Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Cain]

41 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

I don't understand the pushback against stop removals. It's usually one of the first things that comes up when this type of discussion comes up. And you'd be surprised how often transit comes up lol

(Which is crazy considering most of the people I talk to are completely unwashed to the ins and outs of transit, or barely even think about it outside of their day to day)

The first argument I hear a lot is the extra walking needed, which would be detrimental to elderly or disabled. I would need more data/study if this greatly affects such a group. The additional 2-4 minute (max) walk time for the additional 300-400 feet for one to allow a overall trip to improve for many seems like a positive for me. And that is assuming a rather leisurely walking speed. With better technology like apps letting riders know when buses are coming and giving ETA, this can be better planned for a person's walking comfort.

I can't say for sure but any delay like tight bus stop spacing has a ripple effect for all riders on the bus. One suggestion I saw on a FB group was that the elderly/disabled can flag down a bus along the line, but not sure how that would work since that would be using driver's discretion. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

39 minutes ago, Cain said:

The first argument I hear a lot is the extra walking needed, which would be detrimental to elderly or disabled. I would need more data/study if this greatly affects such a group. The additional 2-4 minute (max) walk time for the additional 300-400 feet for one to allow a overall trip to improve for many seems like a positive for me. And that is assuming a rather leisurely walking speed. With better technology like apps letting riders know when buses are coming and giving ETA, this can be better planned for a person's walking comfort.

I can't say for sure but any delay like tight bus stop spacing has a ripple effect for all riders on the bus. One suggestion I saw on a FB group was that the elderly/disabled can flag down a bus along the line, but not sure how that would work since that would be using driver's discretion. 

What sort of data do you need? It's a known fact that the elderly/disabled are one of the largest groups of bus riders, simply because many cannot access the subway because only about 25% of the subway stations are ADA accessible. I agree that there needs to be a balance, but bus stops should not just be removed haphazardly. For example, there are stops along some lines that serve a location that many disabled people use. Some people are only thinking about their commutes and if they are young and can walk, then they don't care about anyone else, but we all have to get old. No one stays young forever.

It's not like there's going to be rush of new people running to take the bus. Let's be real here. People that are driving likely are not running to take a bus, so you will get some new riders and you try to keep those and then you try to balance bus stop spacing based on your current rider base and go from there. For people in between, you may win those people over to take the bus.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Gotham Bus Co.]

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What sort of data do you need? It's a known fact that the elderly/disabled are one of the largest groups of bus riders, simply because many cannot access the subway because only about 25% of the subway stations are ADA accessible. I agree that there needs to be a balance, but bus stops should not just be removed haphazardly. For example, there are stops along some lines that serve a location that many disabled people use. Some people are only thinking about their commutes and if they are young and can walk, then they don't care about anyone else, but we all have to get old. No one stays young forever.

 

They've probably already decided which stops will be "restored" if enough people ask.

 

Also, every politician says that his or her district has more elderly/disabled than any other district, yet nobody ever checks the census numbers to find out which district actually does.

[paulrivera]

4 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

They've probably already decided which stops will be "restored" if enough people ask.

I think they have a bunch of service contingencies drawn up. It wouldn't shock me if they had a list of stops to restore in the event a community board raises enough concerns...

I'll never forget that one time they drafted an entire timetable for a Bx12 local service cutback to Fordham Plaza that was "issued in error".

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

They've probably already decided which stops will be "restored" if enough people ask.

 

Also, every politician says that his or her district has more elderly/disabled than any other district, yet nobody ever checks the census numbers to find out which district actually does.

Well there are a number of neighborhoods that definitely have a high percentage of elderly people in the City, as they are natural retirement communities, and they tend to be in the areas further out. Bay Terrace, Bayside, Little Neck and Glen Oaks come to mind as examples in Queens.

My neighborhood is also a natural retirement community. I have about three retirement homes within walking distance.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[BrooklynBus]

3 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

I don't understand the pushback against stop removals. It's usually one of the first things that comes up when this type of discussion comes up. And you'd be surprised how often transit comes up lol

(Which is crazy considering most of the people I talk to are completely unwashed to the ins and outs of transit, or barely even think about it outside of their day to day)

Did you read the reasons in the petition? https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops

First of all the extra 250 or 500 feet of walking is not the major problem. It is the total walking distance that's more crucial. The current walks are in many cases over the accepted 1/4 mile walking standard guideline to a local bus route because of gaps in routing. For example there are no parallel bus routes to Northern Boulevard so some already have to walk 1/2 mile to the bus. That's why the stops were so close spaced every 500 feet. Widening the spacing increases the maximum walking distance to 3/4 mile for some which is totally unacceptable. 

The average local bus trip is only 2.3 miles. Who would walk 3/4 mile to a bus ride for 2 miles and then walk another 3/4 mile? No one. It will discourage bus usage and it will only make buses slightly faster. The MTA specifically states they are targeting underutilized bus stops which shows their incompetence. If a stop is underutilized because few get on or off, the bus doesn't stop anyway so no time is saved. People only have to walk further. 

And the more you have to walk, the greater the chance of you just missing the bus you otherwise would have caught if the old bus stop were still there. That also adds time to your trip. The MTA claims eliminating a stop saves an average of 20 seconds. This doesn't consider increased loading time at adjacent stops if a heavily used stop is eliminated. But let's go with the 20 seconds. 

They would have to eliminate nine stops just to save three minutes. So if you walk an extra two minutes at each end, your trip actually takes you a minute longer. If eliminating the stop means you just missed your bus you otherwise would have caught, your trip could be at least 11 minutes longer if the headway is ten minutes.

So the most important variable isn't how fast the bus goes, but how long your trip takes. Yet the MTA never once even mentions passenger trip times. They are solely obsessed with bus speeds. 

[checkmatechamp13]

@BrooklynBus Maybe the average trip is only so short because the average bus speeds are so low that for any longer trip, it makes sense to use an alternate mode. 

[BrooklynBus]

11 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@BrooklynBus Maybe the average trip is only so short because the average bus speeds are so low that for any longer trip, it makes sense to use an alternate mode. 

That's another myth. Bus speeds are not so slow as the MTA claims, especially for Queens which has the second highest average local bus speed in the City after Staten Island. The average car speed on local streets is between 9 and 12 mph. So let's say it's 10.5. The average bus speed in Queens according to the MTA is 8.7 mph down from 9.0 since 2015. (It went down because Vision Zero lowered the speed limits on virtually every street including former major arterials like Queens Blvd to 25 mph.) Buses make many more stops than cars so unless every street where a bus operates has a bus lane, buses have to travel slower than cars. Eliminating one third of the bus stops will increase the average speed by no more than a few tenths of a mile per hour. You will hardly notice the difference. But you will notice the extra walking especially  when is freezing, very hot or humid, very windy, or snowy, even if you have no trouble walking. If you do, your problems are compounded. 

Bus ridership will decline, but the MTA will never admit it's because so many stops were eliminated. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

42 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

That's another myth. Bus speeds are not so slow as the MTA claims, especially for Queens which has the second highest average local bus speed in the City after Staten Island. The average car speed on local streets is between 9 and 12 mph. So let's say it's 10.5. The average bus speed in Queens according to the MTA is 8.7 mph down from 9.0 since 2015. (It went down because Vision Zero lowered the speed limits on virtually every street including former major arterials like Queens Blvd to 25 mph.) Buses make many more stops than cars so unless every street where a bus operates has a bus lane, buses have to travel slower than cars. Eliminating one third of the bus stops will increase the average speed by no more than a few tenths of a mile per hour. You will hardly notice the difference. But you will notice the extra walking especially  when is freezing, very hot or humid, very windy, or snowy, even if you have no trouble walking. If you do, your problems are compounded. 

Bus ridership will decline, but the MTA will never admit it's because so many stops were eliminated. 

You are right though. People are very fickle when it comes to buses. I see it all the time in the City. If a bus isn't coming and they've been waiting, a number of people have no problem jumping into a cab, and each time that happens, that's a lost fare. You have some people that take the bus because they want to be frugal, not because they have to, so if you make it more inconvenient, they may switch to something else, be it a car or what have you.  

The people that may suffer the most are those who are disabled/elderly AND poor that have no option but to wait or walk further. The people that support this the most either are younger and more mobile or have options should they not be happy walking further. 

[checkmatechamp13]

@BrooklynBus When they converted the S79 to an SBS route, ridership increased about 20%. (And on the S59 & S78, ridership also increased slightly). Some people do transfer to the local bus, but most people walk directly to/from the S79 (or they're transferring from another local route anyway, and the S79 stops at the transfer point anyway)

Stop spacing and speed makes a difference on longer routes. If a passenger makes a 10 mile trip at 12 mph instead of 10 mph, that means their travel time goes from 60 minutes to 50 minutes, a 10 minute savings If a passenger makes a 2 mile trip at 12 mph instead of 10 mph, that means their travel time goes from 12 minutes to 10 minutes: Only a 2 minute savings. So logically, a speedier bus system would tend to favor longer-distance passengers. That 10 minute savings for a longer-distance trip can easily make the difference between someone driving their car or taking the bus.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 3/30/2022 at 6:40 AM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

doesn't need to serve the commercial strip around Springfield/HHE if Q27 and Q78 are there. (Besides, 73rd Ave is probably faster during daylight hours.)

- I find Sanford to be faster during rush hours.   I think the idea is to have Q12 be the full-Northern route and anything else that joins Northern be a "rush" route.

With regards to the Q26, it's not really about that, moreso about it not duplicating the Q17 to Cloverdale Blvd which I would have going via 73rd Avenue. 

Yeah Sanford is faster, but I don't see the need of having the Q13 skip all of it and then have the Q65 make local stops. No point in having LTD service there, nor in having two bus routes on Sanford. I've already listed out what I would do with the Q65 in previous comments (which is use Roosevelt Ave & Northern Blvd to 162nd Street instead). I would have the Q13 as the 'rush' service, operating as one out to Bell Boulevard (from Flushing), via its existing route. The Q28 IMO doesn't need to be a rush route, and it can cover Northern Blvd relatively fine. 

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

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.

I won't have a strong opinion if they cut it, although I wouldn't mind if they preserve that route as it is (minus a few tweaks here and there). However I wouldn't use the abomination of the B53 as a justification for any changes to the Q24 (which is what the planners are doing here). I agree with the B32 to Astoria point. 

Yeah, I'm also not with that Q57 route in general for that reason you list (and others), but it's on of those proposals that made it through the second time around, so it looks like it's likely gonna be pushed/defended by them more. They dicked around with the Q36/Q110 out on the eastern end for no reason (which makes the Q57 even longer than it should already be). 

On 4/2/2022 at 5:51 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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)

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.

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). 

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). 

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.

The grid is indeed broken in that part of Maspeth, particularly south of 52nd Avenue. The cross streets don't make it to either 65th Place or 69th Street the full way, with the exception of Jay Street (in a wonky fashion), 53rd Avenue, and 52nd Avenue. That also doesn't take into account those who are coming from east of 69th Street. The Garfield and Calamus Avenue stops on 69th Street are both highly used stops on the Q18 south of Woodside. The Garfield Ave stop is shared with the Q47 (of which there's also a separate group of riders who wait for it) and the Calamus Avenue stop is a block away from the Q47 stops. So it's not just about serving two corridors, there's actual demand for Q18 service there (not everyone's headed to the subway). 

As far as the Q105 goes, that's in response to gutting the Q66 away from Hunters Point South. It's more about the demand from areas along the Q105 without duplicating the Q69 entirely while preserving coverage in that section for those who currently benefit from it with the existing Q103. Also, extending it to Queensbridge would serve for people go to/from Rikers Island to still be able to catch the  , as well as anyone from Queensbridge headed to/from Rikers, and also allow Q102 riders from Queens Plaza to transfer to the  for Roosevelt Island (of which there are a few). Honestly though, I could personally see more ridership to Hunter's Point South from a bus on 31st Street than one on 21st Street. 

I've thought about having that Q71 be like a semi-express like that, but I think it would miss too many connections and miss other potential ridership generators. For example, it would open up the possibility of getting to Industrial Mott Haven much faster without the subway including from Woodside Houses, and it would provide connections to the Q66.  

On 4/3/2022 at 9:48 AM, 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.

The 69th Street segment isn't really too much of an issue. What boggles the B57 down is Flushing Avenue, and parts of Court/Smith Street. In terms of trade-offs, 69th Street would be much better than Court & Smith Streets, for a route of similar length. I would personally keep their proposed B57, with some tweaks (such as it serving the Farragut Houses, keep it on Flushing Ave, and serve more of Jay Street). 

23 hours ago, IAlam said:

For the north end the shopping center is a regular ridership generator for the Q20a with people going towards Flushing. Granted it's not a massive amount of people getting on or off there but there aren't really many buses line you'll see crowded as it get further from the subway. Granted the Q20 doesn't need to be the route that goes there as it not the most efficient route. But is should still have a line that goes to Flushing. IIRC someone here mentioned earlier that the Q25 should be extended to 20th Ave.

 

22 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Mitchell Gardens is more of a ridership gen' than that shopping center is nowadays... This can be said for most malls/shopping centers nowadays I guess, but even well before covid & the online shopping boom, the demand to that shopping center just isn't the same as it used to be, where it was undeniably noticeable to see a sizable amt. of people taking Q20a's (and Q76's) to/from there.... As for what, from Flushing, should perhaps run there, I would ideally have that Q17 divert onto 20th for the sole purpose of serving it (because they're not going to get people to walk up/down that incline on 20th from the proposed stop at 130th/20th to get to/from it) - but the access lanes in/out of the mall itself isn't conducive to having buses either stopping inside it, and/or looping in/out of..... Extending the Q25 would be another idea, but where would it terminate? With the Q76?

Yes, I brought it up by having it operate via Whitestone Expressway and 20th Avenue, to terminate with the Q76. I was thinking of having it go via 130th Street & 20th Avenue, but there isn't a way to turnaround coming from the west. I mean perhaps they can use that turnaround at the north end of Petracca Place, but I don't know how that would be received by the businesses in that area. In the process, the Q25 would be truncated to Jamaica (going to the LIRR station as it currently does), and that Merrick Boulevard segment can be its own route (which should happen regardless of this proposal). 

An alternative would be to have the Q19 run up to the shopping center via Linden Place & the NY Times Distribution Center. That way, you would either have the Q15 running between Main Street  and 7th Avenue/Clintonville Street up in Beechhurst, and the Q25 terminate at Main & Roosevelt, or have the Q25 as one route from Beechhurst to Jamaica, with short-turns between Flushing and Jamaica on Weekdays and Saturdays. 

17 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

As far as other changes go, the one that sticks out to me is the Q88 and Q73. I think the Q73 is probably long overdue, as some kind of 73rd Av route. I'm not super convinced that this is the correct solution.

What I observed when I rode the route was that a lot of people on the Q88 on both the 73rd and HHE portions, used it to go to the little shopping center on 188th St. The new route configurations more or less cut off both roads from direct access to the shopping center, and it's not that far of a walk, but I personally wouldn't have made that decision. Also, I'm not sold on this whole HHE only thing; east of 188 there isn't a whole lot on HHE itself.

(Also, I don't like the change because it would've made my personal trips to QCM more annoying, but that's me.)

Yeah there's quite a chunk of riders along 73rd Avenue that are going to/from points west of Kissena along the Q88 (particularly QCM), which is why I'm vehemently against the whole Q88 via Horace Harding (east of 188th Street). The Q73 wouldn't do anything for those folks. 

While I don't have much of a problem with having a 73rd Avenue route, it has to go places where people want to go, which it largely fails to do so the further out east you go (save for QCC, at the very end of the route). Also, quite frankly, I don't know what to do with the Q73 out east. I don't know whether Little Neck would be as receptive to Forest Hills for subway access versus Flushing (and there's more around Main Street than at Continental Ave), so I think the ideal route headed east of Springfield on Horace Harding might actually be the Q17 instead of the Q73. The Q17 would serve more of HHE than the existing Q30, along with Kissena Boulevard and downtown Flushing. If that were to happen I would have Q17 short-turns during the day at 188th Street, since the proposed headways would be more than double the frequency for the existing Little Neck Q30. Perhaps I would have the Q73 head up 188th Street to 64th Avenue and terminate there instead of heading out to QCC.

I don't really know what to do with that route once you get to 188th Street, especially since much of the route along 73rd Ave is residential, so it's not like having the Q73 on HHE or 73rd Avenue east of 188th Street would provide a non-duplicative service on either corridor of importance. 

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@BrooklynBus When they converted the S79 to an SBS route, ridership increased about 20%. (And on the S59 & S78, ridership also increased slightly). Some people do transfer to the local bus, but most people walk directly to/from the S79 (or they're transferring from another local route anyway, and the S79 stops at the transfer point anyway)

Stop spacing and speed makes a difference on longer routes. If a passenger makes a 10 mile trip at 12 mph instead of 10 mph, that means their travel time goes from 60 minutes to 50 minutes, a 10 minute savings If a passenger makes a 2 mile trip at 12 mph instead of 10 mph, that means their travel time goes from 12 minutes to 10 minutes: Only a 2 minute savings. So logically, a speedier bus system would tend to favor longer-distance passengers. That 10 minute savings for a longer-distance trip can easily make the difference between someone driving their car or taking the bus.

What you say would make sense if the MTA were only targeting routes with an unusually high average trip length of say 8 to 10 miles. In Queens that would be a small minority of routes. Even the Q53 SBS for example where many make long trips, there are still a large number who just use it as a feeder for a mile or less just to get to the subway. 

But the MTA is not being discriminatory in this regard. They are applying the philosophy of eliminating stops on all routes across the board. They even specifically state they are specifically targeting low usage bus stops. They are also eliminating stops adjacent to major land uses like schools and senior centers forcing many to walk extra for no good reason. Look what they already did at Sheepshead Bay Station. The took the stops near the subway away and replaced one of them with a taxi stand to give easier access to people not using the bus and making bus passengers walk further. That isn't how you encourage people to take buses. 

The way they are doing it, more trips will take longer than will be quicker. They are only removing stops to save operating costs, not to help anyone. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

14 hours ago, IAlam said:

For the Q10 and Q23 proposal if it survived both redesigns the way it did, there a good chance regardless of how we feel the MTA won't budge. They were willing to make a lot of changes on a lot of lines but the fact they were still set on combining the Q10 and Q64 and the Q23 with Union Tpk is the second time around a good sign they might not budge at all. 

It's not a 100% chance, but it'll be harder to get them to change that. It'll probably take another round of complaints, but yeah, it seems like the Q10 and Q23 changes are more set in stone.

14 hours ago, IAlam said:

Honestly once people realize what the new Q14, Q19, and Q58 are doing the Q23 will become an afterthought in that area. I can't imagine the line getting much ridership north of the LIE in the long run. It'll become some combination of the northern part being over served and/or the southern part being underserved. 

I think most if not all of the rush routes should have some form of local version for late night and weekend service. It makes no sense to continue running express when demand is low.

The most ridiculous thing out of all of this is...that the Q23 is the route with the most frequent service up there, out of all of them. Without it headed to Corona Plaza, that section north of Corona Avenue is gonna be carrying a whole lotta air for most of the day. The only way I can see running Q23 service via 108th Street (north of Roosevelt) is if it deviates to Corona Plaza, because that's generally a populated area, even into the night. The same thing cannot be said for 111th Street. Even with that said, the frequencies for the Q23 would be way too frequent to have every single trip operate north of Roosevelt Ave, so it would be ideal to have short-turns at Corona Plaza throughout the week.

[Cain]

Thinking about new Q12 terminus at Sanford Ave, it is going to be tough turning into this road (given Q12 uses artics) from Kissena Blvd without adding a bus lane or removing the bike lane/parking there. It serves as a traffic turn off for when Kissena becomes a busway. I see buses get stuck here often when cars clog the intersection, like just now. DOT needs to fix the traffic patterns and signals in Flushing to resolve this.

I added comments to the Remix but it feels like a black box of nothingness...

Edited April 5, 2022 by Cain

[Gotham Bus Co.]

10 minutes ago, Cain said:

Thinking about new Q12 terminus at Sanford Ave, it is going to be tough turning into this road (given Q12 uses artics) from Kissena Blvd without adding a bus lane or removing the bike lane/parking there.

 

The turn should be easier with artics.  A 60-foot artic is really a 30-foot bus with a 30-foot trailer, so it should have a shorter turning radius than a 40-foot standard bus. 

[Mtatransit]

7 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The most ridiculous thing out of all of this is...that the Q23 is the route with the most frequent service up there, out of all of them. Without it headed to Corona Plaza, that section north of Corona Avenue is gonna be carrying a whole lotta air for most of the day. The only way I can see running Q23 service via 108th Street (north of Roosevelt) is if it deviates to Corona Plaza, because that's generally a populated area, even into the night. The same thing cannot be said for 111th Street. Even with that said, the frequencies for the Q23 would be way too frequent to have every single trip operate north of Roosevelt Ave, so it would be ideal to have short-turns at Corona Plaza throughout the week.

Dare I argue that 108th Street doesn't really need a bus, let alone a frequent service. 103rd Street is much closer to the heart of Corona, and the surrounding commercial/residential area than 108th Street

Regarding frequencies, combining the inner portions of Q10 and Q23 will already cause 108th Street to be overserved. So I believe there should be short turns at Queens Blvd/Kew Gardens. All the other bus heading onto 108th St, should serve Corona (north of Roosevelt). I could see some short turns at 102/E Elmhurst, however once you get to that stop, you might as well go the whole way

[IAlam]

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Yes, I brought it up by having it operate via Whitestone Expressway and 20th Avenue, to terminate with the Q76. I was thinking of having it go via 130th Street & 20th Avenue, but there isn't a way to turnaround coming from the west. I mean perhaps they can use that turnaround at the north end of Petracca Place, but I don't know how that would be received by the businesses in that area. In the process, the Q25 would be truncated to Jamaica (going to the LIRR station as it currently does), and that Merrick Boulevard segment can be its own route (which should happen regardless of this proposal). 

An alternative would be to have the Q19 run up to the shopping center via Linden Place & the NY Times Distribution Center. That way, you would either have the Q15 running between Main Street  and 7th Avenue/Clintonville Street up in Beechhurst, and the Q25 terminate at Main & Roosevelt, or have the Q25 as one route from Beechhurst to Jamaica, with short-turns between Flushing and Jamaica on Weekdays and Saturdays. 

Yeah there's quite a chunk of riders along 73rd Avenue that are going to/from points west of Kissena along the Q88 (particularly QCM), which is why I'm vehemently against the whole Q88 via Horace Harding (east of 188th Street). The Q73 wouldn't do anything for those folks. 

While I don't have much of a problem with having a 73rd Avenue route, it has to go places where people want to go, which it largely fails to do so the further out east you go (save for QCC, at the very end of the route). Also, quite frankly, I don't know what to do with the Q73 out east. I don't know whether Little Neck would be as receptive to Forest Hills for subway access versus Flushing (and there's more around Main Street than at Continental Ave), so I think the ideal route headed east of Springfield on Horace Harding might actually be the Q17 instead of the Q73. The Q17 would serve more of HHE than the existing Q30, along with Kissena Boulevard and downtown Flushing. If that were to happen I would have Q17 short-turns during the day at 188th Street, since the proposed headways would be more than double the frequency for the existing Little Neck Q30. Perhaps I would have the Q73 head up 188th Street to 64th Avenue and terminate there instead of heading out to QCC.

I don't really know what to do with that route once you get to 188th Street, especially since much of the route along 73rd Ave is residential, so it's not like having the Q73 on HHE or 73rd Avenue east of 188th Street would provide a non-duplicative service on either corridor of importance. 

I'd rather the Q25 than the Q19. Whether from the east or west though I wouldn't say it matters too much. But I know people on 130th street would be very happy if the Q25 went that way. 

I fell the Q73 should remain is maybe with minor changes. Because of the Q26, the Q26 is already providing service to 73rd Ave and with the terminal at QCC allows for more local connects for people making trips not too and from the subway. The MTA is trying to make a hub at QCC which is great because hubs like can help boost connections to the Q78 and make the route more usable. Also as for QCM, I know people who live in that area and alwasy complain about how hard it is to get to Flushing. They would rather have a direct bus to Flushing over QCM any day of the week. QCM as a final destination as some demand yes, but it's also being used as a transfer point to the subway and serves as a terrible one. Under this plan 
people on 73rd now have 2 transfer points at Flushing an Forest Hills which are both express stations. That's a big win for them. If QCM is the final destination however it is still reachable with one ride either transfer to the Q88 at LIE or taking the  or  to Woodhaven.

As for little neck, people in that area aren't gunning for the bus to go to Jamaica. A lot of them are just riding to travel to other parts of Queens more than the subway. The Q88 does seem more of a throw away route but I can't see that neighborhood too upset as all of the core routes in that area are still intact. I think making it easier for them to get to Bayside is more important that getting to Flushing.

4 hours ago, Cain said:

Thinking about new Q12 terminus at Sanford Ave, it is going to be tough turning into this road (given Q12 uses artics) from Kissena Blvd without adding a bus lane or removing the bike lane/parking there. It serves as a traffic turn off for when Kissena becomes a busway. I see buses get stuck here often when cars clog the intersection, like just now. DOT needs to fix the traffic patterns and signals in Flushing to resolve this.

I added comments to the Remix but it feels like a black box of nothingness...

<image>

Yeah this is my big issue with the Q12 Sanford by Kissena and Main is a traffic nightmare often taking multiple lights to go one block throughout the day. It'd need to be at a better turn around point that's further away from the congestion. That's why I'd rather have it terminate near Queens College. Since i's a ridership generator, and it would make up for Kissena residents loosing the Q27.

[IAlam]

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The most ridiculous thing out of all of this is...that the Q23 is the route with the most frequent service up there, out of all of them. Without it headed to Corona Plaza, that section north of Corona Avenue is gonna be carrying a whole lotta air for most of the day. The only way I can see running Q23 service via 108th Street (north of Roosevelt) is if it deviates to Corona Plaza, because that's generally a populated area, even into the night. The same thing cannot be said for 111th Street. Even with that said, the frequencies for the Q23 would be way too frequent to have every single trip operate north of Roosevelt Ave, so it would be ideal to have short-turns at Corona Plaza throughout the week.

I wonder if the Q23 going to college point could be a reality. While the route wouldn't be very efficient it could offer a one seat rider to the people from Corona who work in the industrial areas of College Point. The lines towards College Point in the morning can sometimes be as long as lines in the evening. It would even just go directly on College Point Blvd and bypass downtown Flushing but outside of peak ridership I have no clue how it'd function. 

[bobtehpanda]

14 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

While I don't have much of a problem with having a 73rd Avenue route, it has to go places where people want to go, which it largely fails to do so the further out east you go (save for QCC, at the very end of the route). Also, quite frankly, I don't know what to do with the Q73 out east. I don't know whether Little Neck would be as receptive to Forest Hills for subway access versus Flushing (and there's more around Main Street than at Continental Ave), so I think the ideal route headed east of Springfield on Horace Harding might actually be the Q17 instead of the Q73. The Q17 would serve more of HHE than the existing Q30, along with Kissena Boulevard and downtown Flushing. If that were to happen I would have Q17 short-turns during the day at 188th Street, since the proposed headways would be more than double the frequency for the existing Little Neck Q30. Perhaps I would have the Q73 head up 188th Street to 64th Avenue and terminate there instead of heading out to QCC.

I don't really know what to do with that route once you get to 188th Street, especially since much of the route along 73rd Ave is residential, so it's not like having the Q73 on HHE or 73rd Avenue east of 188th Street would provide a non-duplicative service on either corridor of importance. 

So I think I have a reasonable way to do all that;

• Q88 - unchanged
• Q17 - HHE
• Q73 - weekdays only to QCC, weekends terminate at 188th. I think the routing to QCC is important, but AFAIK QCC isn't open much weekends anyways. I prefer 73rd over HHE to Springfield, if only because the HHE in that stretch is taken up mostly by highway interchange.

Edited April 5, 2022 by bobtehpanda

[BreeddekalbL]

Ive reviewed the draft there are some i like and some i don't like 

I suggested that they do not combine the q76 and q77 (glad they listened) 

i still dont like the combination of the q10 and q64

they finally did a b24 combination  i proposed something similar years ago

[RSMG106]

For my suggestion for service to Rikers Island, the Q100 should stay in place. One reason is because it's limited, and can get you to Rikers quicker. And second, the Q105 should be added as an option as local service to fill-in the gaps of the Q100 and Q102 respectively.

Also, the MTA should not cut the Q101 to Manhattan. This can cause riders to not have an alternate choice to get to the subway, but to use the subway. In most instances, if I am worried of using the subway, I would rather use the bus instead. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by RSMG106

[Gotham Bus Co.]

35 minutes ago, RSMG106 said:

Also, the MTA should not cut the Q101 to Manhattan. This can cause riders to not have an alternate choice to get to the subway, but to use the subway. In most instances, if I am worried of using the subway, I would rather use the bus instead. 

 

Should the subway system be kept unsafe so that people will have reasons to not use it?

[RSMG106]

4 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Should the subway system be kept unsafe so that people will have reasons to not use it?

I am saying that if people are worried about taking the subway, because remember subway crime had increased this year, and some are hesitant about riding the subway. If the subway wants to be safe, then add more security to each station. However, knowing NYC, they add security in specific stations like Time Square. 

[checkmatechamp13]

19 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The grid is indeed broken in that part of Maspeth, particularly south of 52nd Avenue. The cross streets don't make it to either 65th Place or 69th Street the full way, with the exception of Jay Street (in a wonky fashion), 53rd Avenue, and 52nd Avenue. That also doesn't take into account those who are coming from east of 69th Street. The Garfield and Calamus Avenue stops on 69th Street are both highly used stops on the Q18 south of Woodside. The Garfield Ave stop is shared with the Q47 (of which there's also a separate group of riders who wait for it) and the Calamus Avenue stop is a block away from the Q47 stops. So it's not just about serving two corridors, there's actual demand for Q18 service there (not everyone's headed to the subway). 

As I said, those cross streets are spaced about a quarter mile apart (same as some of the residential blocks in my neighborhood). That's not unwalkable (and IIRC would be where the stops would be placed anyway). So at most, it would be an extra quarter mile of walking if somebody needed the Q18 specifically (and couldn't use the Q47 or B57) and lived east of 69th Street. 

18 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

What you say would make sense if the MTA were only targeting routes with an unusually high average trip length of say 8 to 10 miles. In Queens that would be a small minority of routes. Even the Q53 SBS for example where many make long trips, there are still a large number who just use it as a feeder for a mile or less just to get to the subway. 

But the MTA is not being discriminatory in this regard. They are applying the philosophy of eliminating stops on all routes across the board. They even specifically state they are specifically targeting low usage bus stops. They are also eliminating stops adjacent to major land uses like schools and senior centers forcing many to walk extra for no good reason. Look what they already did at Sheepshead Bay Station. The took the stops near the subway away and replaced one of them with a taxi stand to give easier access to people not using the bus and making bus passengers walk further. That isn't how you encourage people to take buses. 

The way they are doing it, more trips will take longer than will be quicker. They are only removing stops to save operating costs, not to help anyone. 

Can you give any specific examples of stops next to schools or senior centers that were eliminated in the Queens New Draft Plan?

13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The most ridiculous thing out of all of this is...that the Q23 is the route with the most frequent service up there, out of all of them. Without it headed to Corona Plaza, that section north of Corona Avenue is gonna be carrying a whole lotta air for most of the day. The only way I can see running Q23 service via 108th Street (north of Roosevelt) is if it deviates to Corona Plaza, because that's generally a populated area, even into the night. The same thing cannot be said for 111th Street. Even with that said, the frequencies for the Q23 would be way too frequent to have every single trip operate north of Roosevelt Ave, so it would be ideal to have short-turns at Corona Plaza throughout the week.

I agree. Looking at it again, the Q14 running on the present-day Q38 headways is definitely going to lead to overcrowding. The Q14 is definitely better routing-wise than the current Q38, but with that comes increased demand (For example, it'll be a quicker alternative to the Q58/98 for Ridgewood - Queens Center trips, and probably even Ridgewood - Corona trips depending on where exactly you're heading). Heading the other way, it'll provide a direct ride from Corona/East Elmhurst down to Queens Center for those living east of the Q72. 

1 hour ago, RSMG106 said:

For my suggestion for service to Rikers Island, the Q100 should stay in place. One reason is because it's limited, and can get you to Rikers quicker. And second, the Q105 should be added as an option as local service to fill-in the gaps of the Q100 and Q102 respectively.

Also, the MTA should not cut the Q101 to Manhattan. This can cause riders to not have an alternate choice to get to the subway, but to use the subway. In most instances, if I am worried of using the subway, I would rather use the bus instead. 

Taking the to Ditmars for the bus vs. catching it in Long Island City will save more time than running the bus limited.

As for the Q101, by that logic, every single neighborhood should have a one-seat local bus ride to Manhattan. The Q32 and Q60 are still running as-is, and are available for those who want to reach Manhattan via local bus. Astoria - Sunnyside service (filling in the gap on 39th Street) was one of the biggest requests at the Sunnyside-area meeting back in May 2019. 

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Can you give any specific examples of stops next to schools or senior centers that were eliminated in the Queens New Draft Plan?

I read that on one of the discussion groups. I don’t remember the specific examples. But that isn’t what bothers me because the MTA knows they did that because of their sloppy work and are relying on the communities to do their work for them and point them out. I am sure they will return most of them when they are pointed out. But it will only amount to about 100 of the 1200 stops they will be removing. So it won’t make much of a difference in the scheme of things. They will still eliminate 90 percent of what they want to remove. 

And if the community isn’t astute and doesn’t pick up on it, they won’t realize it until it’s too late. Then the MTA won’t give it back, claiming they already had their opportunity to complain.