Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[mikecintel]

9 minutes ago, limitednyc said:

I wonder where this leaves  brooklyn?

Good Question because they need do a 2nd draft/Final too like the QBR.

[Fire Mountain]

5 hours ago, Robert Spire said:

They released the first draft plan on December 30th in 2019. 

The whole reason this new redesign draft happened was because because the old one received heavy criticism and a lot of routes made no sense, nor was it gonna benefit alot of riders, so it was since then scrapped.

 

5 hours ago, mikecintel said:

I see maybe they will release it like when it was the first draft.

They won’t. They moving forward with this redesign plan, just making some tweaks for the final plan in terms of where buses should actually go that will benefit us customers and schedule wise too

[mikecintel]

1 hour ago, Fire Mountain said:

They won’t. They moving forward with this redesign plan, just making some tweaks for the final plan in terms of where buses should actually go that will benefit us customers and schedule wise too

I see

[N6 Limited]

12 hours ago, TheNextGen2009 said:

I had a feeling the Q10/64 combo would be axed. Sending an artic onto Queens Blvd would create some problems depending on the situation, whether it be double parking or any kind of construction in the near future, and need I say about the high ridership? Plus, what business does the Q10 have over at Jewel Avenue?

I could imagine the long boarding times at Kew Gardens had the plan gone through.

Aren’t they going to move buses to the main road on Queens Blvd? 
 

The Q10/64 combo would provide connectivity and run efficiency and move layover area. How would lines at Kew Gardens be different than now? 

[Cait Sith]

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Aren’t they going to move buses to the main road on Queens Blvd? 
 

The Q10/64 combo would provide connectivity and run efficiency and move layover area. How would lines at Kew Gardens be different than now? 

While screwing over both major ridership bases. Southbound buses would get slaughtered at Kew Gardens and Northbound buses would get slaughtered at Forest Hills because of the lines. The combo's main goal was not about connectivity, it was cost savings. It only looked good on a map, operationally, it would turn into a nightmare. And considering the amount of people that live by and use both lines hated the idea, that in itself speaks for itself.

Also, with the connectivity argument, sure, the Q10 would connect with the Q20, Q44, Q25 and Q65, but the issue is that the number of people that actually transfer between those routes and the current day Q64 aren't exactly high.

The Q64 would be better off extended into Kew Gardens and extended northward into Flushing than combining both routes.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

3 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

The Q64 would be better off extended into Kew Gardens and extended northward into Flushing than combining both routes.

 

Almost like bringing back the Q74?

[B35 via Church]

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Aren’t they going to move buses to the main road on Queens Blvd? 
 

The Q10/64 combo would provide connectivity and run efficiency and move layover area. How would lines at Kew Gardens be different than now? 

It appears that you like to latch on to the concept of connectivity to justify routes being prolonged to have them have different O/D pairings.... Different doesn't necessarily equate to being better; these things gotta be analyzed on a case-by-case basis if it's truly about benefiting riders...... "Case" in point - Short, efficient routes like the current Q64 aren't some kind of hindrance to a bus network.... Having a route run between Electchester & JFK won't mean much of anything if so few people would benefit from riding through QB from either end - especially in juxtaposition to the masses of riders on both routes (current Q10 & current Q64) that are seeking QB.... Where exactly is this latent demand for this through-riding through QB on, or from areas around those routes?

Using the efficiency argument to try to justify this proposed Q10...  It would be one thing if this was a case of combining 2 inefficient routes to create a resultant efficient route.... This is a case of combining 1 efficient route in terms of passengers per mile with 1 highly utilized middle-of-the-road route in terms of efficiency (some would even say it's higher up on the ladder in efficiency, compared to all the city's bus routes, which I wouldn't necessarily argue one way or the other) that would result in one route carrying significantly more passengers than either of the 2 pieces individually.... That isn't for the sake of "providing connectivity" & creating a more efficient route, that is for the sake of cutting costs.... Technological advances won't significantly wane [the traffic plaguing Jewel av during the rush] & [dwell times at bus stops along Lefferts, due to all the passenger activity per stop (especially w/ the Q10 LTD) ], to have the MTA try to sell those affected riders increased efficiency.... Their attempting to even do so, is a slap in the face to those riders....

(For them) to use the current layover situations on both (or either) routes as an actual sticking point in having opted to propose the proposed Q10 would expose their intentions.... Too many buses on layover around their individual/respective intersections are supposedly such this problem.... That implicates that (they think) that there are too many resources being cumulatively utilized in excess...

Lastly, the lines at Kew Gardens likely not being any different for the proposed Q10 in comparison to the proposed Q10, literally has nothing to do with anything the current Q64 has to face...... That is by no means a reason that the 2 routes should be combined.... A route having near 100% turnover at one particular stop mid-route isn't exactly something that should be advocated for....

[B35 via Church]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Lastly, the lines at Kew Gardens likely not being any different for the proposed Q10 in comparison to the proposed Q10...

 Should read: "Lastly, the lines at Kew Gardens likely not being any different for the proposed Q10 in comparison to the current Q10...."

On 9/5/2023 at 11:34 AM, Fire Mountain said:

Let’s change the topic tho. What are y’all thoughts on the swap they tryna do on the Q39 and Q67? If you ask me, I feel it’s a waste and they should just have the Q67 go up to Astoria and leave the Q39 as it is.

Conceptually, I don't mind what they're doing with the proposed Q67 (although I would transform the Q67 by diverting & extending it eastward towards Woodhaven to attempt to draw more commuters to it, over merely attaching the southern portion of the current Q39 to it)... The proposed Q39 OTOH looks like a piecemealed route - even if you knew absolutely nothing about Queens' current network... Not that it's this ideal terminal per se, but at least the Q18 terminating over at 69th/Grand makes more sense than having this proposed Q39 end over there... I would say that 69th/Grand is a stub for the proposed Q39, but the proposed Q39 appears to have no direction (pun unintended)..... Rather, random.

On 9/6/2023 at 3:58 PM, IAlam said:

Honestly the viability of Terminal A in the long run is weak. Is it only spirit now? There aren’t many flights from there and from the 70 there are still a lot of options to get there from the other terminals. The 47 also doesn’t get much ridership and I doubt the 70 would improve that. Instead you’re jacking up the running costs/time for very little benefit.

IINM, Frontier's out of Terminal A also... But yeah, that's it... Just those 2.

[Cait Sith]

13 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Almost like bringing back the Q74?

Kinda sorta. I feel like the current Q64 would benefit greatly from a slight northern and southern extension. It would prevent a lot of backtracking people current do with the .

 

44 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Frontier's out of Terminal A also... But yeah, that's it... Just those 2.

Jetblue was out of Terminal A for a spell. I'm not sure if they still are after terminal B was completed.

 

[B35 via Church]

32 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Jetblue was out of Terminal A for a spell. I'm not sure if they still are after terminal B was completed.

Yeah It was, but now Jetblue is at Terminal B.

[N6 Limited]

13 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

It appears that you like to latch on to the concept of connectivity to justify routes being prolonged to have them have different O/D pairings.... Different doesn't necessarily equate to being better; these things gotta be analyzed on a case-by-case basis if it's truly about benefiting riders...... "Case" in point - Short, efficient routes like the current Q64 aren't some kind of hindrance to a bus network.... Having a route run between Electchester & JFK won't mean much of anything if so few people would benefit from riding through QB from either end - especially in juxtaposition to the masses of riders on both routes (current Q10 & current Q64) that are seeking QB.... Where exactly is this latent demand for this through-riding through QB on, or from areas around those routes?

Using the efficiency argument to try to justify this proposed Q10...  It would be one thing if this was a case of combining 2 inefficient routes to create a resultant efficient route.... This is a case of combining 1 efficient route in terms of passengers per mile with 1 highly utilized middle-of-the-road route in terms of efficiency (some would even say it's higher up on the ladder in efficiency, compared to all the city's bus routes, which I wouldn't necessarily argue one way or the other) that would result in one route carrying significantly more passengers than either of the 2 pieces individually.... That isn't for the sake of "providing connectivity" & creating a more efficient route, that is for the sake of cutting costs.... Technological advances won't significantly wane [the traffic plaguing Jewel av during the rush] & [dwell times at bus stops along Lefferts, due to all the passenger activity per stop (especially w/ the Q10 LTD) ], to have the MTA try to sell those affected riders increased efficiency.... Their attempting to even do so, is a slap in the face to those riders....

(For them) to use the current layover situations on both (or either) routes as an actual sticking point in having opted to propose the proposed Q10 would expose their intentions.... Too many buses on layover around their individual/respective intersections are supposedly such this problem.... That implicates that (they think) that there are too many resources being cumulatively utilized in excess...

Lastly, the lines at Kew Gardens likely not being any different for the proposed Q10 in comparison to the proposed Q10, literally has nothing to do with anything the current Q64 has to face...... That is by no means a reason that the 2 routes should be combined.... A route having near 100% turnover at one particular stop mid-route isn't exactly something that should be advocated for....

I have benefitted from connectivity in various commutes, miss one bus take another route to a different transfer point, options are nice and helpful.  The Q64 goes by Queens College, it opens up an easier commute for potential/current students , etc.
 

A combined route may reduce turn over Kew Gardens. Maybe a Lefferts rider wants to stop at Forest Hills on the way home, eat, shop, whatever, use the transfer there. Maybe track work causes  and  to terminate at Forest Hills, etc.

As for reliability, bus operations need to let dispatchers to do their job to mitigate bus bunching, etc. Stop padding schedules so much. “You get in trouble for being early, but being late is totally fine! It gives no incentive to provide timely service.  You also have B/Os that play games with their leaders/followers. Bus time allows the “bus command center” to know where the buses are, there should be better measures in place to keep service in good standing.

 

Also, as for dwell times, they’d use artics and all door boarding with OMNY.

 

[Fire Mountain]

22 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

The Q64 would be better off extended into Kew Gardens and extended northward into Flushing than combining both routes.

Here’s my question, if they do extend it to flushing, where would they send it? Via 164th with the Q65? Kissena with the 25? 

 

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The proposed Q39 OTOH looks like a piecemealed route - even if you knew absolutely nothing about Queens' current network... Not that it's this ideal terminal per se, but at least the Q18 terminating over at 69th/Grand makes more sense than having this proposed Q39 end over there... I would say that 69th/Grand is a stub for the proposed Q39, but the proposed Q39 appears to have no direction (pun unintended)..... Rather, random.

Yea I don’t really like the idea of the 39 terminating at 69th and Grand with the 18, but I guess this was just a “throw-in” idea. But my question is, will this actually work? 🤔 

[Fire Mountain]

2 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Here’s my question, if they do extend it to flushing, where would they send it? Via 164th with the Q65? Kissena with the 25? 

 

Point there is this: Notice how I didn’t include the 34 since it’s getting cut off (potentially), and it doesn’t have nearly as enough riders as the 25 does (unfortunately. Think the main reason is cause it goes to Whitestone where there are more buses north of Main Street). I don’t see the 64 getting much riders PAST queens college into flushing IMO

[Fire Mountain]

12 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I have benefitted from connectivity in various commutes, miss one bus take another route to a different transfer point, options are nice and helpful.  The Q64 goes by Queens College, it opens up an easier commute for potential/current students , etc.
 

A combined route may reduce turn over Kew Gardens. Maybe a Lefferts rider wants to stop at Forest Hills on the way home, eat, shop, whatever, use the transfer there. Maybe track work causes  and  to terminate at Forest Hills, etc.

As for reliability, bus operations need to let dispatchers to do their job to mitigate bus bunching, etc. Stop padding schedules so much. “You get in trouble for being early, but being late is totally fine! It gives no incentive to provide timely service.  You also have B/Os that play games with their leaders/followers. Bus time allows the “bus command center” to know where the buses are, there should be better measures in place to keep service in good standing.

 

Also, as for dwell times, they’d use artics and all door boarding with OMNY.

 

@N6 Limited I 100% see what you saying, you do have a point there, but isn’t there always traffic along queens Blvd? It already takes the 60 like a 2-3 minutes to travel only 3 blocks, worse if it’s rush hour, so imagine if the Q10 was sent there. Riders may get fed up eventually and there will be a whole book of complaints due to this. However, i agree with you in terms of Reliability. I personally do not know wth the MTA gains from bunching the buses all the time. And this is not just about the Q10. I’m talking about overall. They deadass be doing that sh*t all the time with the Q65, Q30 (mainly), and many more routes and it’s a MAJOR problem, especially for me. If the MTA would stop playing games, maybe commuters will have a nice ride wherever they heading. What’s the point of having a damn schedule if they don’t even follow it?! That’s just plain dumb! 

[NBTA]

51 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Point there is this: Notice how I didn’t include the 34 since it’s getting cut off (potentially), and it doesn’t have nearly as enough riders as the 25 does (unfortunately. Think the main reason is cause it goes to Whitestone where there are more buses north of Main Street). I don’t see the 64 getting much riders PAST queens college into flushing IMO

Man the 34 is insanely clutch compared to the 25..so sad to see it go I guess. The 64 will probably not get that much going north into flushing, people would still probably rather catch something else.

[Fire Mountain]

22 minutes ago, NBTA said:

Man the 34 is insanely clutch compared to the 25..so sad to see it go I guess. The 64 will probably not get that much going north into flushing, people would still probably rather catch something else.

Exactly what I’m saying. I love the Q34! I think it’s a great route that deserves more riders imo. I’m a bit upset it’ll be taken away from us. And about the 64, that’s why I’m saying if they extend it to JUST queens college, that would be beneficial to it’s riders and ridership may increase a bit. Just not if it goes past there.

[NewFlyer 230]

7 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Exactly what I’m saying. I love the Q34! I think it’s a great route that deserves more riders imo. I’m a bit upset it’ll be taken away from us. And about the 64, that’s why I’m saying if they extend it to JUST queens college, that would be beneficial to it’s riders and ridership may increase a bit. Just not if it goes past there.

It’s already useful to the college students since it only runs a block away from the campus.

I would suggest having some Q64 buses begin and end at Jewel Av/ Kissena Blvd for the college students/staff during rush hours. 

[B35 via Church]

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I have benefitted from connectivity in various commutes, miss one bus take another route to a different transfer point, options are nice and helpful.  The Q64 goes by Queens College, it opens up an easier commute for potential/current students , etc.
 

A combined route may reduce turn over Kew Gardens. Maybe a Lefferts rider wants to stop at Forest Hills on the way home, eat, shop, whatever, use the transfer there. Maybe track work causes  and  to terminate at Forest Hills, etc.

As for reliability, bus operations need to let dispatchers to do their job to mitigate bus bunching, etc. Stop padding schedules so much. “You get in trouble for being early, but being late is totally fine! It gives no incentive to provide timely service.  You also have B/Os that play games with their leaders/followers. Bus time allows the “bus command center” to know where the buses are, there should be better measures in place to keep service in good standing.

 

Also, as for dwell times, they’d use artics and all door boarding with OMNY.

Routes should be not be extended somewhere on the sole basis of possibilities being possible.... I mean, stating that you benefit from connectivity isn't really saying anything; if you transfer from any one mode to another, you benefit from connectivity.... To convey that point is implicative of the notion that nothing should connect to anything, which certainly nobody here has espoused.... So yeah, this isn't a network coverage issue; increased connectivity when reconfiguring a network only matters if enough riders stand to benefit from it.... I get that you want to refrain from discussing this aspect of it, but this is a cost-cutting measure with this combination....

You mentioned the line for waiting pax. at Kew Gardens, well the depth of the line for pax. on QB off 108th won't noticeably dissipate either.... Ditto for the line of people at Lefferts AIRTrain that would wait for the proposed Q10 of sorts.... This particular route proposal just screams unmanageable logistical mess to me.... I refuse to support a combination of 2 routes much of no one is really advocating for, that would negatively affect so many commuters' current commutes on both routes.... For their respective distances traveled, the Q64 & the Q10 already do quite well for themselves in the passengers per mile department, so it's clearly not an issue of lack of ridership on either route....

With that said, your comments in that paragraph regarding reliability are general issues that certainly need to be addressed... So yeah, agreed.

Like I alluded to in the last post though, technological advances (like OMNY) isn't going to be nearly enough to make this particular proposal plausible or popular amongst patrons along/around the route... What some folks tend to not factor in (when they're all for speeding buses up by having all these stops be eliminated), is that dwell times would increase per stop - as there are less stops along the route for people to catch their bus at... Which, of course, assumes nominal to no ridership losses....

[Fire Mountain]

39 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Routes should be not be extended somewhere on the sole basis of possibilities being possible.... I mean, stating that you benefit from connectivity isn't really saying anything; if you transfer from any one mode to another, you benefit from connectivity.... To convey that point is implicative of the notion that nothing should connect to anything, which certainly nobody here has espoused.... So yeah, this isn't a network coverage issue; increased connectivity when reconfiguring a network only matters if enough riders stand to benefit from it.... I get that you want to refrain from discussing this aspect of it, but this is a cost-cutting measure with this combination....

I lowkey wonder if enough people are up for the Q15A/19 combination if this is the case. I personally am NOT, but I wonder if that will all be axed like the Q10/64 combo 🤔. What’s your thoughts on this, B35?

[B35 via Church]

10 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Yea I don’t really like the idea of the 39 terminating at 69th and Grand with the 18, but I guess this was just a “throw-in” idea. But my question is, will this actually work? 🤔 

I'll say this much... Instead of having that portion of the proposed B62 run between WBP & the Astoria projects [via 21st in Queens & via the old B61 (Red Hook - Queens Plaza) routing in Williamsburg (which has it bypassing WBP) ], I would turn the proposed Q39 away from Sunnyside & have it pan southwards towards Brooklyn to WBP, via the current B32 routing south of 44th Drive....

9 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

@N6 Limited I 100% see what you saying, you do have a point there, but isn’t there always traffic along queens Blvd? It already takes the 60 like a 2-3 minutes to travel only 3 blocks, worse if it’s rush hour, so imagine if the Q10 was sent there. Riders may get fed up eventually and there will be a whole book of complaints due to this. However, i agree with you in terms of Reliability. I personally do not know wth the MTA gains from bunching the buses all the time. And this is not just about the Q10. I’m talking about overall. They deadass be doing that sh*t all the time with the Q65, Q30 (mainly), and many more routes and it’s a MAJOR problem, especially for me. If the MTA would stop playing games, maybe commuters will have a nice ride wherever they heading. What’s the point of having a damn schedule if they don’t even follow it?! That’s just plain dumb! 

The thing that exacerbated the Q60 along (the service road of) QB was the implementation of those bike lanes...

To be fair to the MTA, the vast majority of bus bunching that occurs city-wide is not intentional.... There are a few factors that contribute to bus bunching that they have no real control over....

1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

It’s already useful to the college students since it only runs a block away from the campus.

I would suggest having some Q64 buses begin and end at Jewel Av/ Kissena Blvd for the college students/staff during rush hours. 

I want to agree with this idea more (as it would cut down on time to get to/from the QB line), but I have to say/admit that the (current) Q88 is the perfect storm for those kids.... Subway station that's right there at the mall, that has a bus right there that takes you to the college.... Although the proposed Q88 would still accomplish that, the running of it to LNP/HHE is going to mar it - which could have those kids gravitating to such Q64's that'd directly serve Queens College more.....

[B35 via Church]

24 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

I lowkey wonder if enough people are up for the Q15A/19 combination if this is the case. I personally am NOT, but I wonder if that will all be axed like the Q10/64 combo 🤔. What’s your thoughts on this, B35?

Just noticed this reply...

AFAIC, that Q15/19 combination is a more blatant example than the Q10/Q64 combination of being a cost cutting measure.... As if it weren't enough that the route would pan along Roosevelt (which'll make it more useful, although subjecting it to more traffic than the current {unofficial} nonstop portion of the Q19 b/w Astoria/108th & Northern/Main), they got it swinging up & over to the old Q14 terminal in Whitestone... SMFH.... I mean, while I get that they're trying to curtail the amount of buses terminating in Downtown Flushing, you still have to (or, at least Should) consider the quality of these routes that you're trying to create/alter....

As for whether I see the proposed Q10 or the proposed Q19 sticking, fortunately I do not (not that that means much of anything in the grand scheme of things)..... My guesses would be that:

• the Q10 on the northern end would be left alone
• some type of routing change would still occur with the Q64 (I don't see it ending up being left as-is, although I think it should)
• they'll amend/waver on having the Q19 end in Flushing via Roosevelt (because I don't see them bending on that Q50 extension to LGA), and...
• have the Q15 on:
  • the southern end terminate somewhere along that pocket of College Pt. Blvd b/w Booth Memorial & the HHE... They have the proposed Q16 ending over there south of that Home Depot, which won't fly... Too much truck traffic & (onloading & offloading) of trucks on those backblocks in that immediate vicinity...
  • the northern end of the Q15, I'd say that they'd put the Q15 back over there at the LeHavre apartments (current Q15/a terminal), to have the proposed Q20 truncated either [somewhere along the Cross Island Pkwy. service rd.] or [the College Point shopping center, with the Q76]...

[Cait Sith]

13 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Here’s my question, if they do extend it to flushing, where would they send it? Via 164th with the Q65? Kissena with the 25?

Me personally, Kissena. 64th Avenue would've been my ideal terminal since it's right in front of Queens College. The problem with that is the streets being a little narrow for buses, and the NIMBYism.

Only reason I suggested Flushing is that there's more turnaround options. For this, I'd use the same turnaround the current Q27 uses.

As for the Kew Gardens turnaround, terminate on Queens Blvd at the current Q10 150th Avenue/Rockaway Blvd branch stop, right onto 82nd, right onto kew gardens road, right onto 80th and left onto Queens Blvd. If not that, pick up on Kew Gardens Road below the Q10 stand and then make the right onto 80th Road and the left onto Queens Blvd.

It sounds like a lot, but it actually isn't, seeing as operators already do loops around that area already.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Cait Sith

[Fire Mountain]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:51 PM, B35 via Church said:

I'll say this much... Instead of having that portion of the proposed B62 run between WBP & the Astoria projects [via 21st in Queens & via the old B61 (Red Hook - Queens Plaza) routing in Williamsburg (which has it bypassing WBP) ], I would turn the proposed Q39 away from Sunnyside & have it pan southwards towards Brooklyn to WBP, via the current B32 routing south of 44th Drive....

Hmm I feel they may still go with the B62 for some reason rather than have the Q39 enter Brooklyn 

 

On 9/10/2023 at 12:51 PM, B35 via Church said:

To be fair to the MTA, the vast majority of bus bunching that occurs city-wide is not intentional.... There are a few factors that contribute to bus bunching that they have no real control over....

Yea, but they also be starting up the buses mad late or doesn’t start up at all. The Q30 specifically does that consistently to the point where I got fed up with it. Traffic is one thing, but starting mad late? Come on now, MTA. No warnings or nothing, they could at least tell us when CERTAIN buses are running late, they do with the 25, 65, 28, and some others, but they need to do it with ALL routes, especially the 30.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 1:49 PM, B35 via Church said:

Just noticed this reply...

AFAIC, that Q15/19 combination is a more blatant example than the Q10/Q64 combination of being a cost cutting measure.... As if it weren't enough that the route would pan along Roosevelt (which'll make it more useful, although subjecting it to more traffic than the current {unofficial} nonstop portion of the Q19 b/w Astoria/108th & Northern/Main), they got it swinging up & over to the old Q14 terminal in Whitestone... SMFH.... I mean, while I get that they're trying to curtail the amount of buses terminating in Downtown Flushing, you still have to (or, at least Should) consider the quality of these routes that you're trying to create/alter....

Yea, like I don’t mind it via Roosevelt, but weren’t people complaining back in the day about the Q14 terminating on Clintonville Street? I feel the 19 shouldn’t be at THAT specific spot…

 

On 9/10/2023 at 1:49 PM, B35 via Church said:

As for whether I see the proposed Q10 or the proposed Q19 sticking, fortunately I do not (not that that means much of anything in the grand scheme of things)..... My guesses would be that:

• the Q10 on the northern end would be left alone
• some type of routing change would still occur with the Q64 (I don't see it ending up being left as-is, although I think it should)
• they'll amend/waver on having the Q19 end in Flushing via Roosevelt (because I don't see them bending on that Q50 extension to LGA), and...
• have the Q15 on:
  • the southern end terminate somewhere along that pocket of College Pt. Blvd b/w Booth Memorial & the HHE... They have the proposed Q16 ending over there south of that Home Depot, which won't fly... Too much truck traffic & (onloading & offloading) of trucks on those backblocks in that immediate vicinity...
  • the northern end of the Q15, I'd say that they'd put the Q15 back over there at the LeHavre apartments (current Q15/a terminal), to have the proposed Q20 truncated either [somewhere along the Cross Island Pkwy. service rd.] or [the College Point shopping center, with the Q76]...

I feel the 10 and 64 would be left as it is entirely with 0 changes, the 19 stay at Roosevelt and main, don’t see the 15 going near the LIE, so idk where they would end up having it terminate at, not by the center though, and on 132nd, not even a good place to terminate the 76 cause those trucks always be coming out or tryna back into the storage center and it be delaying the 76 at times. So maybe not the best idea right there for the 20 to terminate there too…

[xD4nn]

2 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Yea, but they also be starting up the buses mad late or doesn’t start up at all. The Q30 specifically does that consistently to the point where I got fed up with it. Traffic is one thing, but starting mad late? Come on now, MTA. No warnings or nothing, they could at least tell us when CERTAIN buses are running late, they do with the 25, 65, 28, and some others, but they need to do it with ALL routes, especially the 30

The Q30 doesn't really start late unless ops are fooling around at Little Neck. The main reason why the Q30 is always late is because of the traffic along horace harding and out of Jamaica. This is why I say the Q88 idea is stupid.

[7-express]

On 9/10/2023 at 3:23 AM, Fire Mountain said:

Exactly what I’m saying. I love the Q34! I think it’s a great route that deserves more riders imo. I’m a bit upset it’ll be taken away from us. And about the 64, that’s why I’m saying if they extend it to JUST queens college, that would be beneficial to it’s riders and ridership may increase a bit. Just not if it goes past there.

It also acts as a school bus at the northern end bringing kids to and from the schools by Memorial Field.  If you look at the trackers during around 8am and 2:30pm, the buses are packed with students.