Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Q43LTD]

50 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

 

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

Highly doubt that since the 25 is College Point and the 77 is Jamaica 

[B35 via Church]

19 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

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?

Lol, yeah, the MTA's all smoke & mirrors; not goin have them piss on my leg, to then go on & to tell me that it is rain..... They foster adversarial relationships with their own customers (as in, the riding public) like we're f***in stupid & don't know what time it is, but that's neither here nor there..... Anyway, I think they'll end up leaving both the Q9 & Q10 alone, thanks to the extent of the public backlash that was received with that particular proposal.... Given that the current Q64 routing is also involved in that proposed Q10, I am interested to see if they'll leave the Q64 as-is, or if they'll come up with some other route/routing to serve Jewel av..... Personally, I'd just route the proposed Q73 over the full Q64 (instead of having the proposed Q73 turn off on Main st.) & call it a day.... Every trip of course, would not run the full route throughout the day....

As for the proposed Q78, routing-wise, I don't think it should run past Northern;  I'd just leave the proposed Q13 serving Bell, north of Northern.... Aside from that, I think they're undervaluing the route with only 12 mins. peak & 30 mins. off peak service.... If the proposed Q26 & the proposed Q78 ends up sticking, I would balance both of their headways, instead of giving the proposed Q26 almost FOUR times the service on weekends & twice the service on weekdays....

[limitednyc]

30 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

What do u think is going to happen will the q22, q35, 114 .

 

[TDL]

2 hours ago, limitednyc said:

 

The will terminate at 116th St as per plan, and the will also follow the draft plan running via. RBB and ending at the ferry. I like the way the extended the 22 to Five Towns so that the can keep some of its express run. I would like to see a Rockaway-Sheepshead Bay route and have the take over Beach 9th from the so it could be more direct. This would include a short extension to Beach 35th Street to connect with the and NYC Ferry Shuttle. They're making a whole new development over there called Arverne East.

[B35 via Church]

17 minutes ago, limitednyc said:

What do u think is going to happen will the q22, q35, 114.

I'm worried about the current state of the Q22 (seems like it's a shell of its former self) & I would worry about what may end up happening to the Q22.... For starters, from a logistical standpoint, I can not see a bus route literally/physically terminating in front of 5 Towns... I do not think where they propose ending the Q7 at in Inwood will stick, either... But yeah, my concern is a phasing out of the Q22; I get the sense they really want to do away with an intra-Rockaways route.... One way they may go about it, is to have:

• that proposed Q7 run out to Far Rockaway (whether it'd remain running up to 75th-Elderts , or cut back to Rockaway Blvd )
• the proposed Q35 extended to end where the current Q52 does in Arverne, and...
• the proposed Q52 sent back to QCM, to have it end where the current Q22 (and n33) does in Far Rockaway

...speaking of which, there's no way you can have Q52's and Q53's ending at Moore Terminal; hell, I don't see how you can have any one of them ending there...

As for the Q114, unfortunately, I see them leaving that as proposed (as far as the removal of stops are concerned)...

[NBTA]

21 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

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:

 

LOL IDK to JFK is super hilarious. Lol

[Fire Mountain]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol, yeah, the MTA's all smoke & mirrors; not goin have them piss on my leg, to then go on & to tell me that it is rain..... They foster adversarial relationships with their own customers (as in, the riding public) like we're f***in stupid & don't know what time it is, but that's neither here nor there..... Anyway, I think they'll end up leaving both the Q9 & Q10 alone, thanks to the extent of the public backlash that was received with that particular proposal.... Given that the current Q64 routing is also involved in that proposed Q10, I am interested to see if they'll leave the Q64 as-is, or if they'll come up with some other route/routing to serve Jewel av..... Personally, I'd just route the proposed Q73 over the full Q64 (instead of having the proposed Q73 turn off on Main st.) & call it a day.... Every trip of course, would not run the full route throughout the day....

As for the proposed Q78, routing-wise, I don't think it should run past Northern;  I'd just leave the proposed Q13 serving Bell, north of Northern.... Aside from that, I think they're undervaluing the route with only 12 mins. peak & 30 mins. off peak service.... If the proposed Q26 & the proposed Q78 ends up sticking, I would balance both of their headways, instead of giving the proposed Q26 almost FOUR times the service on weekends & twice the service on weekdays....

I can honestly see them leaving the 9 and 10 alone, as for the 78 if you ask me, I think it may be a good idea to serve at least Bayside High School (I was class of 2018 there 🙌🏾) due to the fact MAD kids take the 31 and half of them get off on or near Bell Blvd. Maybe they’ll do short turns where some buses don’t run past northern and etc. when it’s not school hours or weekends? Idk, but I personally like the routing myself. Just don’t know if people would acknowledge the route and it becomes the next 79 (in terms of no one ever getting on that bus)

[Fire Mountain]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm worried about the current state of the Q22 (seems like it's a shell of its former self) & I would worry about what may end up happening to the Q22.... For starters, from a logistical standpoint, I can not see a bus route literally/physically terminating in front of 5 Towns... I do not think where they propose ending the Q7 at in Inwood will stick, either... But yeah, my concern is a phasing out of the Q22; I get the sense they really want to do away with an intra-Rockaways route.... One way they may go about it, is to have:

• that proposed Q7 run out to Far Rockaway (whether it'd remain running up to 75th-Elderts , or cut back to Rockaway Blvd )
• the proposed Q35 extended to end where the current Q52 does in Arverne, and...
• the proposed Q52 sent back to QCM, to have it end where the current Q22 (and n33) does in Far Rockaway

...speaking of which, there's no way you can have Q52's and Q53's ending at Moore Terminal; hell, I don't see how you can have any one of them ending there...

As for the Q114, unfortunately, I see them leaving that as proposed (as far as the removal of stops are concerned)...

I think they may just cut back the 52 to its current terminal. I’ve rode the 53 before to woodside and there is sometimes (not all the time) traffic on Broadway between Queens Blvd and the Roosevelt Terminal. Adding the 52 would only make it worse. However, it may just be possible to have the 52 run to Mott Ave like you mentioned. I can see that happening. Don’t really mind the 7 where it ends up, and the 22, they may keep that proposal tbh 

[B35 via Church]

1 minute ago, Fire Mountain said:

I can honestly see them leaving the 9 and 10 alone, as for the 78 if you ask me, I think it may be a good idea to serve at least Bayside High School (I was class of 2018 there 🙌🏾) due to the fact MAD kids take the 31 and half of them get off on or near Bell Blvd. Maybe they’ll do short turns where some buses don’t run past northern and etc. when it’s not school hours or weekends? Idk, but I personally like the routing myself. Just don’t know if people would acknowledge the route and it becomes the next 79 (in terms of no one ever getting on that bus)

Nah, that proposed Q78 wouldn't be as abysmal as the old Q79.... Not that this is saying much, but nothing being proposed in this plan would end up garnering a whopping 500-600 riders a whole day like the old Q79 did.... I'd say the proposed Q78 portion b/w JFK Depot & Jamaica av. alone would garner almost double that.... The limitation with the current Q27 is that it doesn't pan past 120th & hardly anyone bothers xferring b/w the Q27 & the Q77 for points south... The Q78 would eliminate that & IMO, would attract more riders along Springfield in SE Queens....

As far as what you're saying about Bayside HS, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to operating Q78 'trippers there if need be... Hell, at one point (however many years ago on this forum it was), I suggested having the Q31 terminate at that park across the street from Bayside HS (to do away with the terminating in the middle of nothing in-particular like the current Q31 does, over along Francis Lewis).... But for the proposed Q31 to end by the Bay Terrace shopping ctr. & the Bay Terrace library (which been in its renovation stages for god knows how long) with the Q28, IMO, is a waste.... Unlike the Fresh Meadows shopping center (which tends to attract way more Queens patrons in general), the Bay Terrace shopping ctr. is one of them spots where it's mainly people that live in the immediate area go there.... Don't really see much of anyone along/around Springfield really tryna head up there.....

[Fire Mountain]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Nah, that proposed Q78 wouldn't be as abysmal as the old Q79.... Not that this is saying much, but nothing being proposed in this plan would end up garnering a whopping 500-600 riders a whole day like the old Q79 did.... I'd say the proposed Q78 portion b/w JFK Depot & Jamaica av. alone would garner almost double that.... The limitation with the current Q27 is that it doesn't pan past 120th & hardly anyone bothers xferring b/w the Q27 & the Q77 for points south... The Q78 would eliminate that & IMO, would attract more riders along Springfield in SE Queens....

As far as what you're saying about Bayside HS, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to operating Q78 'trippers there if need be... Hell, at one point (however many years ago on this forum it was), I suggested having the Q31 terminate at that park across the street from Bayside HS (to do away with the terminating in the middle of nothing in-particular like the current Q31 does, over along Francis Lewis).... But for the proposed Q31 to end by the Bay Terrace shopping ctr. & the Bay Terrace library (which been in its renovation stages for god knows how long) with the Q28, IMO, is a waste.... Unlike the Fresh Meadows shopping center (which tends to attract way more Queens patrons in general), the Bay Terrace shopping ctr. is one of them spots where it's mainly people that live in the immediate area go there.... Don't really see much of anyone along/around Springfield really tryna head up there.....

Hmm, I see what you saying about the southern portion of the 78, and I agree, it may attract more riders especially since for some it will be a one seat ride to Queens Village LIRR. About the northern portion, I used to work in bay terrace, and while it may be busy a lot, (at least where I was), there isn’t really any good spots except for where the 28 lays over to terminate, so it might just be a good idea to terminate the 78 at Bayside. I personally see that working IMO. Would say extend it fort totten, but that will just drag the route at that point. 

[Nitro]

The Q50 would be long and unreliable like the B57 & the B62 under this new proposed redesign.

[Fire Mountain]

2 hours ago, Nitro said:

The Q50 would be long and unreliable like the B57 & the B62 under this new proposed redesign.

Mmm, I beg to differ. If the 50 was never cut back to Pelham Bay during off peak, I may agree with you, but since it was, and it’ll be extended to LGA, this actually gives Bronx riders a one seat ride to the airport. If you ask me, I see that working, plus after it passes Citi Field, it will take the GCP to LGA. Only concern is the traffic by Skyview Mall (Roosevelt Avenue and College Point Blvd). There may be a few delays due to that right there

[Nitro]

7 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Mmm, I beg to differ. If the 50 was never cut back to Pelham Bay during off peak, I may agree with you, but since it was, and it’ll be extended to LGA, this actually gives Bronx riders a one seat ride to the airport. If you ask me, I see that working, plus after it passes Citi Field, it will take the GCP to LGA. Only concern is the traffic by Skyview Mall (Roosevelt Avenue and College Point Blvd). There may be a few delays due to that right there

That's your opinion. You don't even see the logistics that this would have on the depots and the bus lines themselves. 

[B35 via Church]

9 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Mmm, I beg to differ. If the 50 was never cut back to Pelham Bay during off peak, I may agree with you, but since it was, and it’ll be extended to LGA, this actually gives Bronx riders a one seat ride to the airport. If you ask me, I see that working, plus after it passes Citi Field, it will take the GCP to LGA. Only concern is the traffic by Skyview Mall (Roosevelt Avenue and College Point Blvd). There may be a few delays due to that right there

IDRC about the routing to LGA that this proposed Q50 takes, I simply don't see this attracting much of any Bronx riders to the proposed Q50 for service past Flushing.... It's a PITA to get to the Q50 for most Bronxites... It's akin to way back when the B13 was the only bus route that ran to Brooklyn's Gateway Mall... Getting to the B13 is a PITA for far too many Brooklynites.... Of course there are other reasons for it, but the floodgates opened when they finally extended the B83 there after all these years (dare I say decades).....

In any event, albeit being better than nothing, the Q50 proposal is a cheap way of replacing the current Flushing - LGA riderbase on the Q48 (which I personally think is a waste of money).... They'd be way better off running Bx15's (especially now that they scaled it back to the Hub, to have this M125 rolling around) or Bx41 SBS' to LGA if they were serious about attracting more Bronxites to LGA..... But nope, they're content with having Bronxites take 's, 's, 's, or 's, to 125th for the M60 - and the vast majority of Bronxites that need/want LGA will continue to do that....

They got these Q70's rolling around, but yet they're content with extending Q50's from Flushing to LGA.... If it's okay to have all these Bronxites descending down to Manhattan to catch the M60 for LGA access, then it's okay for Flushing area patrons to laterally take 's to 61st or 74th for the Q70 for LGA access.... When they came out with the Q70 ten years ago, is when they should've canned the Q48 & had the Q19's routing to Flushing altered, to where it'd run via 108th st & via Roosevelt av....

Edited August 24, 2023 by B35 via Church

[40 to 241st]

55 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

IDRC about the routing to LGA that this proposed Q50 takes, I simply don't see this attracting much of any Bronx riders to the proposed Q50 for service past Flushing.... It's a PITA to get to the Q50 for most Bronxites... It's akin to way back when the B13 was the only bus route that ran to Brooklyn's Gateway Mall... Getting to the B13 is a PITA for far too many Brooklynites.... Of course there are other reasons for it, but the floodgates opened when they finally extended the B83 there after all these years (dare I say decades).....

In any event, albeit being better than nothing, the Q50 proposal is a cheap way of replacing the current Flushing - LGA riderbase on the Q48 (which I personally think is a waste of money).... They'd be way better off running Bx15's (especially now that they scaled it back to the Hub, to have this M125 rolling around) or Bx41 SBS' to LGA if they were serious about attracting more Bronxites to LGA..... But nope, they're content with having Bronxites take 's, 's, 's, or 's, to 125th for the M60 - and the vast majority of Bronxites that need/want LGA will continue to do that....

They got these Q70's rolling around, but yet they're content with extending Q50's from Flushing to LGA.... If it's okay to have all these Bronxites descending down to Manhattan to catch the M60 for LGA access, then it's okay for Flushing area patrons to laterally take 's to 61st or 74th for the Q70 for LGA access.... When they came out with the Q70 ten years ago, is when they should've canned the Q48 & had the Q19's routing to Flushing altered, to where it'd run via 108th st & via Roosevelt av....

Don’t you think that people transfer from the other side of the Bronx to get the Q50

[limitednyc]

1 minute ago, 40 to 241st said:

Don’t you think that people transfer from the other side of the Bronx to get the Q50

Don't forget co-op city in on of the largest  housing conplexes  in the  city.  

[40 to 241st]

1 minute ago, limitednyc said:

Don't forget co-op city in on of the largest  housing conplexes  in the  city.  

They should allow it to serve co-op  city more for that reason rather than ending most of the trips in Pelham bay park.

[B35 via Church]

8 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

Don’t you think that people transfer from the other side of the Bronx to get the Q50

How far west of the Q50 that however many people are currently transferring to it from, is the question....

[limitednyc]

6 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

They should allow it to serve co-op  city more for that reason rather than ending most of the trips in Pelham bay park.

I agree

[NewFlyer 230]

1 hour ago, 40 to 241st said:

Don’t you think that people transfer from the other side of the Bronx to get the Q50

He already mentioned how much of a pain it is to get to the Q50 which is true. The Q50 is only accessible from east Bronx and if you are someone carrying luggage you wouldn’t want to get off one bus to connect to another and then detour through Flushing. 

That is why the Bx15 and Bx41 would be better options for Bronx residents seeking LGA. They serve more of the Bronx and have more connections in general. I don’t necessarily see the Q50 doing any better than the Q48 in terms of airport ridership and I think the detour through Flushing will be the reason. 

[Fire Mountain]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

IDRC about the routing to LGA that this proposed Q50 takes, I simply don't see this attracting much of any Bronx riders to the proposed Q50 for service past Flushing.... It's a PITA to get to the Q50 for most Bronxites... It's akin to way back when the B13 was the only bus route that ran to Brooklyn's Gateway Mall... Getting to the B13 is a PITA for far too many Brooklynites.... Of course there are other reasons for it, but the floodgates opened when they finally extended the B83 there after all these years (dare I say decades).....

In any event, albeit being better than nothing, the Q50 proposal is a cheap way of replacing the current Flushing - LGA riderbase on the Q48 (which I personally think is a waste of money).... They'd be way better off running Bx15's (especially now that they scaled it back to the Hub, to have this M125 rolling around) or Bx41 SBS' to LGA if they were serious about attracting more Bronxites to LGA..... But nope, they're content with having Bronxites take 's, 's, 's, or 's, to 125th for the M60 - and the vast majority of Bronxites that need/want LGA will continue to do that....

They got these Q70's rolling around, but yet they're content with extending Q50's from Flushing to LGA.... If it's okay to have all these Bronxites descending down to Manhattan to catch the M60 for LGA access, then it's okay for Flushing area patrons to laterally take 's to 61st or 74th for the Q70 for LGA access.... When they came out with the Q70 ten years ago, is when they should've canned the Q48 & had the Q19's routing to Flushing altered, to where it'd run via 108th st & via Roosevelt av....

 

32 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

He already mentioned how much of a pain it is to get to the Q50 which is true. The Q50 is only accessible from east Bronx and if you are someone carrying luggage you wouldn’t want to get off one bus to connect to another and then detour through Flushing. 

That is why the Bx15 and Bx41 would be better options for Bronx residents seeking LGA. They serve more of the Bronx and have more connections in general. I don’t necessarily see the Q50 doing any better than the Q48 in terms of airport ridership and I think the detour through Flushing will be the reason. 

I see what y’all are saying, and y’all both have good points but if they was to ever extend the Bx41 SBS or Bx15 to LGA, they’d have to run it via RFK onto Astoria Blvd, which currently has the M60 SBS running, so I figure that would be a waste right there. And to be real, I actually like the idea they are getting rid of the 48 and the 19 is partially replacing it via Roosevelt and 108th, I’ve rode the 48 a few times, and it’s a lame route that don’t even get many riders. But every time I see a 70, it’s packed, so I see what you’re saying in terms of people taking the 7 to the 70 for LGA @B35 via Church

[40 to 241st]

1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

He already mentioned how much of a pain it is to get to the Q50 which is true. The Q50 is only accessible from east Bronx and if you are someone carrying luggage you wouldn’t want to get off one bus to connect to another and then detour through Flushing. 

That is why the Bx15 and Bx41 would be better options for Bronx residents seeking LGA. They serve more of the Bronx and have more connections in general. I don’t necessarily see the Q50 doing any better than the Q48 in terms of airport ridership and I think the detour through Flushing will be the reason. 

I have no problem with the Bx15 there I feel like if any route should connect the Bronx to LGA it should be the bx15 the bx41 there isn’t something I see as necessary as both of them going there is redundant. So you might as well put one of those routes over there with the bx15 being truncated from  Manhattan  I feel like they should give them another interbourough option and correct if I’m wrong  but I think that the bx15 is in need for more of a ridership boost. I feel like the bx15 should be enough to connect the west side of the Bronx to LaGuardia 

 

45 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

 

I see what y’all are saying, and y’all both have good points but if they was to ever extend the Bx41 SBS or Bx15 to LGA, they’d have to run it via RFK onto Astoria Blvd, which currently has the M60 SBS running, so I figure that would be a waste right there. And to be real, I actually like the idea they are getting rid of the 48 and the 19 is partially replacing it via Roosevelt and 108th, I’ve rode the 48 a few times, and it’s a lame route that don’t even get many riders. But every time I see a 70, it’s packed, so I see what you’re saying in terms of people taking the 7 to the 70 for LGA @B35 via Church

The M60 gets very packed so I think that the bx15 helping  reduce crowds from the M60 wouldn’t be a waste to me. 

[Fire Mountain]

5 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

I have no problem with the Bx15 there I feel like if any route should connect the Bronx to LGA it should be the bx15 the bx41 there isn’t something I see as necessary as both of them going there is redundant. So you might as well put one of those routes over there with the bx15 being truncated from  Manhattan  I feel like they should give them another interbourough option and correct if I’m wrong  but I think that the bx15 is in need for more of a ridership boost. I feel like the bx15 should be enough to connect the west side of the Bronx to LaGuardia 

 

The M60 gets very packed so I think that the bx15 helping  reduce crowds from the M60 wouldn’t be a waste to me. 

Fair enough. If they do that, then maybe the Q19 can go elsewhere. Possibly Northern to help the Q66 (which gets crowded very often)? If they do that, then I wouldn’t mind the Bx15 and M60 SBS running together via Astoria since they’re both articulated buses. But all 3, yea don’t see that working. But the 41, yeah no. 2 SBS in Astoria when it’s not as busy as woodhaven? Don’t see that working.

[Fire Mountain]

Question. Has anyone in here ever reached out to the MTA themselves about these ideas and they actually listen to them and make it happen or nah? 

[GreatOne2k]

8 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

They should allow it to serve co-op  city more for that reason rather than ending most of the trips in Pelham bay park.

Q50 needs to go to Co Op City late nights when the Bx23 doesn't run. The Bx12 doesn't even directly connect to the E/B Bx28 anymore since the bus stop under I-95 was discontinued.