Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Fire Mountain]

3 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

The mileage part I get, but they could’ve just had the 27 run between flushing and if anything Oakland gardens to simplify the route. I just hope they keep the 25 and 65 in CP cause that’s their busiest portions

Oh yeah, and what I mean is, if the 25 and 65 get cut back to flushing could decrease ridership a good 15-30% considering it’s proposed routing

[mikecintel]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'll say this much.... Not having anything specifically terminate along the Sutphin side of LIRR Jamaica, I have to agree with.... What I don't agree with, is forcing everybody from the Flushing area to have to take the Q44 to get to LIRR Jamaica - especially given that they're proposing expanding that route's footprint to Fordham,..

Yes that I agree with you to force everyone to take the Q44 to LIRR Jamaica and it will be jam packed.  Horrible.  It already jam packed already.

[Q43LTD]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Currently for Flushing - Jamaica travel, you have the Main st. corridor, Kissena/Parsons corridors, 164th corridor, and 188th..... I agree with dismantling the current Q17, but I do think either the Kissena/Parsons corridor or the 165th corridor should have a bus route remaining serving LIRR Jamaica (even if it doesn't specifically terminate at it)....

I would do the Q65. Farmers and Liberty seems like a stub. 

4 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Yea not gonna lie, the 20 and 25 moves are completely idiotic considering how 1. The 20 was extended to Jamaica in the first place as a local option to the 44 from back in 99, and now they wanna cut it? That’s Just retarded, just like extending the 25 to SPRINGFIELD AND MERRICK, like bruh, just make the 86 a limited and have the 4, 5, 84, and 85 only run rush instead. The 25 is NOT needed down there. Idk how to feel about the 83 becoming a rush route tbh

 

Oh yeah, you know what else is idiotic? Replacing the 25 and 65 (that does EXCELLENT In college point on a daily basis) with the 17 and 27, like wtf is the point of that? They should leave the 27 as it is, and the 17, idk where exactly, but not college point.

Also, the 85 and 86 don't need to run to Green Acres 24/7. Rush and limited are kinda the same thing. The proposal for the Q83 to me is a bit vague. No mentions of its Queens Village LIRR branch during overnights

[B35 via Church]

33 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

The mileage part I get, but they could’ve just had the 27 run between flushing and if anything Oakland gardens to simplify the route.....

30 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Oh yeah, and what I mean is, if the 25 and 65 get cut back to flushing could decrease ridership a good 15-30% considering it’s proposed routing

Albeit for the wrong reasons IMO, I'd say the proposed Q25 would actually result in a net gain in ridership, compared to the current Q25.... For whatever losses it'd incur north of those Linden Towers Co-op's over by the Whitestone Expwy., it'd gain back panning south of Downtown Jamaica, running all the way down to Springfield Gdns.... The proposed Q65 OTOH, yeah, I'd say it'd result in a net loss of ridership, compared to the current Q65.... Not to the tune of 15-30% per se, but still likely a net loss....

As was previously stated, both carry heavy enough north of Flushing.... However, for as much as the MTA dickrides the Q25, it's actually the Q65 that carries more a] north of Flushing & b] overall (as in, from end to end).....

31 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I would do the Q65. Farmers and Liberty seems like a stub.

Can't say I'd disagree.... Poor place to terminate a bus route, esp. on a full time basis.

34 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

...The proposal for the Q83 to me is a bit vague. No mentions of its Queens Village LIRR branch during overnights

Given that they're turning the Q83 into one of those rush routes (with having the proposed Q42 & Q65 act as "locals" along a portion of the general corridor), I'd say that overnight portion up to LIRR QV is toast.

[Cait Sith]

To @Fire Mountain, if you're going to respond to multiple posts, use the multi-quote feature and respond accordingly. It lessens the clutter in thread and keeps all of your responses in one post.

[Fire Mountain]

36 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Albeit for the wrong reasons IMO, I'd say the proposed Q25 would actually result in a net gain in ridership, compared to the current Q25.... For whatever losses it'd incur north of those Linden Towers Co-op's over by the Whitestone Expwy., it'd gain back panning south of Downtown Jamaica, running all the way down to Springfield Gdns.... The proposed Q65 OTOH, yeah, I'd say it'd result in a net loss of ridership, compared to the current Q65.... Not to the tune of 15-30% per se, but still likely a net loss....

As was previously stated, both carry heavy enough north of Flushing.... However, for as much as the MTA dickrides the Q25, it's actually the Q65 that carries more a] north of Flushing & b] overall (as in, from end to end).....

Can't say I'd disagree.... Poor place to terminate a bus route, esp. on a full time basis.

Given that they're turning the Q83 into one of those rush routes (with having the proposed Q42 & Q65 act as "locals" along a portion of the general corridor), I'd say that overnight portion up to LIRR QV is toast.

Hmm, about the 25, maybe so, I just dont see the point of having 6 buses down Merrick though. And if they keep the 65, you got a point, they could maybe, just maybe, at least extend that to LIRR QV during overnight hours.

 

33 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

To @Fire Mountain, if you're going to respond to multiple posts, use the multi-quote feature and respond accordingly. It lessens the clutter in thread and keeps all of your responses in one post.

Thanks for the tip. I’m new to this thing and recently started to respond to these. 

[Cait Sith]

Just now, Fire Mountain said:

Thanks for the tip. I’m new to this thing and recently started to respond to these. 

It's all good fam. I know it takes a bit of getting used to in here.

[B35 via Church]

20 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Hmm, about the 25, maybe so, I just dont see the point of having 6 buses down Merrick though. And if they keep the 65, you got a point, they could maybe, just maybe, at least extend that to LIRR QV during overnight hours.

Yeah, the current setup along Merrick is simply simpler than what they're proposing having buses do along it... The proposed Q25 is basically the new current Q27 of the network - in the sense that it'll be this long-winded route that's going to amass a massive amount of pax, given the "high-priority" (as they coin it... lol) corridors it'd serve....

Even during the overnight hrs, having this proposed Q65 run to LIRR QV would be just as bad, if not worse than the QT65 that they initially proposed(in the first draft...

21 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Thanks for the tip. I’m new to this thing and recently started to respond to these. 

You'll get used to it.... Besides, we could use some new blood on this forum.

[Q43LTD]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Can't say I'd disagree.... Poor place to terminate a bus route, esp. on a full time basis.

Worse than that Beechhurst St Albans route it was originally planned for

[B35 via Church]

4 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

Worse than that Beechhurst St Albans route it was originally planned for

funny you mention that QT65, because I just linked to it in my last post.... That proposal was worse.

[N6 Limited]

5 hours ago, xD4nn said:

It's the same thing with the Q30 and Q88 situation. Replacing the HH part of the Q30 with the Q88 is stupid. Has no one ever thought about traffic??? Keep the current Q30! I'm already out here waiting 20-30 minutes for a crowded Q30 and I am certainly not waiting 45-90 minutes for the proposed Q88.

I believe Horace Harding Blvd is one of the priority corridors. So, they’re probably looking to implement Traffic Signal Priority, and/or bus lanes, etc.

2 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

They need to do better routing like with the 26 running from flushing to cambria replacing the 27 via 73rd??? Yea I don’t see that as a good idea at all. And like I mentioned earlier the 25 to Springfield and having the 4,5, and 84-86 all run as rush routes is also terrible 

Having the those routes as rush routes would definitely improve service.
One example, one evening I was on the Jamaica bound Q5 from Green Acres, there was turnover along Merrick Blvd but also an accumulation of passengers, the bus was packed by Springfield Blvd. It would have been nice if the bus could have rushed to Jamaica at that point instead additional intermediate “local” pick ups and increased dwell time due to the passenger load and red signals due to not running straight to the next rush stop, that a frequent “local” bus could have handled. (Doesn’t have to be the Q25 though.)

[Fire Mountain]

52 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

It's all good fam. I know it takes a bit of getting used to in here.

 

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, the current setup along Merrick is simply simpler than what they're proposing having buses do along it... The proposed Q25 is basically the new current Q27 of the network - in the sense that it'll be this long-winded route that's going to amass a massive amount of pax, given the "high-priority" (as they coin it... lol) corridors it'd serve....

Even during the overnight hrs, having this proposed Q65 run to LIRR QV would be just as bad, if not worse than the QT65 that they initially proposed(in the first draft...

You'll get used to it.... Besides, we could use some new blood on this forum.

Glad to have joined y’all 💯. And if they keep it, they should truncate the 25 further south to flushing. It’ll be more accurate that way and reliable. Linden place doesn’t really need rush service to be honest. And the 65, fair point. I remember the first draft and it was awful. I just hope the MTA makes the right choice (which, let’s be real, they won’t 🤦🏾‍♂️)

 

7 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I believe Horace Harding Blvd is one of the priority corridors. So, they’re probably looking to implement Traffic Signal Priority, and/or bus lanes, etc.

Having the those routes as rush routes would definitely improve service.
One example, one evening I was on the Jamaica bound Q5 from Green Acres, there was turnover along Merrick Blvd but also an accumulation of passengers, the bus was packed by Springfield Blvd. It would have been nice if the bus could have rushed to Jamaica at that point instead additional intermediate “local” pick ups and increased dwell time due to the passenger load and red signals due to not running straight to the next rush stop, that a frequent “local” bus could have handled. (Doesn’t have to be the Q25 though.)

I just hope they don’t screw it over along Horace Harding. Traffic already horrible as it is and the 30 be way behind schedule cause of it. And as for the 5, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be rush, but all the routes I mentioned above except the 25 as a rush, kinda OD’ing IMO. Maybe the 25 and 86 could serve the corridor as locals (really limited just frequent service)? 
 

[mikecintel]

28 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Glad to have joined y’all 💯.

Welcome to NYC TransitForums !

[IAlam]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Currently for Flushing - Jamaica travel, you have the Main st. corridor, Kissena/Parsons corridors, 165th corridor, and 188th..... I agree with dismantling the current Q17, but I do think either the Kissena/Parsons corridor or the 165th corridor should have a bus route remaining serving LIRR Jamaica (even if it doesn't specifically terminate at it)....

Adding on the Q17/27 also has greater frequencies than the Q25/65 which is sorely needed in the north. 

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I wouldn't go that far with the analogy, because the Q25 & the Q65 definitely gets good usage b/w Flushing & College Point.... With that said, I don't really take issue with swapping the current Q25 & Q65 stints between Flushing & College Point for their proposed Q17 & Q27 between that said stretch.... Even though neither of them would serve LIRR Jamaica anymore, at least they still maintained having the proposed Q25 & Q65 both serving Flushing proper & Jamaica proper.....

Basically, I would (also) question the real need for 2 routes running b/w College Point & Jamaica at this point..... Maybe 1 at the most, but not both of them (although I will admit that the way the proposed Q31 would do College Point - Jamaica is laughable/pathetic)....

Better allocation of route mileage.

The proposed Q17 & proposed Q27 simply have better route compositions than the current Q17 (whose southern half drastically pales in comparison with the northern half of the route) & the current Q27 (while hitting key points mid-route, carrying as many cumulative pax. that it does, it's still a long, drawn out route.... SE Queens - Flushing travel is massively overrated [which is the problem I have with the proposed Q26])....

Q31 seems like another throwaway route to fill in the missing gaps though I do like that there is another north-south option that doesn't traverse through Flushing. It would make more sense to have that route coming from 162/164th St but that would come at the cost of the Q65 no longer serving Flushing and that was a major issue in the original draft.

3 hours ago, mikecintel said:

Yes that I agree with you to force everyone to take the Q44 to LIRR Jamaica and it will be jam packed.  Horrible.  It already jam packed already.

It made no sense to have the Q44 be the only Flushing to Jamaica LIRR route, the curtailing for the Q20 shows that the MTA doesn't know what people in that area are using it for. Honestly, it makes more sense to have the Q20 be the route going east of the LIRR than the Q44, I can't imagine most of the people getting on at Jamaica Center and Merrik are going to the Bronx. 

The Q25 really needs to go back to Jamaica LIRR, the way they want it to be a Limited route, yet a local version of multiple rush corridors, and not even provide a service increase. That route is doing way too much for almost no benefit for the people it's expected to serve. 

[xD4nn]

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

I believe Horace Harding Blvd is one of the priority corridors. So, they’re probably looking to implement Traffic Signal Priority, and/or bus lanes, etc.

Horace Harding is the service road of LIE. Implementing bus lanes would be impossible. The Q30 currently has difficulty staying on time because of the ridiculous traffic on the LIE. Making the Q88 only go via HH is not the smartest idea.

[Q43LTD]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

funny you mention that QT65, because I just linked to it in my last post.... That proposal was worse.

Speaking of...Merrick and Springfield seems like a stub too for the 25 and 77

[Fire Mountain]

2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Speaking of...Merrick and Springfield seems like a stub too for the 25 and 77

You know what, I didn’t even think of that. I do get why they wanna do that (terminating at a shopping center), but is it even worth it? Don’t mind the 78 going to near the JFK Depot therefore replacing the 77 south of merrick blvd, but I don’t even think the 25 and 77 terminating there would be worth it. 

 

4 hours ago, IAlam said:

Adding on the Q17/27 also has greater frequencies than the Q25/65 which is sorely needed in the north. 

Q31 seems like another throwaway route to fill in the missing gaps though I do like that there is another north-south option that doesn't traverse through Flushing. It would make more sense to have that route coming from 162/164th St but that would come at the cost of the Q65 no longer serving Flushing and that was a major issue in the original draft.

It made no sense to have the Q44 be the only Flushing to Jamaica LIRR route, the curtailing for the Q20 shows that the MTA doesn't know what people in that area are using it for. Honestly, it makes more sense to have the Q20 be the route going east of the LIRR than the Q44, I can't imagine most of the people getting on at Jamaica Center and Merrik are going to the Bronx. 

The Q25 really needs to go back to Jamaica LIRR, the way they want it to be a Limited route, yet a local version of multiple rush corridors, and not even provide a service increase. That route is doing way too much for almost no benefit for the people it's expected to serve. 

About the 44, they were never gonna remove that route from Jamaica from jump unfortunately. However, I agree with you. If anything, they can have the 44 terminate at the station instead. Let me explain, the MTA wanted to cut the 20 from Jamaica due to congestion, however the 44 is articulated and it’s super frequent, which contributes to some of the congestion via Archer. It don’t even be packed in that area anyways. The last portion about the 25, damn, I didn’t even think of the frequency. Another good reason to keep the 25 at the Airtrain LIRR sta.

[mikecintel]

7 hours ago, IAlam said:

It made no sense to have the Q44 be the only Flushing to Jamaica LIRR route, the curtailing for the Q20 shows that the MTA doesn't know what people in that area are using it for. Honestly, it makes more sense to have the Q20 be the route going east of the LIRR than the Q44, I can't imagine most of the people getting on at Jamaica Center and Merrik are going to the Bronx. 

The Q25 really needs to go back to Jamaica LIRR, the way they want it to be a Limited route, yet a local version of multiple rush corridors, and not even provide a service increase. That route is doing way too much for almost no benefit for the people it's expected to serve. 

Hopefully if we all feedback the MTA listen that the Q25 would go back to the Jamaica LIRR station but I know it will be on deaf ears.

[NewFlyer 230]

I’ve used the Q25 for the past two decades even back when it used to be Queens Surface and for me personally I believe the route would benefit greatly from running between Flushing Main Street & Jamaica LIRR. There is no need for the route to go any further north or south because the route is already unreliable as it is. On the current Q25 most people are off the bus at Flushing so if the new shortened Q17 was extended north like in the proposal I believe it will work out well. 
As I’ve stated before the Q25 has no business along Merrick Blvd & it’s not like the route will be anymore profitable than it is now because the Q5 has more farebeating going on compared to the Q25 and this is from my personal observation from using both routes. 

7 hours ago, IAlam said:

Q31 seems like another throwaway route to fill in the missing gaps though I do like that there is another north-south option that doesn't traverse through Flushing. It would make more sense to have that route coming from 162/164th St but that would come at the cost of the Q65 no longer serving Flushing and that was a major issue in the original draft.

It made no sense to have the Q44 be the only Flushing to Jamaica LIRR route, the curtailing for the Q20 shows that the MTA doesn't know what people in that area are using it for. Honestly, it makes more sense to have the Q20 be the route going east of the LIRR than the Q44, I can't imagine most of the people getting on at Jamaica Center and Merrick are going to the Bronx. 

 

Honestly I don’t know what I’d do with the Q31 north of Horace Harding. The Q31 in its current form is very outdated and that’s why ridership tends to drop north of the Horace Harding Expressway in general. It’s nothing more than a glorified school route in my eyes. I don’t think the route will do much better than it currently does no matter what they have it do north especially if it’s not going to Flushing. 

However I disagree about the Q20/Q44.

The Q20 shouldn’t be cut back to Brairwood because they will only end up extending it back to Jamaica when people complain that they need Jamaica and complain about how unreliable the Q44 and Q60 are. The Q20 however should only go to the LIRR. If the Q20 arrived first and there is no sign of the Q44 people will use the Q20 but if the Q44 is there, the Q20 carries air along Archer and what a waste of mileage. 

The Q44 actually sees decent Bronx usage from Jamaica believe it or not and that’s why the MTA had it running to 165th street & Jamaica Ave in the proposal plan. Ride the Q44 during the evening time from Jamaica and sometimes the bus will be packed with people heading to the Bronx. I’m really not opposed to having the bus run to Fordham but they need to get rid of that Whitestone detour and have Q44’s get on the Whitestone Expressway via Linden Place. I can’t say too many people along Union Street & Parsons Blvd want Bronx service in comparison to service to Flushing Main Street. 

[MysteriousBtrain]

As far as the Q25/65 go, they both need their proposed southern terminals changed. I don't see anyone riding the Q65 along liberty Av, and the Q25 has no business running on Merrick Blvd. The Q65 would be a better candidate on Merrick bc theoretically for faster service it could serve the Jamaica bus terminal and keep the connection to the at 169 St. If need be (and I see this more likely) it could keep the connection to Jamaica center and take the proposed Q25 route on Merrick. The Q25 can stay serving LIRR. 

As far as the Q83 goes, worse case scenario is they reroute the Q3 on the Q83 to keep the latter a rush route since most of the Q3 north of liberty can be served by the Q2. I would rather just let the Q83 remain as a local route since its not exactly as busy as most of the other Jamaica routes. Another alternative would be for a new (separate) Q93 that would basically be the Q83 to Queens Village to take place as the local while keeping the Q83 rush status.

Edited August 21, 2023 by MysteriousBtrain

[B35 via Church]

4 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

About the 44, they were never gonna remove that route from Jamaica from jump unfortunately. However, I agree with you. If anything, they can have the 44 terminate at the station instead. Let me explain, the MTA wanted to cut the 20 from Jamaica due to congestion, however the 44 is articulated and it’s super frequent, which contributes to some of the congestion via Archer. It don’t even be packed in that area anyways. The last portion about the 25, damn, I didn’t even think of the frequency. Another good reason to keep the 25 at the Airtrain LIRR sta.

You can deduce congestion as being a factor, but the main reason they're taking Q20's away from Jamaica lies in what you just said about the Q44 being very frequent & is an artic route on top of it... In other words, they're saving a buck cutting Q20's back to Briarwood to have everybody cram onto Q44's.....

Albeit not for their apparent frugal reasons, I'm against the consensus that the Q20 should stay running to Jamaica at this point (especially given the Q20's extension north & east of Flushing)... At the same time, I'm against running Q44's to Fordham...

1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

However I disagree about the Q20/Q44.

The Q20 shouldn’t be cut back to Brairwood because they will only end up extending it back to Jamaica when people complain that they need Jamaica and complain about how unreliable the Q44 and Q60 are. The Q20 however should only go to the LIRR. If the Q20 arrived first and there is no sign of the Q44 people will use the Q20 but if the Q44 is there, the Q20 carries air along Archer and what a waste of mileage. 

The Q44 actually sees decent Bronx usage from Jamaica believe it or not and that’s why the MTA had it running to 165th street & Jamaica Ave in the proposal plan. Ride the Q44 during the evening time from Jamaica and sometimes the bus will be packed with people heading to the Bronx. I’m really not opposed to having the bus run to Fordham but they need to get rid of that Whitestone detour and have Q44’s get on the Whitestone Expressway via Linden Place. I can’t say too many people along Union Street & Parsons Blvd want Bronx service in comparison to service to Flushing Main Street. 

Even still, What percentage of people, is the question.....

Even during peak times, the Q20 carries a lot of air along Archer (that's one thing I would notice on my commute home, looking down from the LIRR as the train was approaching Jamaica, when I used to work out in Nassau).... It's no different during the AM rush either, I'd notice that when I'd go rush off to the store before my train to Mineola would arrive...

Merrick/Archer, forget it - Q44's snatch up virtually 100% of that ridership.... Yes, at Sutphin/Archer, people do start boarding Q20's if there's basically no Q44 in sight (which isn't all that common) - but it still don't be anywhere near in robust numbers.... The general trend over there at Sutphin/Archer is to pay the Q20 no mind & bombard onto Q44's.... Trend over there on Sutphin/Jamaica isn't much different - with the exception of more of a willingness to board Q20's if both the Q20 & Q44 either [arrives simultaneously] or [if a Q44 arrives first & the bus is so dam crowded, you can't feasibly get on the thing]..... With trends like that, I'd take the Q20 away from Jamaica also if I was a public transit provider....

The Q20 north of Flushing is obviously where it'll gain more ridership (than the Q44 north of Flushing, within Queens), as there'll be no one in their right minds that'd want to walk over to the Whitestone expwy. service rd. due south (as in, towards Flushing) from all them co-op's in Mitchell-Linden, at minimum... Not to mention their having of it run up & over to the LeHavre apartments in Beechhurst (current Q15/a territory), which I think is a good tradeoff to have the Q20 do that instead of running to Jamaica  - where the Q44 is the king, queen, rook, and every other dam chess piece... lol....

56 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

As far as the Q25/65 go, they both need their proposed southern terminals changed. I don't see anyone riding the Q65 along liberty Av, and the Q25 has no business running on Merrick Blvd. The Q65 would be a better candidate on Merrick bc theoretically for faster service it could serve the Jamaica bus terminal and keep the connection to the at 169 St. If need be (and I see this more likely) it could keep the connection to Jamaica center ant take the proposed Q25 route on Merrick. The Q25 can stay serving LIRR. 

As far as the Q83 goes, worse case scenario is they reroute the Q3 on the Q83 to keep the latter a rush route since most of the Q3 north of liberty can be served by the Q2. I would rather just let the Q83 remain as a local route since its not exactly as busy as other Jamaica routes. Another alternative would be for a new (separate) Q93 that would basically be the Q83 to Queens Village to take place as the local while keeping the Q83 rush status.

I would also keep the Q83 as a local route... The idea to have the proposed Q42 & the Q65 act as cumulative local service along that part of Liberty, I don't see flying either.... The Q42 to Jamaica Hosp. is one of those ideal ideas (the general notion of having a route end at a hospital & what not), but that immediate area is a horrible place to end a bus route from a logistical standpoint... Just getting back to Jamaica av. (for the corresponding EB trip) would loom nightmarish...

Edited August 21, 2023 by B35 via Church

[Fire Mountain]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You can deduce congestion as being a factor, but the main reason they're taking Q20's away from Jamaica lies in what you just said about the Q44 being very frequent & is an artic route on top of it... In other words, they're saving a buck cutting Q20's back to Briarwood to have everybody cram onto Q44's.....

Albeit not for their apparent frugal reasons, I'm against the consensus that the Q20 should stay running to Jamaica at this point (especially given the Q20's extension north & east of Flushing)... At the same time, I'm against running Q44's to Fordham...

Even still, What percentage of people, is the question.....

Even during peak times, the Q20 carries a lot of air along Archer (that's one thing I would notice on my commute home, looking down from the LIRR as the train was approaching Jamaica, when I used to work out in Nassau).... It's no different during the AM rush either, I'd notice that when I'd go rush off to the store before my train to Mineola would arrive...

Merrick/Archer, forget it - Q44's snatch up virtually 100% of that ridership.... Yes, at Sutphin/Archer, people do start boarding Q20's if there's basically no Q44 in sight (which isn't all that common) - but it still don't be anywhere near in robust numbers.... The general trend over there at Sutphin/Archer is to pay the Q20 no mind & bombard onto Q44's.... Trend over there on Sutphin/Jamaica isn't much different - with the exception of more of a willingness to board Q20's if both the Q20 & Q44 either [arrives simultaneously] or [if a Q44 arrives first & the bus is so dam crowded, you can't feasibly get on the thing]..... With trends like that, I'd take the Q20 away from Jamaica also if I was a public transit provider....

The Q20 north of Flushing is obviously where it'll gain more ridership (than the Q44 north of Flushing, within Queens), as there'll be no one in their right minds that'd want to walk over to the Whitestone expwy. service rd. due south (as in, towards Flushing) from all them co-op's in Mitchell-Linden, at minimum... Not to mention their having of it run up & over to the LeHavre apartments in Beechhurst (current Q15/a territory), which I think is a good tradeoff to have the Q20 do that instead of running to Jamaica  - where the Q44 is the king, queen, rook, and every other dam chess piece... lol....

I would also keep the Q83 as a local route... The idea to have the proposed Q42 & the Q65 act as cumulative local service along that part of Liberty, I don't see flying either.... The Q42 to Jamaica Hosp. is one of those ideal ideas (the general notion of having a route end at a hospital & what not), but that immediate area is a horrible place to end a bus route from a logistical standpoint... Just getting back to Jamaica av. (for the corresponding EB trip) would loom nightmarish...

Damn. When you put it like that, it makes sense. You dead explain the routing reasons better than the MTA itself! Wait, let me ask you this. So the 10, since they axed the elechester plan (taking over the 64), you think they will leave it as it is along with the 9, or just simplify it to only it’s current limited route (staying on lefferts to JFK)? Also what’s your take on the Q78?

[IAlam]

9 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

About the 44, they were never gonna remove that route from Jamaica from jump unfortunately. However, I agree with you. If anything, they can have the 44 terminate at the station instead. Let me explain, the MTA wanted to cut the 20 from Jamaica due to congestion, however the 44 is articulated and it’s super frequent, which contributes to some of the congestion via Archer. It don’t even be packed in that area anyways. The last portion about the 25, damn, I didn’t even think of the frequency. Another good reason to keep the 25 at the Airtrain LIRR sta.

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

However I disagree about the Q20/Q44.

The Q20 shouldn’t be cut back to Brairwood because they will only end up extending it back to Jamaica when people complain that they need Jamaica and complain about how unreliable the Q44 and Q60 are. The Q20 however should only go to the LIRR. If the Q20 arrived first and there is no sign of the Q44 people will use the Q20 but if the Q44 is there, the Q20 carries air along Archer and what a waste of mileage. 

The Q44 actually sees decent Bronx usage from Jamaica believe it or not and that’s why the MTA had it running to 165th street & Jamaica Ave in the proposal plan. Ride the Q44 during the evening time from Jamaica and sometimes the bus will be packed with people heading to the Bronx. I’m really not opposed to having the bus run to Fordham but they need to get rid of that Whitestone detour and have Q44’s get on the Whitestone Expressway via Linden Place. I can’t say too many people along Union Street & Parsons Blvd want Bronx service in comparison to service to Flushing Main Street. 

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You can deduce congestion as being a factor, but the main reason they're taking Q20's away from Jamaica lies in what you just said about the Q44 being very frequent & is an artic route on top of it... In other words, they're saving a buck cutting Q20's back to Briarwood to have everybody cram onto Q44's.....

Albeit not for their apparent frugal reasons, I'm against the consensus that the Q20 should stay running to Jamaica at this point (especially given the Q20's extension north & east of Flushing)... At the same time, I'm against running Q44's to Fordham...

Even still, What percentage of people, is the question.....

Even during peak times, the Q20 carries a lot of air along Archer (that's one thing I would notice on my commute home, looking down from the LIRR as the train was approaching Jamaica, when I used to work out in Nassau).... It's no different during the AM rush either, I'd notice that when I'd go rush off to the store before my train to Mineola would arrive...

Merrick/Archer, forget it - Q44's snatch up virtually 100% of that ridership.... Yes, at Sutphin/Archer, people do start boarding Q20's if there's basically no Q44 in sight (which isn't all that common) - but it still don't be anywhere near in robust numbers.... The general trend over there at Sutphin/Archer is to pay the Q20 no mind & bombard onto Q44's.... Trend over there on Sutphin/Jamaica isn't much different - with the exception of more of a willingness to board Q20's if both the Q20 & Q44 either [arrives simultaneously] or [if a Q44 arrives first & the bus is so dam crowded, you can't feasibly get on the thing]..... With trends like that, I'd take the Q20 away from Jamaica also if I was a public transit provider....

The Q20 north of Flushing is obviously where it'll gain more ridership (than the Q44 north of Flushing, within Queens), as there'll be no one in their right minds that'd want to walk over to the Whitestone expwy. service rd. due south (as in, towards Flushing) from all them co-op's in Mitchell-Linden, at minimum... Not to mention their having of it run up & over to the LeHavre apartments in Beechhurst (current Q15/a territory), which I think is a good tradeoff to have the Q20 do that instead of running to Jamaica  - where the Q44 is the king, queen, rook, and every other dam chess piece... lol....

I would also keep the Q83 as a local route... The idea to have the proposed Q42 & the Q65 act as cumulative local service along that part of Liberty, I don't see flying either.... The Q42 to Jamaica Hosp. is one of those ideal ideas (the general notion of having a route end at a hospital & what not), but that immediate area is a horrible place to end a bus route from a logistical standpoint... Just getting back to Jamaica av. (for the corresponding EB trip) would loom nightmarish...

The big issue I have with the Q20 being cut back is the fact there's decent ridership from the neighborhood to 84th Rd. The stop on 84th NB and 82nd SB both punch above their weight for a local stop and are constantly being used to get people to and from the neighborhood. Also in the case of the Q44, they're not rebalancing the stops to match the current neighborhood demographic. In the first draft they tried cutting too many stops and in the new draft, they're leaving them all in. Especially once you're in the Flushing area it's evident that the stop placements need to be adjusted. It feels tone deaf to the Briarwood residents to make their access to Jamaica more difficult.

If I had to rebalance the stops it would look something more like this.
The 139th St and Queens Blvd stop should be combined into a new stop by the library. The HHE stop and Reeves Ave need to be combined into one stop, I honestly don't care how it's done but they're too close to each other. If it's needed Q44 can do a courtesy stop to let kids off in the morning like they do now NB, and in the afternoon all the trippers can just be Q20 buses (I think there's at least 1 Q44 tripper atm). Elder Ave should be replaced by Franklin Ave with a new SB stop located there too this would serve downtown Flushing better where more of the busy commercial is located. The Q25/65 should be booted from their spot between Roosevelt Ave and 40th Rd in place for a combined Flushing Q44/20 stop. It's already too close to the Main St and Kissena Blvd stop and should be further back. Lastly, the stop at 35th Ave should be pushed down closer to Northern Blvd. 

[N6 Limited]

20 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Speaking of...Merrick and Springfield seems like a stub too for the 25 and 77

 

17 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

You know what, I didn’t even think of that. I do get why they wanna do that (terminating at a shopping center), but is it even worth it? Don’t mind the 78 going to near the JFK Depot therefore replacing the 77 south of merrick blvd, but I don’t even think the 25 and 77 terminating there would be worth it. 

Merrick and Springfield is an easy place to turn buses and maybe interline routes.

[MTA Dude]

I just revamped the map of my (terrible) proposals I made a year ago. In this version I experimented with breaking up routes to improve reliability and avoid serving multiple disjoint ridership bases with a single route.

PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O2S3c3NDRbgXfH_oRwAFfIbeSaDuKxXl/view?usp=sharing

SVG: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lVRDE5hga5xQu0x63f66ZL_xDcA0_D3H/view?usp=sharing

I did assume certain ideal situations, so a lot of my proposals honestly might not be realistic IRL. Assumptions include:

• Archer Ave busway, Jamaica Ave returned to cars
• 165th St terminal replacement is built on the other side of 168th St instead
• New Flushing bus terminal built on the parking lot at Queens Crossing
• Bus lanes along Hillside Ave and Northern Blvd east of Flushing
• 160th St in Jamaica and 58th St in Maspeth become two-way roads
• Maybe Queens Blvd buses get moved off the service road like we've been promised for so long
• Buses have right of way when pulling out of bus stops
• You get unlimited free transfers within 2 hours (even on the same route)

On my map, limited routes will have their stops shown as white circles, and there will be no local variant under the same designation.

The labels are a mess right now and I don't really have the time nor motivation to make it look nice like I did with the last version of the map, so hopefully this will do. I already see a mistake with a 64 icon being left near Citifield...

And here's a few proposed routings in the Bronx:

Q44:

Bx94:

QBx1:

On 6/28/2022 at 4:29 PM, MTA Dude said:

Here's a map of what I would do for the Queens bus redesign. It's not finished yet (so no labels) but hopefully it's enough to understand the details of each route. I recommend downloading the PDF since Google Drive's PDF viewer isn't that good IMO.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O2S3c3NDRbgXfH_oRwAFfIbeSaDuKxXl/view?usp=sharing

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by MTA Dude