunnyside along 48th Avenue (which would leave the Q39 as basically a supplemental route between LIC & Maspeth). Back when the original plan came out, I suggested just flat-out combining the two routes between LIC & Maspeth, and just having a branch at both ends (one towards Middle Village, and one towards Ridgewood). 

[Cain]

18 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Lack of Bronx - Western Queens Service - I'm kinda disappointed that such a service wasn't devised. Clearly it didn't happen with the Bronx redesign, so if it doesn't happen now it's not gonna occur this way. I think there's demand for such a route. I would design a route (labeled Q71), which operates between Elmhurst Hospital, Jackson Heights, Woodside, Astoria, and The Hub.

Here's a map of the route. It would be a LTD service, operating between 6 AM and 12 AM on weekdays, 7 AM to 12 AM on Saturdays, 8 AM to 11 PM on Sundays. I would start it off with 15 minute headways during rush hours, 20 minutes during middays, and 30 minutes at all other hours. Then if there's more demand as a result later on, add service as necessary.

I am a little disappointed in this too - in MTA's mind, they think the M60-SBS would take care of such trips but headways are not great and Queens connections to the rest of the borough are terrible. I dare say make that Bx to NW Queens route into a super limited or "SBS" and skip a stop in certain stretches except for the end few stops that matter. It would alleviate some of the pressure on the Lexington line for such trips and would be the most forward thinking thing since the IBX.

[GojiMet86]

Local Bus map:

https://new.mta.info/document/79621

Express Bus map:

https://new.mta.info/document/79626

[limitednyc]

Do we really need the the b57 to be extended  Jackson hieghts?

Edited April 3, 2022 by limitednyc

[Lawrence St]

Did they change the Q35 to end at the ferry terminal?

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, limitednyc said:

Do we really need the the b57 to be extended  Jackson hieghts?

 

That much of an extension seems unnecessary; it would merely subject the  to additional congestion and delays. Maybe extend it to only as far as Grand/69th to connect with . 

 

Ditto for :  It doesn't need an extension to Astoria if  also gets extended there. 

 

Plus, the resources being budgeted for the  and  extensions might be better used for additional service elsewhere in Queens.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

47 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Did they change the Q35 to end at the ferry terminal?

 

Looks like it.

[limitednyc]

10 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

That much of an extension seems unnecessary; it would merely subject the  to additional congestion and delays. Maybe extend it to only as far as Grand/69th to connect with . 

 

Ditto for :  It doesn't need an extension to Astoria if  also gets extended there. 

 

Plus, the resources being budgeted for the  and  extensions might be better used for additional service elsewhere in Queens.

If u want astoria to Williamsburg just  have the b62 via current  routing. And extend the b42 north to QBP and south to downtown  Brooklyn via current b62 with the proposed bypass of the projects.

[checkmatechamp13]

3 hours ago, limitednyc said:

Do we really need the the b57 to be extended  Jackson hieghts?

I would say so. Remember that they're also cutting it back on the Downtown Brooklyn end. But with Jackson Heights being the main hub that it is, a route to Brooklyn (and one to The Bronx for that matter) makes a lot of sense.

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Did they change the Q35 to end at the ferry terminal?

They did.

 

[R32 3838]

I made a list of the routes on which Depots they could come out of, I wonder if i should post it here or in a separate thread?

 

Nothing much changes with an exception of the merged or new routes.

 

I think the majority of the routes will still be at their respective depots.

 

 

 

 

[MysteriousBtrain]

28 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I would say so. Remember that they're also cutting it back on the Downtown Brooklyn end.

The "limited" routes are loosely defined here. For years limited routes were designed similar to how the "rush" routes run here, limited stops one segment, local the other (ex. M2, Q43, B35). Here, it just looks like it's a local that has many stops removed. So that could be extremely misleading when the workshop begins to take place. The B57 they have proposed here looks exactly like that. 

Looking closer, it doesn't look like the B57 proposed now is as bad as I thought it would be, but I still have a tiny bit of concern as to how reliable it actually would be. I can say that the B62 has no business serving Astoria and needs its own segment between Williamsburg and Astoria, which I would propose as the rush route Q92 and make the Q69 make all stops instead. 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Did they change the Q35 to end at the ferry terminal?

Yeah, and for that specific purpose, it's going to be futile.... Brooklynites aren't remotely thinking about backtracking to Queens to catch a f***ing boat to get to Manhattan.... Folks in Roxbury, Neponsit, and Belle Harbor will simply drive to, or have someone drive them to the ferry, over waiting for a bus from Brooklyn... At worst, they'll consider that ferry shuttle (which is 1] free & 2] also runs along Rockaway Beach Blvd....

Very poor place to have 1 (let alone 2) bus routes ending in that immediate vicinity... Folks coming from Brooklyn on the Q35 will simply bolt at the Beach 115th stop to get to the (first, current) Q53 stop back north, or for the EB Q22.... The logic/phenomenon will be no different than the current scenario that has people bolting for Q22's over there by the old Neponsit Hospital site (the stop before the EB B. 149th st stop)... Being that they're stripping buses from running on Newport (basically nullifying terminating it where it currently does), the next best thing would've been to end them on B. 116th - but there's no space for that with the Q53 ending on that side of the block...

Not for nothing, but some Q22 drivers DH-ing from the depot, park over there by the ferry terminal before heading over to B. 116th to start Q22 service back east....

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I would say so. Remember that they're also cutting it back on the Downtown Brooklyn end. But with Jackson Heights being the main hub that it is, a route to Brooklyn (and one to The Bronx for that matter) makes a lot of sense.

Quite honestly, I don't really foresee too much interborough patronage specifically to/from Jackson Hgts. on the B57 (which is a less ambitious QT4)...

What I will say though, is that running buses up from Grand av. to Roosevelt av. is a far better use of mileage than running buses b/w Downtown & Red Hook via the current B57... Problem with today's B57 b/w that stretch is that the B61 between those same two points is far superior... There's just way too many subway-first minded people around Court/Smith in Carroll Gdns.... Both of which is why I've advocated for axing that part of the B57 & why I never sided with extending B57's to Red Hook to begin with - regardless of how long it ended up making the route.... Most Red Hook patrons that use the B57 interchangeably with the Park Slope bound B61 are off the bus by time it hits Smith-9th subway, similar to the riding pattern of the old B77....

1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

I made a list of the routes on which Depots they could come out of, I wonder if i should post it here or in a separate thread?

Nothing much changes with an exception of the merged or new routes.

I think the majority of the routes will still be at their respective depots.

I'm interested to see what you got cooked up regarding this..... You can post it up in here, fam.

50 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

The "limited" routes are loosely defined here. For years limited routes were designed similar to how the "rush" routes run here, limited stops one segment, local the other (ex. M2, Q43, B35). Here, it just looks like it's a local that has many stops removed. So that could be extremely misleading when the workshop begins to take place. The B57 they have proposed here looks exactly like that. 

Looking closer, it doesn't look like the B57 proposed now is as bad as I thought it would be, but I still have a tiny bit of concern as to how reliable it actually would be. I can say that the B62 has no business serving Astoria and needs its own segment between Williamsburg and Astoria, which I would propose as the rush route Q92 and make the Q69 make all stops instead. 

These subway dash routes are nothing like LTD routes... They're structured more similarly to our express buses (with expresses making the stops that they do, before hightailing it to Manhattan)... Replace Manhattan with "the subway" in that statement & you have these subway dash routes.... LTD routes of course, typically stopped at xfer points along a route (making them faster than the corresponding local variant)... That said, I do agree with you that these red routes are basically green routes that make less stops... They're more like super locals (LOL) than they are conventional LTD's... Can't speak for anyone else, but I've just been classifying them as LTD's for discussion purposes....

Right now I'm cooking (as in, commenting on these proposals)... I'm up to the Q12... I'm just going to stop there for now & continue the rest of the routes later.... What the Queens part of the plan has in store for Brooklyn so far, I find to be underwhelming.... The brightest spot to me is the Q8 shift to New Lots ... Between the proposed prefixed 'B' routes (B53, B57, B62), I'd say the B57 is still the better of the 3 ideas...

Edited April 3, 2022 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

Since I was asked, well here are my assessments of this rendition of the redesign... IDK how many parts this is going to take.

 

Q1 & Q43: This focus with wanting to have a route serve significant portions of busy corridors (plural) is the epitome of frugality (and that's putting it very mildly).... There isn't a plausible reason in the world otherwise with linking as much of Hillside to most of Sutphin with this Q1... They're using it as an infill (which is a common theme in this redesign - regardless of which draft) along Hillside av. to have the Q43 become a "subway-dash" route b/w LIRR Jamaica & LIJ Hospital, when simply:

• extending the Q43 to LIJ
• axing the Q1
• creating a short turn branch of the Q43 to Braddock
• ....and running the Q6 to the general area around Cargo rd. via the Q7 south of Rockaway blvd. (instead of the current routing to the JFK postal facility)

...would've more than sufficed - even if they wanted to have the Q43 solely operate as a Hillside av. skip-stop service... I don't want to hear shit about about that notion lacking simplicity either, because a decent amount of the routes they're proposing are completely devoid of the very simplicity they're using as a talking point in lieu of improving the network.... Anyway, being that the idea is to have the Q43 operate as a subway-dash route (while there are most certainly a lot of folks along Hillside east of 179th gunning for the subway), it has no business ideally running past 179th (at the worst, 165th terminal - since the on-street terminal situation around 179th isn't all that feasible)....

I do find it interesting though that they're supporting the redundancy of having this Q1 AND this Q43 run b/w 179th & LIRR Jamaica/Sutphin Blvd - regardless if the former takes Jamaica av & the latter remains on Hillside... This attempt to repurpose an already redundant route I'm still CTFU at....

....and YGBFKM running service along Braddock av. every 4-8 mins. throughout most of the weekday.

Q2: I personally find the current Q2 from end to end (with the current stop spacing) to be pretty fast... At worst, I would have it closed door along Hillside av (instead of only at 169th, 179th, and 187th), but I don't even think that's necessary.... Point being, I would have this as one of those green routes, regardless of anything involving the Q3.... It doesn't get talked about much on the internets, but I've always said that the Q2 is very underrated... Glad they left the routing & headways alone at least...

Q3: I have to say that the current running of the route to Lefferts AIRTrain is dreadful... I'd like to think this is a temporary measure & it'll revert back to serving JFK T4 or T5 when construction's said & done....

Guess I'll add more to this..... This is probably the unpopular opinion, but I would rather have the Q6 run to ((whichever)) airport terminal they plan on having buses serve when construction is all said & done, over the Q3... In other words, I'm more in favor of the previously proposed QT20 (assuming it would've later went on to serving one of the airport terminals after construction) over the Q3.... I would compare the Q3 to the Q23 in that, I don't think either route should run inside airport property.... With the Q3 at least, ending it somewhere around JFK depot will garner way more patronage from workers in/patrons of the neighborhood down there than the Q23 does up in E. Elmhurst.... The fact of the matter is that the Q3 has always been shunned when it comes to service levels & it shows with the epic waits inside JFK... I've been riding bus routes throughout the city for at least 20 years & I can't ever recall a time where I've got off a Q10 or a B15 to xfer to it, that didn't have me waiting for a Q3 in under 15-20 minutes... It's reprehensible how long Farmers Blvd. area patrons have had to put up with subpar service along that corridor....

Q4: I can agree with the extension over the county line (at minimum, it's going to alleviate a walk for the Nassau patrons that already utilize the thing)... I also think it's going to bring newfound ridership to it; that's around the part of the n1 from Jamaica that folks noticeably disembark (aside from at Elmont rd/Hempstead Tpke. of course)... I can see an certain abandonment of the n1 to this extended Q4 from some folks traveling to/from Jamaica.... However, I still think it needs the interchangeable Merrick patronage it has with the other current Merrick blvd. routes for it to be a solid route usage-wise... My concern is that there's going to be ridership losses from a] the increased stop spacing in general (however minimal), b] the sheer lack of utilization along Merrick, and c] interchangeability with, or outright abandonment of it by way of that Q51..

Q5/Q25: I actually agree with having it serve more of Rosedale, to do away with the branching of the current Q85.... Although I never thought that every current Q5 should run to Green Acres, I always questioned the (short turn) terminating of buses around LIRR Rosedale... At the same time, I can't agree with turning this into a subway dash route, for the sake of increasing coverage from points north (of Jamaica) by turning the Q25 into a through-Jamaica route, instead of terminating in Jamaica.... Unlike cutting the Q17 back to Fresh Meadows (from Jamaica) to run it up to College Point, the dynamic of cutting the Q25 back from College Point proper, to extend it down to Springfield Gardens is hardly the same... The proposed Q25 would be more of a workhorse than the current Q25 at the sake of increasing Q5 coverage in Rosedale.... You would think that would be an equivalent tradeoff, but Rosedale, unlike College Point (or Green Acres, for the matter) isn't an area that attracts folks that aren't Rosedale residents... Point being, the route is going to end up seeing ridership losses, since it's losing coverage b/w Jamaica & Springfield Gardens (not inclusive), with only having a handful of stops or so between those 2 neighborhoods...

Q7: The totality of this route bothers me for some reason... While I completely concur with doing away with the current portion of the Q7 west of Cross Bay on into Brooklyn & generally agree with the proposed routing on up towards the (closing that service gap along Rockaway, which I do think there's a certain/basic demand for), I wouldn't bother connecting the bulk/meat of the proposed route, to Five Towns - never mind terminating it abruptly anywhere in Cedarhurst... Anything serving that general part of the borough from the north, at minimum, should end somewhere in Far Rockaway.... You can tell they were caught between a rock & a hard place by stubbing the proposed Q7 in Cedarhurst, due to running the Q22 up/over to 5 Towns Shopping Center....

I would remedy this by simply cutting the proposed Q7 back to (the industrial part of) Springfield Gardens - specifically at the current SB Q113/114 stop at 147th/Brewer, to allow for a seamless connection to the Q113/114 for access to 5 Towns & Far Rockaway.... EB routing in the area to go Rockaway - Farmers - 147th - Brewer, to stand.... Turnaround to go Brewer - 148th av - 177th st - 147th av...

Q8: I don't have too big a problem with taking this away from Gateway Mall to have it serve New Lots ... I can definitely see a new wave of folks taking the IRT for 2-seat access to Jamaica... I've said it quite a few times on here - here in Brooklyn, the Q8 is primarily used as a B13 supplement & it's too wasteful south of Linden if you're not specifically seeking the mall... The B13 OTOH garners a surprising amt. of patronage (for those that may not know any better) between Gateway Mall & Linden... I can see the value in having a route simply run between New Lots subway & Euclid av. subway alone....

What I don't like the idea of however, is the taking of the Q8 away from Gateway to have that Q51 serve it instead... I simply don't see more Queens patrons seeking Gateway on that route (Q51), compared to those taking current Q8's... FWIW, the proposed Q8 is f***ing LIGHTYEARS better than the previously proposed QT5!

Q9: A southern extension of this route past Rockaway Blvd has been long overdue, but I still think it should run to Lefferts AIRTrain (I've been saying this for a long ass time now, even back when the Q3, Q10, and B15 terminated back at JFK T4, so it's not like I'm now saying this because all the JFK routes are currently/temporarily ending at Lefferts AIRTrain)... Like the Q2, I also think this route is one of the more quicker/efficient routes in the system... Always was fond of the ole Q9.... I suppose this could be a subway-dash route, however I'd still have it make all local stops south of Liberty...

Q10: The fact that they're hellbent on retaining this originally proposed QT14 crap that's a combination of the current Q10 from Lefferts AIRTrain & the Q64 (of all things) tells you all you need to know as to what they're truly trying to ultimately accomplish with these redesigns... Honestly, what sect of riders is remotely clamoring for something like this? The folks coming off either route at QB are by far & large seeking the subway, and I can't believe the cumulative masses are riding for short distances within the borough either... Albeit both being high, I'd actually like to know which of the 2 routes have the (slightly) higher percentage of folks xferring to the subway at their current respective terminals at QB... Speaking to the point, all them dam people seeking Q10's at Kew Gardens subway for SB service & all them dam people seeking Q64's at 71st-Continental subway for EB service, and the grand idea these geniuses have in mind is to combine these two routes??? But I'm supposed to believe that it's better for the riders....

While its coincidental that both of these are artic routes, something else that was in play is the (doing away of the current) turnaround scenario of the Q10 on the northern end - which kept getting altered since the PBL takeover... Being that the proposal calls for taking over the Q64, I don't get the sense that the terminating at Lefferts AIRTrain is a temporary measure (compared to my thoughts regarding the proposed Q3) - which is something else I can't agree with, at it relates to this particular proposal...

Q11/Q21: So they decided to break up the foolishly previously proposed QT88 by having the Q11 run b/w Old Howard Beach (or Hamilton Beach) & Rockaway Blvd , and having the Q21 be retained b/w QCM & Lindenwood, to then run down 84th to 164th, to eventually end at 165th (which raises questions about how they plan on turning buses around, if the last SB stop is ON Cross Bay at 165th st... Good luck having buses u-turn ON Cross Bay from the SB parking/curbside lane, back on to the NB direction of Cross Bay)... Sad that the Q11 went from being the main show (so to speak) along Woodhaven Blvd, to eventually becoming relegated to a defacto shuttle, only operating south of Rockaway Blvd... They talk about an increase in performance & reliability of the proposed Q11 in the PDF - which is a slap in the face, considering that overall ridership will end up being questionable at best... Now the Q21 will be the sole local along Woodhaven (at least the one bright spot out of all this is that Lindenwood will now get 24 hr. service)... With the Q11 neutering & the Q21 singularly only getting a slight increase in service (compared to the current Q21), it's an overall service cut for Woodhaven blvd. local service.... Being that they have the Q21 now running over the Q29 b/w [QB & 82nd st ] & running along 84th st. in Howard Beach, I can see why the frequency of this proposed route is being held to a (sub)standard...

With the running of the proposed Q21 over the current Q29 north of QB, I definitely don't think it should run south of Lindenwood now... I've said this in my commentary of the first draft, there's nothing suggesting that riders are going to flock to buses in that part of Howard Beach, being that now buses will run bi-directionally along 84th.... One thing I will say though, local service between Jackson Heights - 82nd & Rockaway Blvd will garner more cumulative ridership than the current Q11 + current Q21 b/w QCM & Rockaway Blvd.... Too bad all of that will be overshadowed by the Woodhaven SBS services...

Q12: I think having it terminate at Kissena/Sanford is rather smart - considering the turnaround scenarios of the current routes that end on Roosevelt, west of Main (Q12, Q15/a, Q26)... Not to mention the thing being an artic route... It's going to be interesting though to see the lines for EB Q12 pax & NB/Bronx bound Q44 pax on the same block (ON Main, b/w 38th & 39th av's)... Having buses terminate at Kissena/Sanford pretty much forces the Q12 to remain on Northern to get to Main.... Otherwise, having buses continue on Sanford to stop dead at Kissena would result in the same crap that has Q58 riders walking from Sanford (well, 41st to be exact) & Main, up to Roosevelt for the subway... It's not something I'm staunchly defending per se, but I don't think that part of the proposal is as bad as it might seem (all things considered)....

As far as the eastern end of the route is concerned, they left it alone (to reflect the current Q12)... I would've tried my hand at ending it down at LNP/HHE, especially being that they're proposing having the Q88 running clear along HHE to LNP from Junction Blvd. on....

================================================

Edited April 3, 2022 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

delete

Edited April 3, 2022 by B35 via Church

[MysteriousBtrain]

44 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

These subway dash routes are nothing like LTD routes... They're structured more similarly to our express buses (with expresses making the stops that they do, before hightailing it to Manhattan)... Replace Manhattan with "the subway" in that statement & you have these subway dash routes.... LTD routes of course, typically stopped at xfer points along a route (making them faster than the corresponding local variant)...

I classified the Rush routes as current day LTDs bc they basically accomplish a similar job to LTDs, but instead of only stopping at major transfer points it's Subway connections. I agree they do operate more akin to exp routes but in the same borough.

[R32 3838]

Potential Bus Depot list of redesigned routes

Q1-QV  JFK loses the Q6 but gains more buses for the extended Q10 and etc. (I still think this merge won't go through.)
Q2-QV
Q3-JA
Q4-JA
Q5-JA
Q7-JFK
Q8-JFK
Q9-JFK
Q10-JFk
Q11-FR/JFK
Q12-CS
Q13-CS
Q14-FP or LGA (the Eliot ave part of the Q38, Could be FP since this is a new route)
Q16-CS
Q17-CS (makes sense to move this to CS, It won't terminate in Jamaica anymore.)
Q18-LGA
Q19-CP
Q20-CS
Q21-FR/JFK
Q22-FR
Q23-LGA
Q24-ENY
Q25-CP
Q26-QV (replaces the Q27)
Q27-CS  (Q27 goes back to CS, makes no sense for it to come out of QV)
Q28-CS
Q31-JA
Q32-CS
Q33-LGA
Q35-FR
Q37-JFK
Q38-CP or LGA (Could go back to LGA or stay at CP)
Q39-LGA
Q40-JFK
Q42-JA
Q43-QV
Q44-CS
Q45-QV
Q46/48-QV
Q47-LGA
Q49-LGA
Q50-ECH
Q51-JFK,BP or ENY (This one is very Tricky. BP is right there on linden in the middle of the route, Could deadhead to BP like the Q110, The western terminal is not far from ENY or JFK depot)

Q52-JFK/FR
Q53-LGA
Q54-FP
Q55-FP
Q56-ENY
Q57-BP or QV (BP deadhead isn't far since the western terminal is where the Q112 terminates, QV could get this route since it's also not too far from the depot at it's eastern terminal)
Q58-FP
Q59-GA
Q60-JFK
Q61-CS
Q62-CS
Q63-LGA? GA? (this one is tricky)
Q65-CP
Q66-CP
Q67-LGA
Q68-LGA or GA
Q69-LGA
Q70-LGA
Q72-LGA
Q73-QV
Q75-JA
Q76-CS
Q77-JA
Q78-CS or JFK (JFK is very close to the southern terminal of this route)
Q80-FP
Q82-QV
Q83-QV
Q84-JA
Q85-JA
Q86-JA
Q88-QV
Q98-CS or FP (This one is very tricky)
Q104-LGA
Q105-LGA
Q109-JFK (I think JFK would get this route, But BP could also get it)
Q111-BP
Q114-BP
Q115-BP
B53-ENY or GA
B57-GA or FP
B62-GA

Express routes stay at their Depots that they are at currently

New Express route

QM65- BP (fills the void of losing the Q64 and the BP would make the best sense because the depot is right there not to far from the terminal and the fact they are reducing the QM21 makes it obvious BP is getting the QM65.)

 

I just don't want bus B/O's getting screwed because I know put's NYCT on top while Bus company is at the very bottom.  This whole thing is going to be a big mess since Queens have different unions. I don't want to hear about NYCT, MaBstoa and Bus company merging because I heard that same rumor for 14 years now.

Edited April 3, 2022 by R32 3838

[bobtehpanda]

Huh, missed when this came out.

Looking at this and how it pertained to bus routes I used to use

• Q20/Q44: lol @ the Q44 they finally did it. Q20s at Briarwood makes more sense, they carried air east of there. Can't speak about College Point, though 20 Av is just a bunch of big box stores that I can't imagine had high ridership anyways.
• Q43: thankful that the awful Winchester routing proposal is dead. All day limited service west of Springfield is nice.
• Q46: not sure how I feel about the limited sections being moved west to 188. Seems like it'll slow things down.
• Q45: the effort to put lipstick on the LNP pig continues, it's not a good road for bus service.
• Q17: totally nonstop between HHE and Sanford is overkill. There should at least be a stop on Holly. Glad they shortened the Jamaica end.
• Q26/27
  • The current Q27 does too many things and struggles. That being said I don't know this was the right call. I think a lot of SE Queens folks going to QCC are going to be inconvenienced. This has been talked about before but I think I would split the current version of the Q26 they have to end at Jamaica, and then have a separate SE Queens-QCC route for the rest.
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the Sanford routing. It'll probably be faster, but would've been mildly inconvenient for me when I was riding buses in Queens.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

13 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

• Q26/27
  • The current Q27 does too many things and struggles. That being said I don't know this was the right call. I think a lot of SE Queens folks going to QCC are going to be inconvenienced. This has been talked about before but I think I would split the current version of the Q26 they have to end at Jamaica, and then have a separate SE Queens-QCC route for the rest.
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the Sanford routing. It'll probably be faster, but would've been mildly inconvenient for me when I was riding buses in Queens.

 

You are undermining your own argument...

SE Queens to QCC is one of the "too many things" that the current  does, yet you complain that the revised Q26 doesn't do that. 

You suggest "a separate SE Queens-QCC route for the rest" while ignoring the proposed Q78, which links SE Queens with QCC (and continues to Bay Terrace).

[B35 via Church]

On 3/31/2022 at 6:33 PM, BrooklynBus said:

What I don't understand is why they want to duplicate the Broadway El in Brooklyn and run a direct route from East NY to Sunnyside (B53). Who wants to go from East NY or Bed Stuy or Bushwick to Sunnyside? I would like to see their market research.

Good chance it's because they plan on axing the B46 & B47 off Broadway.... They're already proposing the Q24 be cut back from Lafayette/Patchen to Broadway Junction... Again....

On 4/1/2022 at 7:49 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Can't the connection still be made at Avenue U?

Technically yes, but that stop tends to be shunned because it's a deterrent/looms cumbersome.... When I take the Queens bound Q35, I take the B46 to the Flatbush/Utica stop & simply cross the street... No way I'm goin ride it out to KP, to be on the x'th bus in line waiting to u-turn onto the opposite side of Flatbush av, to eventually pull into into the appropriate stop in front of KP.... Guaranteed you'll miss buses (Q35's) doing that shit, because after all that, you have to cross back over to Flatbush highway av....

On 4/1/2022 at 3:47 PM, Cait Sith said:

Forgot to mention the whole Q10/Q64 merger idea in my post.....I wasn't a fan of it before, and I'm not a fan of it now. Sending the Q64 further down Queens Blvd to where the rush hour Q10 local stop is at on Queens Blvd would make more sense than sending the Q10 all the way up there.

The extension looks like one of those things that looks good on paper, but there's way too much variables that will make the line under-perform, especially the dwell time caused by subway riders going to the airport. It'll screw over both ridership bases already existing at Kew Gardens and at Forest Hills.

There's a lot of untapped potential as to what the Q64 could be, but merging with the Q10 is definitely not the right idea...it'll screw over both ridership bases.

I don't think it even looks good on paper... You blurt out Kew Gardens Hills & Electchester & you'll have the lion's share of natives (let alone gentrifiers) in this city look at you like you have 3 heads....

On 4/2/2022 at 5:18 AM, Cait Sith said:

For the Q24, cutting it back from Broadway Junction actually means that it might run properly again. Before it was extended back to Lafayette, it actually ran better and bunched less. The B53 is an excuse for them to give the B32 the kibosh(and I still say that should've went to Astoria instead of the B62), that's all it really is honestly.

The irony is that the Broadway portion of the Q24 performs much better now than it used to, before the Q24 got cut back to Broadway Junction the first time....

As was said, I can pretty much guarantee that B53 is being used to kill off the B46's & the B47's stint along Broadway... Running the B62 up 21st to Astoria is the excuse they'll use to do away with the B32... I'd say that B53 runs along the waterfront up there for no other reason than to avoid redundancy with said B62.... Too bad the Williamsburg portion of the B32 is the weakest half of the route ... All in all, IDC how much they wanna cut stops, that B53 is going to be slow as shit from start to finish - from the truck traffic along Greenpoint av, to the myriad of taxi's picking up/dropping ppl off in the woke part of Williamsburg (can't forget the detours, because some steven spielberg wannabe is shooting some indie film in that same part of Williamsburg), to the slow crawl/stall the vast majority of Broadway already is....

Good lord.... Whatever whoever that thought up that particular proposal was smoking, I want noooo part of the second hand smoke of that shit!

20 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Were they packed coming into/out of LaGuardia, or on the Corona/Flushing segment?

I have the same question...

Once upon a time, Q48's had a sizable amt. of usage coming out of LGA... At some point, something happened (can't exactly pinpoint when or what precipitated it) to where you stopped seeing as many people taking buses to 111th st to/from the airport... I want to say it was sometime in the late 90's/early 2000's, well before the advent of the Q70... In any case, Flushing - LGA patronage in-particular was never consistently packed (as far as I can recall anyway)....

Funny enough, there was a bit of an explosion in the amt. of people utilizing Q48's b/w North Corona & Flushing proper, not too long afterwards (which is the dominant ridership pattern on the thing to this day)... My guess is that these were people that eventually got sick of walking to the Q66, to have to sardine onto the bus, and/or ended up getting flagged by 'x' amt of buses before they could get on... All it takes is one person to discover something, to have others eventually follow suit....

6 hours ago, limitednyc said:

Do we really need the the b57 to be extended  Jackson hieghts?

I'd just like the B57 to run efficiently b/w Downtown Brooklyn & Metropolitan av.

1 hour ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I classified the Rush routes as current day LTDs bc they basically accomplish a similar job to LTDs, but instead of only stopping at major transfer points it's Subway connections. I agree they do operate more akin to exp routes but in the same borough.

Alright, so you were making a general point & I was a little more precise with it... Cool.

27 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Huh, missed when this came out.

Looking at this and how it pertained to bus routes I used to use

• Q20/Q44: lol @ the Q44 they finally did it. Q20s at Briarwood makes more sense, they carried air east of there. Can't speak about College Point, though 20 Av is just a bunch of big box stores that I can't imagine had high ridership anyways.
• Q43: thankful that the awful Winchester routing proposal is dead. All day limited service west of Springfield is nice.
• Q46: not sure how I feel about the limited sections being moved west to 188. Seems like it'll slow things down.
• Q45: the effort to put lipstick on the LNP pig continues, it's not a good road for bus service.
• Q17: totally nonstop between HHE and Sanford is overkill. There should at least be a stop on Holly. Glad they shortened the Jamaica end.
• Q26/27
  • The current Q27 does too many things and struggles. That being said I don't know this was the right call. I think a lot of SE Queens folks going to QCC are going to be inconvenienced. This has been talked about before but I think I would split the current version of the Q26 they have to end at Jamaica, and then have a separate SE Queens-QCC route for the rest.
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the Sanford routing. It'll probably be faster, but would've been mildly inconvenient for me when I was riding buses in Queens.

Agree with your Q20 assessment... I've also called for scaling back Q20's to Briarwood subway in the past, because there's far too many people in Jamaica gunning for Q44's - it's as if the Q20 is a straight up afterthought... Doesn't help that the Q20 tends to crawl from start to finish, and I started noticing that shit in the early 2010's along Main st in-particular... Like b/o's were being told to do that, to make the Q44 more appealing (is how it seemed to me).... The Q20B should've been stopped being a thing, and as far as the Q20a goes, you simply don't see that consistently moderate-to-somewhat heavy patronage b/w Flushing & that shopping ctr. in College Point along 20th av much anymore....

With the proposed Q17, they have it doing that b/c they're using the Q25 as an infill along Kissena... But yeah, the Q17 shouldn't be no more of a red route than the Q25 is, by having it (the Q17) be a subway-dash route...

The SE Queens folks will have that Q78 for service to/from QCC... Anyway, while the current Q27 from end to end does too much & has too many patterns (in terms of short turns), I'm uneasy with this whole Q26/Q27 bit they have proposed for some reason.... I'm not sure what you're saying regarding the Q26 though, as the proposed Q26 doesn't run to Jamaica.... It's essentially a Q27 that takes 73rd av & Hollis Court blvd. to get to Flushing, running b/w Cambria Hgts. & Flushing... Basically a QCC bypass...

Edited April 3, 2022 by B35 via Church