Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, Cait Sith said:

 The BM5 is technically the Queens route since it has stops in Queens.

 

Should BM5 be renumbered (maybe to QM9 or QM19)?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Should BM5 be renumbered (maybe to QM9 or QM19)?

It terminates in Brooklyn though. It's would appear that it's going to be part of the Brooklyn Redesign.

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

There’s no sense in having the Q109 operate out of Spring Creek. The BM5 is technically the Queens route since it has stops in Queens.

Under the original plan for Queens, they had it running nonstop through Queens. If they do it like that in the Brooklyn redesign, I don't think you'd really be able to call it a Queens route anymore 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It terminates in Brooklyn though. It's would appear that it's going to be part of the Brooklyn Redesign.

Does that matter? Most of the BM5's stops are in Queens, so maybe it could warrant a Queens number. Yes, it was created as a Brooklyn-only express route, but that function has changed over the years.  (Precedent: BxM3 terminates in Yonkers, but it hasn't been renamed to YN3.)

[Q43LTD]

The only depots I see this Q109 coming from are Baisley (since it would start at Parsons  and it has the 112's on South, I mean Tuskegee Airmen Way routing) or JFK

Edited April 17, 2022 by Q43LTD
Grammar

[Via Garibaldi 8]

53 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Does that matter? Most of the BM5's stops are in Queens, so maybe it could warrant a Queens number. Yes, it was created as a Brooklyn-only express route, but that function has changed over the years.  (Precedent: BxM3 terminates in Yonkers, but it hasn't been renamed to YN3.)

Apparently it does to you. All I stated was factual information and what the  appears to plan to do. It was labeled BM5 in the first redesign and now it's not in this one, so that signals that they plan on including it in the Brooklyn Redesign. If you take issue with it, you can complain and argue with them about it.

While we're discussing this, Spring Creek Depot is considered part of the Queens Division - that is all of the Brooklyn lines... BM1, BM2, BM3, BM4, BM5 and whatever Brooklyn local buses run out of there, which I've always found annoying because when there are issues with Brooklyn express routes, those lines are not grouped with the other Brooklyn ones.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

22 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I still think combining all QM7/QM11 service into one route is a bad idea, I'll give them that perhaps some of the early & late buses can, but not all. I've seen the loads on the QM11 myself, they can carry, and the QM7 is a fairly long route. Having to deal with both corridors means a lot more time accelerating/decelerating, more dwell time, and longer trip times for a lot of the Union Turnpike riders. As far as distinguishing what bus to take, it really wouldn't be all that of an issue, because the majority of QM11 riders today would still be taking a QM11 bus. Also, the QM7X notation would serve to let riders know that the bus is skipping Queens Boulevard. Inbound is clearly not an issue, because it would be the same route, regardless of designation. 

As far as walking down to Queens Boulevard, the other thing though is that walking down to Queens Boulevard would be the faster option, because the bus doesn't have to meander around Rego Park and LeFrak City. That's a considerable amount of time saved, and I don't see too many people gunning for their proposed QM11 for that reason. I see most of them shifting to that QM7. Same thing goes for south of Queens Boulevard, the decreased walking distance may not be worth the additional time it takes headed through Forest Hills, Rego Park, and LeFrak City. Might as well keep the service on Queens Boulevard and provide as much service as possible, while taking into consideration trip times. 

What you're saying regarding the HHE corridor, I was thinking about doing that with the QM8, but IDK how much it would run up the travel time. Certainly couldn't be any worse than the existing QM8, but still. Although having the QM8 in that area would be a game changer to people who need Downtown, especially since it's very inconvenient to get there by bus/subway from those areas. 

Issue with dividing the Horace Harding corridor the way you outlined is that there's demand in Rego Park for bus service, and I think it should be preserved there (and not take the QM12 away from there). The QM10 in the PM mainly drops-off along 63rd Road and that's about it. On the QM12, hardly anyone gets off at the 98th Street stop. So that segment on it's own wouldn't hold, and tying the QM12/QM42 there would increase runtime for a minute increase in ridership. I have the HHE bus (coming from Utopia Parkway) do that, because it would still be a fairly fast pick-up/drop-off segment with those stops in place (and I believe the QM5 can handle 188th Street and points east on without needing extra stops). For reference, the Q88 during the rush takes about 20-25, sometimes up to 30 minutes from QCM to Utopia Parkway (that's in line with what's scheduled IINM). The express bus isn't making as many stops along the way, so it would be quicker to get between the two points. 

The thing is that the individual trips are fairly busy, but the routes are not that frequent (especially in the PM rush), so the total amount of people being served isn't as much as it may appear at first glance. The other question of course is what is considered full for a bus...are all of these trips in the heart of rush hour carrying 50+ people? If they're carrying 30-35 people, that may be decent compared to other express routes, but that's really not that much when you consider that the B/O is probably only (essentially) doing one revenue round-trip in their whole shift. 

The other thing is that the QM11 only really serves Queens Blvd in the AM rush. At its core, it's really a route that is designed to serve Rego Park & LeFrak (which it will still do, but with a more direct route). And those riders who board along Queens Blvd in the AM rush will have a quicker ride with the QM7, and also PM service. 

If you divide the Union Turnpike & Queens Blvd corridors, guaranteed that both would see less frequent service than they do today. The QM7 would be losing pretty much all of its Fresh Meadows riders to the QM8, and the Queens Blvd portion of the QM11 would be running entirely within walking distance to the subway. And then to have any type of Downtown route for the northern/eastern sections of Rego Park would cut into that ridership even further.

For the QM12, it's only 5 short blocks from HHE down to 63rd Drive (and depending on the exact destination, walking from 108th Street may also be an option). Not to mention walking from Queens Blvd, or if someone absolutely can't walk those few blocks, taking the QM7 and transferring to the Q38. I suppose if you absolutely had to, you could have the QM11/12/42 take HHE - 99th Street - 63rd Drive - 108th Street, but the area by 108th Street is further from the subway, so it wouldn't make that much sense to divert the express bus from an area that's further from the subway, to serve an area that's closer to the subway, unless you think there's basically zero potential ridership in the vicinity of HHE & 108th Street.

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Let me take this sideways for a moment. A Motor Instructor told our class 40 years ago about the long term goal of the . Reduce payroll costs.  The R46 class of subway cars were designed to eliminate personnel,  period. OPTO in the subway. Removal/reassignment of Station Agents Everything that he and his fellow instructors taught us back then is happening in some shape or form now.  We were told that the hardest nut to crack would be the  B/O title. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if route consolidation or outright eliminations is not an underlying factor here. Just my take. Sorry for veering off track.  Carry on. 

My understanding (and I don't think the MTA has ever actually tried to hide this) is that part of why there is this aggressive bus stop removal is to speed up bus times. I would also not be surprised if, as many people do on the various bus proposal threads,  the bus routes are being calculated to minimize idle times so that runtime + required layovers = some nice multiple that fits in an hour. (In fact I would be surprised that they weren't doing either of these things.)

Reducing payroll costs is not really some ahistorical thing, or even some weird thing. Literally every company everywhere in this country is trying to do that at all times. We don't have ticket collectors or manual door operations anymore, now that we have turnstiles and door controls inside the cab. If anything, the weird thing is that unlike the rest of the economy the MTA stopped trying to save labor.

[QM1to6Ave]

On 4/15/2022 at 5:38 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

To be clear, the QM21 was brought back because QM21 riders raised hell in Rochdale Village. I have quite a few QM21 riders in my group. We created fliers and they spread them around. They don't want any combo, so that was brought back. Same with the QM18.

For the QM20, there really isn't a need for weekend service and they should just keep the QM2 as is with the same service and service pattern serving Mitchell Gardens. I have used the QM2 both in Whitestone and in Bay Terrace, and there is enough ridership to keep the same headways and keep the Mitchell Gardens part with the ridership it gets. They are just trying to make the route more direct taking the service road, but there is little ridership there, so even with the turns to get through Mitchell Gardens, the riders it gets from there makes it worth it, as it doesn't take that long to do that part of the route. There are also people further up on Parsons that use that stop by 20th Av. There are co-ops there and homeowners who take it. Never tons of people, but still more than it would get on the service road.

Having the QM1 run makes sense because the QM5 does too much, but after the QM1 stops, they should have the QM6 serve the are west of 188th St. It's direct and it's quicker than the QM5, plus the QM6 could use that ridership. 

The QM10/QM12 combo is just them trying to cut back on resources. Some QM10 riders in my group are not happy. We got a lot of people calling their elected officials last time. We will see how many people call this time. It was very effective and so far the fliers are being spread via social media and some people are printing them and handing them out on the express buses.

The QM18 gets most of its ridership along Queens Blvd, so having it not serve that are would kill the ridership it gets, as it does not get much in the southern part of the route. 

Everything else, it will be up to the riders to fight. We have created fliers for all lines except the QM18, since that route was brought back and is pretty much the same. So far feedback has been that riders have provided feedback both to the  and to their elected officials. There are enough angry people in the group, from Union Turnpike to the QM2 to the QM15, QM3 and so on, so we listed all of the negatives and they can do their part from there,

I finally heard back from one of my elected officials, who said they will fight against the cuts. I might contact the others again as they have not yet responded

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I finally heard back from one of my elected officials, who said they will fight against the cuts. I might contact the others again as they have not yet responded

You should contact them by phone, this way you put them on the spot, even if you get one of their reps. That's why we never put their e-mails on the fliers. If they start to get bombarded by phone, then they know their constituents are angry about it and they can't ignore it. That's exactly what happened with the last fliers we circulated for the first Queens Redesign Proposal and for the Bronx Redesign. It was so intense that my contact called me at the , but I warned them that there would be hell. So far, based on the number of people that have joined my group in the past week, there are a number of people that are quite pissed, even with the whole Work From Home. Having less express bus service in these neighborhoods has the potential to make those communities appear less desirable and property values could be negatively impacted. I wrote to several Queens elected officials last week, particularly in Northeast Queens and the Queens Borough President (I would call his office too to make it crystal clear that this plan doesn't work) since that area would be hit the hardest and I've had great support from some of them to tell them hey this is not a good plan for the districts that you represent, especially areas with high senior populations or where people travel off-peak. 

That's exactly what I did with my reps. I called my Borough President several times, my Senator, my Assemblyman, etc. I was not letting them go in front of the media to call that redesign anything but a success and we got TONS of people raising hell and they had to withdraw that plan.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[QM1to6Ave]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You should contact them by phone, this way you put them on the spot, even if you get one of their reps. That's why we never put their e-mails on the fliers. If they start to get bombarded by phone, then they know their constituents are angry about it and they can't ignore it. That's exactly what happened with the last fliers we circulated for the first Queens Redesign Proposal and for the Bronx Redesign. It was so intense that my contact called me at the , but I warned them that there would be hell. So far, based on the number of people that have joined my group in the past week, there are a number of people that are quite pissed, even with the whole Work From Home. Having less express bus service in these neighborhoods has the potential to make those communities appear less desirable and property values could be negatively impacted. I wrote to several Queens elected officials last week, particularly in Northeast Queens and the Queens Borough President (I would call his office too to make it crystal clear that this plan doesn't work) since that area would be hit the hardest and I've had great support from some of them to tell them hey this is not a good plan for the districts that you represent, especially areas with high senior populations or where people travel off-peak. 

That's exactly what I did with my reps. I called my Borough President several times, my Senator, my Assemblyman, etc. I was not letting them go in front of the media to call that redesign anything but a success and we got TONS of people raising hell and they had to withdraw that plan.

Great point! I'll have to add the borough president to my list, I totally forgot about him LOL. I'll make some calls tomorrow to follow up on my initial emails

[SubBus]

On 4/11/2022 at 1:22 PM, BrooklynBus said:

Until Utica Avenue with additional changes to the B43.

My complete plan is linked at the bottom of this article with the word "here". 

As I said the only reason there is a route on Bedford, is because Rogers and Nostrand were made made one way streets in the 1960s. The same is true with bus service on New York Avenue. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the is propose to go to my old stomping grounds via the and . 

Also wouldn't be surprised if the  is extended/ rerouted to take over the route to/ from Woodhull Hospital...

[Joel Powers]

On 4/15/2022 at 10:21 PM, shiznit1987 said:

A couple more suggestions regarding Central/Western Queens: 

The MTA needs to stop it's obsession with long routes. Instead, keep things simple: 

Instead of merging the Q21 with the northern section of the Q29, make the section of the Q47 north of Jackson Heights/Roosevelt merge with the northern section of the Q29 so you have one route running down from Marine Air Terminal -> 74th/75th sts -> Jackson Hts/Roosevelt Sta --> Roosevelt Ave -> Hampton St -> 90/92nd Sts to Queens Center Mall. This is a much more manageable route. 

Keep the proposed Q63 on Broadway the whole way between 21st st and Queens Center Mall. Divert the Q66 down 48st to stop at 46st-Bliss  so as to a) cut the Q66 short b) improve reliability and c) give an extra subway connection on top of the Northern Blvd  

Keep the Q80 as a route running between Jackson Hts/Roosevelt Ave Sta and Cooper Ave-Glendale using the existing Q47 routing. 

Scrap the Q68 altogether. Send Steinway Q101 buses over the Queensborough to Penn Station Manhattan. Ditto the Q69. This will take massive pressure off the  

Ditch the current B53 plan. Instead, run the B53 from Marcy Ave-Williamsburg  to Jackson Hts-Roosevelt. via Kent/Wyhte Aves -> Franklin St -> Greenpoint Ave -> Roosevelt Ave. This better serves Brooklyn/Queens connectivity. 

The B62 doesn't need to go all the way to Astoria Houses. Beef up Q69 service and have people connect at Queens Plaza. 

I agree with your sentiment, the B62 is a long enough route as it is. All it really needs is more frequency and probably a limited.

[Joel Powers]

@Brooklynbus What changes do you propose to the B43? INMO, there's not really much that you can do with that route and it gets the job done. I would just keep it at it's Greenpoint terminus as there's no need for it to travel any farther north (or south for that matter where it would duplicate other lines) when the B62 is also nearby.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

8 minutes ago, Joel Powers said:

@Brooklynbus What changes do you propose to the B43? INMO, there's not really much that you can do with that route and it gets the job done. I would just keep it at it's Greenpoint terminus as there's no need for it to travel any farther north (or south for that matter where it would duplicate other lines) when the B62 is also nearby.

This thread is for the QUEENS redesign. There's a separate thread for the Brooklyn redesign. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

41 minutes ago, Joel Powers said:

I agree with your sentiment, the B62 is a long enough route as it is. All it really needs is more frequency and probably a limited.

In rder to have a limited, the headways between buses have to be extremely short.  I don't see this necessary for the B62.

[Joel Powers]

1 hour ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

In rder to have a limited, the headways between buses have to be extremely short.  I don't see this necessary for the B62.

Yeah I meant after adding more runs.

[SubBus]

On 4/17/2022 at 7:37 AM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Should BM5 be renumbered (maybe to QM9 or QM19)?

Or maybe BQM1?

[SubBus]

On 4/9/2022 at 9:26 PM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

The old Q5AS "Laurelton Shuttle" used to run along 225th; it was discontinued in December 1988 as part of the service revisions for the opening of the Archer Avenue subway stations.  The bus stop pads are still there.

If they were to get rid of the speed bumps on 225th, then the  could operate via Merrick and 225th to the Laurelton LIRR station instead of stubbing it at Merrick/Springfield....

[Cait Sith]

While I understand that there are some ideas in the draft that may be related to the Brooklyn Bus Redesign Plans, direct any Brooklyn Bus Redesigns posts to the pinned thread.

[SubBus]

49 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

While I understand that there are some ideas in the draft that may be related to the Brooklyn Bus Redesign Plans, direct any Brooklyn Bus Redesigns posts to the pinned thread.

Understood. My bad...

[Future ENY OP]

5 hours ago, SubBus said:

If they were to get rid of the speed bumps on 225th, then the  could operate via Merrick and 225th to the Laurelton LIRR station instead of stubbing it at Merrick/Springfield....

Not happening.  Speed humps were put in by the community in Laurelton, and besides is Laurelton LIRR station heavily utilized?. Only way they rid of them is re-paving the whole street and by NYCDOT standards that takes forever. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 hours ago, SubBus said:

If they were to get rid of the speed bumps on 225th, then the  could operate via Merrick and 225th to the Laurelton LIRR station instead of stubbing it at Merrick/Springfield....

 

25 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Not happening.  Speed humps were put in by the community in Laurelton, and besides is Laurelton LIRR station heavily utilized?. Only way they rid of them is re-paving the whole street and by NYCDOT standards that takes forever. 

Speed bumps can't just be removed. There's a process. The standard procedure is that no speed bumps can be implemented on a major corridor where you have bus routes, etc., so usually when they are put in, it's the Community Board that requests such things from the NYCDOT. That process can take weeks or months, so I wouldn't expect them to be removed even if the Community Board agrees with it and say they put in speed cameras to address safety concerns or other traffic calming measures.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Lex]

7 hours ago, SubBus said:

If they were to get rid of the speed bumps on 225th, then the  could operate via Merrick and 225th to the Laurelton LIRR station instead of stubbing it at Merrick/Springfield....

Why not restore the Springfield Gardens station?

[SubBus]

4 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Not happening.  Speed humps were put in by the community in Laurelton, and besides is Laurelton LIRR station heavily utilized?. Only way they rid of them is re-paving the whole street and by NYCDOT standards that takes forever. 

I figured as much. That's why I said if.  I know it's a good chance of it not happening...

LIRR Laurelton station gets decent usage outside of rush hours.  The maintains its transfer to the and gains a LIRR connection. 

3 hours ago, Lex said:

Why not restore the Springfield Gardens station?

Why not?   I mean the Laurelton station is not too far away.   But it does gives the area another option,  especially going east....