Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[NBTA]

*Deleted*

Edited December 14, 2023 by NBTA

[NBTA]

1 hour ago, JoshTheScrub said:

Wouldn't the Q64 go with College Point?

64 is outta BP, don’t see it leaving, unless if you want 65 interlines. Also, Union stuff.

1 hour ago, xD4nn said:

Why would QV get the Q75? The proposed Q75 is the same schedule as the existing Little Neck branch of the existing Q30 with service cuts to capacitate the service increases of the proposed Q30. Adding on, it's a 30-minute deadhead to Briarwood from QV and a 20-minute deadhead to Little Neck. Not at all reasonable whatsoever. I don't get the bs argument of depots owning streets such as "QV owning Hillside Ave and Union Turnpike"

It’s just an estimate. However, QV-Little Neck is around a 10-15 minute deadhead, and Main/Manton is about 20-25. 75 would also easily interline with any of the lines starting at Kew Gardens in QV.

1 hour ago, xD4nn said:

This seems a bit more reasonable in my opinion.

I guess this is also a good guesstimate. 45 outta CP wouldn’t work though. 

[xD4nn]

47 minutes ago, NBTA said:

It’s just an estimate. However, QV-Little Neck is around a 10-15 minute deadhead, and Main/Manton is about 20-25. 75 would also easily interline with any of the lines starting at Kew Gardens in QV.

Little Neck is around 20 minutes since they can't use cross Island parkway and have to go down LNP. If they really wanted the 75 to interline with the other union routes, they would have sent it to Kew Gardens, not Briarwood.

[TheNextGen2009]

1 hour ago, NBTA said:

64 is outta BP, don’t see it leaving, unless if you want 65 interlines. Also, Union stuff.

It’s just an estimate. However, QV-Little Neck is around a 10-15 minute deadhead, and Main/Manton is about 20-25. 75 would also easily interline with any of the lines starting at Kew Gardens in QV.

I guess this is also a good guesstimate. 45 outta CP wouldn’t work though. 

That's what I thought. I think the 45 is better off at CS.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Since I got to reviewing the map the last couple days I'll give my final thoughts on the proposed changes:

Q1: Glad they did not combine it with the Q6 as well as extended it to the LIRR

Q2: Indifferent about it

Q3: it's funny bc I still feel like they planning on having this jfk route change permanent even if they don't outright say it anymore 

Q4: disappointed with the Elmont cut back

Q5: They turned it into the Q115 of Merrick Blvd. Looks fine to me

Q6: see Q1

Q7: Would have liked it to go at least up to JFK Depot or around there

Q8: you guys thing riders prefer the 3 over the mall? The demand is there, the question is what route?

Q9: baffled how it got one bs extension in favor of the Q37 extension.

Q10: glad it's not being combined with the Q64

Q11: if nobody pointed it out, I would have missed the part where 3 routes are put into 1 (the Q11 branches+ Q21). That said, I'm trying to figure out where exactly it terminates. It looks like it goes via Hamilton Beach, then terminates at Old Howard Beach. If I'm even understanding it correctly. Lord, if I'm confused af about the terminals, imagine the headaches the riders here will feel.

Q12/13: basically swapped western routes, with the Q13 having the rush portion  

Q14: I knew I wasn't bugging when I saw the Q14 end at Fresh Pond (not the station or depot)

Q15: so basically the old 14 is back just "more direct" with the Q62 replacing the remaining segment. Ehh

Q16: it never really made sense why the Q16 had 2 branches but no lettering to reflect it. I did feel the Willets point branch the weakest though.

Q17: one thing I'm starting to notice starting here is how most of the Limited routes are basically just rebranded locals on busy corridors for the most part. Also don't see why the Q17 needs to be a thing sounds of Horace Harding when you (had) the Q75, more in a bit when I get to the Q75

Q18: just straightened out in maspeth

Q19: how easy it would have been to have the Q19 absorbed most of the Q48 bus invuyriders weren't having it

Q20: is 14 Av more served than 20 Av? Seems more like 14 Av is just around for coverage

Q22: we all saw the cut west of 116 coming

Q23: this is a route I'm glad was cut, both in the current stand redesign 

Q24: another route we saw getting cut, but in favor of another bus route

Q25: I kinda liked the idea of a Q25 split at Flushing. But if there's a Q62 that'll mimic some of the route north, I guess there's no need

Q26: speaking of split at Flushing, the Q65 North will be absorbed into the lighter route, which I see as a W

Q27: no more Holly Av is all I care about

Q28: Another rush route barely changed, just "faster service

Q29: no more discontinuation and just basically unchanged

Q30: let's see if there's gonna be any protests about losing Little Neck service

Q31: the straightening seems good on paper, not sure how Bayside residents gonna feel

Q32: is this the only route that's gonna skipping the "Queensboro Plaza segment"? (Just checked slightly before posting and thank God the Q60 doing the same thing)

Q33: welcome back to LGA, but it's the other side instead

Q35: saw coming

Q36: I don't hate that the Q36 stays in this form

Q37: ok, so if the Q37 "needs" to go to JFK, just make a separate branch for it, probably like a Q97 using the Q37 north of Rockaway Blvd and the 130 Av branch of the Q10 south and bypassing Aqueduct. Only reason I see this extension came to be is for interlining with the Q10 and possible conversion to artics

Q38: only the south segment remains 

Q39: nothing I notice changing

Q40: anything changed before beside the rush and the minor reroute no longer happening?

Q41: no more Q109 and the Howard Beach segment remaining

Q42: no more worthless extension to the hospital

Q43: could care less about adding an LIJ segment

Q44: the Fordham segment could be a different route if it even will be a route anymore

Q45/46/48: new routes all for the purpose of tryna divide the Union Tpke ridership. At least that Q23 extension/reroute no longer happening

Q47: basically taking the Q33 to 94 St, but would a longer segment really be worth it?

Q49: could have sworn this route was proposed originally as a LTD, too lazy to check

Q50: has no business going on Roosevelt and 108.

 

Will cover the remainder of the routes in a later post to reduce clutter, need a break from all this typing anyway 

[danielhg121]

There's a chance that the Q26 could get sent over to CP tbh. Q65 could be sent to CS. Q14 could also be at CP, it is just the Q38 half and Q23 northern portion. 

 

[SubBus]

7 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I think it's Alden Terrace, but yet the X64 soon to be QM64 will end at Elmont and Dutch Broadway 

 

Thats it.  Thanks bro.  Yeah, I see that the  going to end by the strip mall with the bowling alley...

A couple more minor comments:

:  Rerouted to New Lots Ave  station.  I'm feeling this move.  However, space under the el is going to be tight with the , , and the proposed  all terminating there...

: Why change the terminal in Cambria Heights??  If anything, extend the proposed Q51 to the current  terminal....  Also was confused by the flip flop with the  in the previous draft...

: I'm with the masses here about the Fordham extension, definitely not needed.  The current Bronx section alone can be its own route...

Edited December 15, 2023 by SubBus

[Gotham Bus Co.]

2 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Q45/46/48: new routes all for the purpose of tryna divide the Union Tpke ridership. At least that Q23 extension/reroute no longer happening

Basically, each peak-hour variation (L.I.J. LTD, Glen Oaks LTD, "inner zone" local) gets its own full-time route number.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Alright, so part two of my commentary (Part 1 was here)

Q31: Forgot to mention it in my previous post, but I would perhaps have consider sending this route via the Throgs Neck Bridge and Tremont Avenue to Westchester Square, with maybe an extension (part time or full time) to Hutchinson River Center or some of the hospitals in that area. Given that the Q78 is nerfed, the Q31 is "centralized" within NE Queens and has connections to most east-west routes, and might take on the demand from the medical centers and the East Bronx into Queens (NE Queens in particular). 

Q37: I mean I guess I understand why they did the Q37 like that instead of maintaining the Q10 branches, I guess I'm indifferent to it all. However the added overnight service isn't bad. Would like to see how it plays out. Personally, with how much of a pain it is apparently to use the AirTrain (especially given the $8.25, soon to be $8.50 fare...smh), having both the Q10 and Q37 from Union Turnpike to JFK Airport may loom beneficial for both routes in the long run. Union Turnpike  could potentially be a more ideal transfer point in terms of frequency and options (both on the subway and connecting service). Right now they're all terminating at the Lefferts Boulevard AirTrain, although they should be going directly to JFK Airport once the work is completed.   

Q38: One of the major problems with the existing route is that it attempts to put together too many different ridership bases with different demand levels/destinations into one route (that have no business being together), and serves them all in a mediocrely on top of that, for the sake of cost savings. I guess splitting the Penelope Avenue and Eliot Avenue segments is one step in attempting to fix that, but simply splitting the two segment isn't enough.

While the Eliot Avenue split (Q14) will have its group of riders, the current Penelope Avenue segment isn't exactly that hot (not to say that it has low ridership though). Ridership to/from the  tends to be relatively low during off-peak hours, and the route north/east of Queens Boulevard tends to have low ridership, even during rush hours too. You'd be better off walking to/from the Q88 to get to those apartments near the end of the route on 108th Street than wait for the Q38. If the Q72 wasn't going into LGA, I would probably suggest combining the Q72 with the proposed Q38 south/west of Queens Boulevard, and run it into Ridgewood/Bushwick (possibly Myrtle-Wyckoff for connections to the other Brooklyn routes, but not via Fresh Pond Road). 

Otherwise, I would look at either extending the Q38 somewhere into NE Queens, or give the Q59 the section of the route north/east of Queens Boulevard. Personally I think the part between Queens Boulevard and 108th Street shouldn't even be part of the Q38. It's attached for the sake of it.

Q39: Cool that they kept it as is. I don't really have a critique of the route itself now, the one thing I can commend them on I suppose is that the LIC-bound stop on Eliot Avenue / 60th Lane will now be on Fresh Pond Road with the Q58 (similar to the setup headed south). 

Q41: This is more or less the former Q109 from the former draft, instead going to Lindenwood rather than Euclid Ave  station. I honestly wonder though, if they're gonna have the Q11 running through Lindenwood, is there really a need for the Q41 to be doing all that? Couldn't it have served some of the areas the 11 won't go through anymore east of Cross Bay (between Pitkin and 157th Avenues), or just head straight down towards Howard Beach and serve that area? IDK, I don't think Lindenwood needs two routes, one route with a decent headways is enough (the Q11s proposed frequencies alone are decent for Lindenwood). I would also be fine with eliminating the Cross Bay/Lindenwood/Howard Beach section of the route and saying to hell with that. 

Also, for those who may have not noticed, take a look at the map on the big document. Notice how the thin green segment on 109th/Piktin Avenues is labeled B15. Were they cooking something up that they later changed but didn't do so here, or was it an error on their part? 

Q42/Q83: They have the Q83 acting as a "rush route" with no stops between 177th Street and Guy R. Brewer Boulevard, while the Q42 is the local??? The Q42 doesn't even run on weekends for anyone going specifically to Jamaica Center or the ...you gotta be kidding me, SMH. What I wanna know, is how much time is actually being saved with this setup. Screwing over people for virtually no reason. 

Q43: About time that Hillside Avenue will get effectively a full-time LTD route. The one thing I would say though (and this applies to a lot of these other 24/7 "rush" routes) is that I don't see the need to be skipping stops or operating limited at night as well, AND having another layer of local service to boot.

Q44: I don't know if this was done out of spite because of the comments received from the previous draft or what, but it did surprise me how after all this time the proposal to Fordham Plaza was in the redesign, the thing was just dropped. 

Q45/Q46: While I don't necessarily have an issue with the Q45 route existing as is, IDK that it should run during late night hours. Again a similar criticism, is that there's no need for the local Q45 and LTD Q46 to be running (yeah I know they call the Q45 the "LIMITED" and the Q46 the "Rush", cool for them) as they are proposed during late nights. The Q46 should be all local, and should be running on whatever the combined headway is. Now they display the overnight headway right now is 48 minutes, but that is a crock of bullshit because buses during the overnight run every 64 minutes, which does not even meet their guidelines. The stop removal on the Q46 is also just pure laziness, instead of consolidating stops they're just eliminating stops that are close to another in one direction or the other. The result, uneven spacing and quite the gaps.

Q47: Well, I am thankful that they finally listened and kept the connection from Middle Village to the  and Jackson Heights, massively infuriating that for the longest it wasn't the case. Don't even get me started with the former Q80, smh. As if we didn't have enough buses already to the damn  train. The one major downside to me though is that they insist on keeping the Q47 routing via Woodside Avenue, instead of heading directly to 69th Street for the . 

That might be the tipping point for me with the Q47 when headed to work; with all the construction along the way taking out lanes on 69th Street and 80th Street now, now add having to backtrack to 74th Street. At that point the Q14 to the  would be faster, and it's a shame since the  is more convenient for me than the QBL. Forget doing that transfer between the QBL and the  at 74th Street, it's bad enough when all the elevators were working, but with construction taking out all the escalators on the 73rd Street side its rough. 

I'm indifferent with the swap with the Q33, although I guess it'll make the ridership on the north end consistently lower now that it won't serve Marine Air Terminal. While it wasn't the highest, there were times where buses at night would be close to SRO north of Northern Boulevard, with the bulk being airport goers and employees. 

Q49: Another route that was proposed for overnight service (in the second draft) that was cut out of the final. The Q49 should have been a 24/7 route yesterday, I don't see this reluctance, especially when it comes close to doing so right now. 

Q50: *sigh* This route's combo to LGA was already gonna be interesting to witness given the traffic that it contends with on its current segment, but now operators are gonna be thrown to the wolves dealing with airport traffic, the usual congestion in Corona, Citifield traffic during the spring and summer months, Flushing, Whitestone and I-95 traffic to/from Co-Op City. Those ECH drivers know how to drive but that's gonna be way too much for them to handle. When they have to deal with all of that in one trip, kiss the damn schedule goodbye. Those proposed frequencies are warranted now even with its neutered route between Flushing and Pelham Bay. The Q50 is one of several routes that are criminally underserved.

The overnight service is welcomed, which is more of a reason for sending the thing back to Co-Op City on a full time basis and realigning that route within there in the process. That route becomes such a waste of time after going through the northern section (from Pelham Bay) more times than not. 

Q51: I'm not really too upset with the overall truncation of the route on its eastern end (I still say it should have gone up Springfield to Queens Village LIRR), and while I'm not too upset with the loss to Gateway Mall in particular, I still wish it connect to some of the Brooklyn routes for a faster ride into parts of SE Queens. However I don't know what other location in Brooklyn besides Gateway Mall would be worth sending the Q51 to.

Q54: The boost they're giving the route is welcome and warranted, but looks like weekend service will still be crappy as hell. Also, the Q54 don't run every 30 minutes during overnight hours at all, lol. Where is this information coming from? Also, I have to say it's funny how they reroute and truncate the Q24 in Jamaica (and also in Brooklyn), yet this route and the Q56 are kept unchanged headed all the way out to 170th Street. I'm not necessarily opposed to leaving the Q54/Q56 as they are (route-wise) though. 

Q58/Q98: It's kinda annoying how this played out, as the Q98 only needed several adjustments to its stopping patterns and call it a day. The Q58/Q98 route proposals up until this draft were solid(the stops are another story). On top of this, the Q98 won't operate during overnight hours, which is a bummer. Every 30 minutes combined between the two during the late late night periods would have worked out (with the Q98 running local during overnight hours). I don't see the need of having some Grand Ave stops being skipped by the Q58 and only served by the Q59, they should just be consistent altogether.  

Q59: If the route is being streamlined to run along Queens Boulevard just past QCM instead of 90th Street & 56th Avenue, plus stop with the Q60 outside Queens Place Mall, how are they planning on making the left onto Grand? Do these people know you aren't able to do that from the service road, and you have to be on the main road to turn left? That's the only reason they operate that way to begin with. Talk about being penny-wise and pound foolish. 

As mentioned earlier, I would have this route take over the 62nd Drive/63rd Road portions on the Q38 between Queens Boulevard and 108th Street. Those areas would have more direct service to more commercial areas (QCM, Queens Place, Grand Ave), and there might some Jewish folks taking advantage of the (more) direct link between Rego Park / Forest Hills and Williamsburg. 

Q60: Lol, the 56th Avenue stop (towards Jamaica) was discontinued quite some time ago, they never put back the bus stop sign after whatever construction work there was completed that required the closure of that bus stop in the first place. It doesn't even show up as a Q60 anymore anywhere (although apparently there's an imaginary stop there for the Q59 only *shrugs*). Would have thought they would have known/realized that.

Q61: Well, I guess span wise it's better than the previous rush-hour only proposals, but it still sucks how a part of the Q16 is gonna get shafted and have service only on weekdays. Even if it wasn't the case, they can't provide something on weekends along Willets Point Boulevard? Aside from the Q15, it's the only route directly to Flushing for most of its local segment.

Q62: Alright, what the actual f**k is this shit? This is supposed to "provide a faster, more direct ride to and from Flushing" for who exactly?? Whatever time savings you even get by skipping everything south of 20th Avenue, you lose by crossing 20th Avenue in that wonky ass fashion to/from Whitestone and Beechhurst. Not like it wasn't evident, but I already know that they were gonna get rid of shit and create new problems in the process. This is very clearly one of those proposals to do so. You don't have much time to push back against this crap either. 

It would have been easier if they just kept the previous Q20 proposal from the second draft, and add a branch to serve the shopping center and run to 14th Ave & 132nd Street via 20th Ave and 132nd Street. Why did they need to complicate things like this? The shopping center doesn't need a non-stop bus to Flushing, come on.

Q63/Q66: Nothing about the Q66 screams "rush", it's literally the same stops as the Q63 for the most part so IDK why they even labeled it as such. That put aside, it seems like the issue with them criminally underserving Northern Boulevard during evenings might no longer be a problem, if the frequencies as proposed go through. Also, I guess that's an attempt at compromise between the camp that wants to retain direct access between 35th Ave and Northern Boulevard, and those who don't. Either way I guess I don't have too much of a problem with that set up, route wise. 

Q65: This Q26/Q65 swap is pointless, especially when the overnight Q26 apparently is supposed to only run between College Point and Flushing according to the overnight map. Just send the Q65 back up to College Point and call it a day. They're so insistent on watering virtually everything down in this draft except in College Point for some reason, where they want to get "creative" and do more harm than good.

Q67: I'll take a truncation from Queensboro Plaza to Court Square given the 30 minute weekend and evening headways. The only connection you're outta luck for is to/from the Broadway lines. However, the stop removal on this route is insane, it closer to a limited-stop service than even some of the so-called "limited" services in this plan. In most case you're not saving much of any time because the stops are not used like that, so it's not even that big of an issue to keep the stop around. 

Q68: I'm not as shocked as some other riders have commented upon seeing this route, as I get the intent, but it falls flat. It seems like a very poorly executed attempt to serve as both a Queens-Brooklyn interborough route and a community shuttle to Elmhurst Hospital in the same route. Not only should the two even be in one route, the latter shouldn't even be a thing. The problem with running along the length of Woodside Ave is what you're missing by routing a route like that in that fashion. Also, consider the changes over time between this Q68 and the previous Q68s, you really do get the sense that they're just filling in and drawing random lines without reason. Like how do you switch up from serving different markets like that. 

Lastly, you can't really market this as a Jackson Heights route if it doesn't actually even the neighborhood at all. Plus, you miss one of the biggest spots (74th Street area) and barely miss the next biggest spot (82nd Street area), along with Roosevelt Avenue, which is as far south as you can say that you're in Jackson Heights.

Q69: With the Q100 no longer running, it is a service cut during overnight hours north of 30th Avenue since they're not adding overnight service on the Q69. Honestly even now I think the Q69 should have overnight service before the Q100. They should reconsider and add overnight service on the Q69 (which can make all local stops at night).

Q70: Lol. This is like the only route that hasn't been messed around with in all three drafts of the Queens redesign in any way. Thank goodness I suppose. 

Q72: This is another one of those routes that gets criminally underserved which grinds my gears...and yet they're doing NOTHING to it in this draft plan . In most cases, the Q72 should be operating close to twice as frequent during the day. There is demand, but because the buses come so infrequent you get a lot of people walking to/from the , or taking other routes (Q66, Q58) to another subway route. That's also those who don't drive, of which there are a lot. They'll double, even triple park on the damn street and there will be so much congestion on the road + pedestrian on the sidewalk, yet the sorry ass bus is 30 minutes away. 

Q75: SMFH. Briarwood is an even worse terminal for this proposed Q75 than the Q20. Whatever riders end up using the Q75 for subway access to/from Briarwood  will get real tired of that, real quick. It doesn't help when you have the Q45, Q46 and Q48 all going to Union Turnpike, which is a much easier station to transfer at, and has the  stopping there all the time. I see people passing up Q75s for any of the other Union Turnpike local bus routes. Plus, does Union Turnpike really need all that service?

What I would have considered, is to have the Q75 run to/from the 71st Avenue  station, however via Horace Harding, either 164th Street or Kissena Boulevard, and Jewel Avenue. The rush segment could be west of 188th Street and serve the following stops:

• Horace Harding Expwy & Utopia Pkwy
• Horace Harding Expwy & 164th Street (via Kissena)
• Kissena Blvd & 64th Avenue (via Kissena)
• 164th Street & Horace Harding Expwy (via 164th)
• Jewel Avenue & 164th Street (via 164th)
• Jewel Avenue & Kissena Boulevard
• Jewel Avenue & Main Street
• 108th Street & 71st Avenue (connect to the  )

It would serve the Queens Boulevard Line and be less of a backtrack headed north/south to get to the subway. Runtime would be about the same but overall travel time is reduced because riders get to Forest Hills instead of Briarwood in a similar amount of time. The other option is extending select Q45s out to Little Neck, although I would prefer to give them a limited stop route given that they are that far out. 

----------------------------------

I'll provide comments for the rest of the routes + the Brooklyn routes mentioned another time.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Ok putting the remaining thoughts I have on the other half of the local routes

Q51: I'm just kinda laughing bc the Q51 is one of the few routes bound to al least have decent ridership. Wonder if simple adjustments to the Q9A/89 and properly ending it at the subway would have saved it up to this moment.

Q52/53: so much tampering only for it to just be left alone. How ironic /s

Q54: how funny it would have been if the Q38 or even the Q14 extended to WBP while the Q54 ended at FP and metropolitan? Feel like it could have made things better using either or.

Q55. So basically a couple blocks extension. Does myrtle Av need an extension this far east? Shortest extension would at least be at Jamaica -Van Wick if so.

Q56: nothing for me to note

Q58/98: only thing I see is division of ridership (in Corona). Q58 could have been it's own idea like in the previous redesign.

Q59: the west portion (in Brooklyn) seems pointless now

Q60: Think if the MTA takes away a few more stops this route could qualify for a conversion to a limited (according to the redesign)?

Q61: all I'm seeing is a relabeled Q34 made to absorb part of the Q16.

Q62: idk what I'm seeing, but if there's something that sounds like a pita, it's a Flushing - Beechurst route via College Point

Q63: literally the Q66 is it not?

Q64: Probably the best if left intact. Got me thinking though, would an extension to Atlas Mall or Queens Center would be worth it (rather the former than the latter)

Q65: Like the cut north of flushing

Q66: so a little reroute and no stops on bs segments make it a rush? You can't tell me Northern Blvd wouldn't want some kind of SBS service. Ridership should be around to at least make qualifications

Q67: nothing to note

Q68: B24 split is ok, just thinking exactly how can you exactly terminate a Q68 in a decent enough area in Queens? Queens plaza? Steinway? The current terminal?

Q69: now it absorbed the Q100. Think it would work out if the MTA monitors this route good (they won't)

Q70: it really needs a comment?

Q72: I don't think it really has business being extended in a Queens Center loop

Q75: LOL I can't believe they made a decent Q75 into some stupid Union Turnpike variant. There was nothing wrong with the Q17/75 plan in the new draft. Pretty sure this is really only around because of the complaints about the Q17 and there was extra left over and needed to make a route for job and union purposes 

Q76: feels indifferent to me

Q77: so since there's no Q78 anymore, an extension south would make everything satisfying for coverage purposes? Might as well make a Bay Terrace-Queens village route with the Q75 money you're pointlessly spending

Q82: I took it as an inside joke and said, how many Q2s can we split to get that Jamaica Av route?

Q83: see they caught me off guard. The proposed Q83 would maintain its existing routing" but they don't mention the Q83 late night service to Queens Village being permanently discontinued. Not that I care for it.

Q84/85: kinda fin having the Q5 do all their Merrick work to make these routes faster. 

Q86/87: so now there the Q5, plus the Q84-87. Well whatever line goes to Rosedale (I don't remember which one) looks like a bit of an improvement 

Q88: one has to wonder if the Q73 survived would it even be in 73 Av before Queens Village?

Q101: well MOST of this route remains. Ik 2 Av is not exactly the routes highest ridership generator so

Q102/104/105: listen I'm just glad Roosevelt Island service isn't "merged with another corridor" and the Q104 is one of those routes I don't mind serving it since it's kind of an unofficial Astoria Shuttle.

Q103: always thought this route should stay, but I am open to a Court Sq reroute 

Q110: Basically a way to straighten Jamaica Av service. as long as it's not the monster of a Q57.

Q111-115: those riders that want straight Far Rockaway - Jamaica service gonna be mad. Only thing I really find interested is the Q111 short turn gets its own route name.

B53: sure but my question is why merge a Broadway (Brooklyn) and Williamsburg West- Queens connector route?

B57: now seeing it cut back to Downtown Brooklyn since the Brooklyn redesign, I'm not gonna say I don't like it as much as before, just wanna say there's something else that many others pointed out that make it feel off

B62: for the love of, why is this the one thing that remains in this redesign?

[Gotham Bus Co.]

15 hours ago, NBTA said:

My guess for the depots:

QV: Q1, Q2, Q36, Q45, Q46, Q48, Q75, Q82, Q83, Q88

JAM: Q3, Q4, Q5, Q17, Q30, Q31, Q42, Q51, Q77, Q84, Q85, Q86, Q87

STE: Q12, Q13, Q15, Q16, Q20, Q26, Q27, Q28, Q32, Q44, Q61, Q62, Q76

JFK: Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q37, Q40, Q52, Q60

FRK: Q11, Q22, Q35, Q41

BP: Q64, Q110, Q111, Q112, Q114, Q115

CP: Q14, Q19, Q23, Q25, Q38, Q63, Q65, Q66

LGA: Q18, Q29, Q33, Q39, Q47, Q49, Q53, Q67, Q68, Q69, Q70, Q72, Q101, Q103, Q104, Q105

There’s probably a couple missing, but those are my guesses.

 

Couldn't some routes be moved between NYCT and MTAB? For example...

Q32 could be assigned to CS, LG, MQ, or even GA.

Q39 could go to LG, GA, or FP.

Q51 could go to QV, JA, BP, or JFK.

Q64 could go to BP or CP.

Q76 could go to CP, CS, or JA

Q110 could go to BP, JA, or QV.

Also, wouldn't Q11 and Q41 work better at JFK (and wouldn't Q52 work better at FR)?

[limitednyc]

12 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Couldn't some routes be moved between NYCT and MTAB? For example...

Q32 could be assigned to CS, LG, MQ, or even GA.

Q39 could go to LG, GA, or FP.

Q51 could go to QV, JA, BP, or JFK.

Q64 could go to BP or CP.

Q76 could go to CP, CS, or JA

Q110 could go to BP, JA, or QV.

Also, wouldn't Q11 and Q41 work better at JFK (and wouldn't Q52 work better at FR)?

Fr can't handle artics 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, limitednyc said:

Fr can't handle artics 

Does that negate my other th

 

3 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Q83: see they caught me off guard. The proposed Q83 would maintain its existing routing" but they don't mention the Q83 late night service to Queens Village being permanently discontinued. Not that I care for it.

 

The Q83 overnight thing was a holdover from the former Queens Village branch. It kept going there because the extended Q27 didn't go sough of Jamaica Avenue overnights. Now it does, so the overnight Q83 isn't needed on Springfield. 

[QM1to6Ave]

18 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

How much "advertising" do they need to do? The service almost markets itself, with large buses that are kind of hard to miss.

Well, considering how many people in Manhattan try to get on the buses thinking they are locals, the message doesn't seem to be crystal clear...I frequently hear people at the Queens bus stops asking other passengers "that bus goes to manhattan? When? How much does it cost? 

[Fire Mountain]

11 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

 

Q62: Alright, what the actual f**k is this shit? This is supposed to "provide a faster, more direct ride to and from Flushing" for who exactly?? Whatever time savings you even get by skipping everything south of 20th Avenue, you lose by crossing 20th Avenue in that wonky ass fashion to/from Whitestone and Beechhurst. Not like it wasn't evident, but I already know that they were gonna get rid of shit and create new problems in the process. This is very clearly one of those proposals to do so. You don't have much time to push back against this crap either. 

If you ask me, they could’ve sent this up where the Q50 runs via Whitestone since this is a nonstop rush route. Would save mad time via Whitestone or via Linden-Mitchell rather than via 20th and Linden. I’m sometimes on the Q20A or Q76 and there’s always traffic coming towards Whitestone expressway once you pass McDonalds or wherever. 

It would have been easier if they just kept the previous Q20 proposal from the second draft, and add a branch to serve the shopping center and run to 14th Ave & 132nd Street via 20th Ave and 132nd Street. Why did they need to complicate things like this? The shopping center doesn't need a non-stop bus to Flushing, come on.

Agreed. I wouldn’t even be mad if they had the 76 terminate there. Luckily tho it’s terminating at CP Blvd, so no complaints from me right there. Also 14th Avenue really dosen’t need weekend service west of Whitestone Expwy anyways. Everyone over there drives.

Q63/Q66: Nothing about the Q66 screams "rush", it's literally the same stops as the Q63 for the most part so IDK why they even labeled it as such. That put aside, it seems like the issue with them criminally underserving Northern Boulevard during evenings might no longer be a problem, if the frequencies as proposed go through. Also, I guess that's an attempt at compromise between the camp that wants to retain direct access between 35th Ave and Northern Boulevard, and those who don't. Either way I guess I don't have too much of a problem with that set up, route wise. 

(Response to the first part mainly) This is what I’m saying! Like why have the Q66 RUSH make most local stops WHILE the Q63 local is also there?! The 66 could’ve ran rush between Main St and that shopping center in Woodside. Would’ve made way more sense that way. 

Q65: This Q26/Q65 swap is pointless, especially when the overnight Q26 apparently is supposed to only run between College Point and Flushing according to the overnight map. Just send the Q65 back up to College Point and call it a day. They're so insistent on watering virtually everything down in this draft except in College Point for some reason, where they want to get "creative" and do more harm than good.

If you ask me, I think this plan right here is stupid. I’m pretty sure the 26 is going to be empty between flushing and fresh meadows mainly after 9:30am. Even when I take this route in the morning (which is whenever I don’t feel like taking the crowded 27), the bus I be on isn’t really all that packed in the morning hours. Idk about the others. The 65 I took ever since I was a little kid, so it did hurt me for a moment that it won’t be here in CP anymore, but about overnight service, I agree they should keep the 65 running to CP.

Q75: SMFH. Briarwood is an even worse terminal for this proposed Q75 than the Q20. Whatever riders end up using the Q75 for subway access to/from Briarwood  will get real tired of that, real quick. It doesn't help when you have the Q45, Q46 and Q48 all going to Union Turnpike, which is a much easier station to transfer at, and has the  stopping there all the time. I see people passing up Q75s for any of the other Union Turnpike local bus routes. Plus, does Union Turnpike really need all that service?

What I would have considered, is to have the Q75 run to/from the 71st Avenue  station, however via Horace Harding, either 164th Street or Kissena Boulevard, and Jewel Avenue. The rush segment could be west of 188th Street and serve the following stops:

• Horace Harding Expwy & Utopia Pkwy
• Horace Harding Expwy & 164th Street (via Kissena)
• Kissena Blvd & 64th Avenue (via Kissena)
• 164th Street & Horace Harding Expwy (via 164th)
• Jewel Avenue & 164th Street (via 164th)
• Jewel Avenue & Kissena Boulevard
• Jewel Avenue & Main Street
• 108th Street & 71st Avenue (connect to the  )

It would serve the Queens Boulevard Line and be less of a backtrack headed north/south to get to the subway. Runtime would be about the same but overall travel time is reduced because riders get to Forest Hills instead of Briarwood in a similar amount of time. The other option is extending select Q45s out to Little Neck, although I would prefer to give them a limited stop route given that they are that far out. 

I find it crazy and strange how they want to have 3 rush routes via Union and they on top of that, have the Q75 (one of the rush routes) sent to briarwood. I agree with you that they should send the 75 up to 71st avenue. But I would have it run via Kissena to jewel so that the route can also serve queens college

Responses are in Bold. Only responded to the routes I had the most concerns about

Edited December 15, 2023 by Fire Mountain

[NBTA]

2 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Couldn't some routes be moved between NYCT and MTAB? For example...

Q32 could be assigned to CS, LG, MQ, or even GA.

Q39 could go to LG, GA, or FP.

Q51 could go to QV, JA, BP, or JFK.

Q64 could go to BP or CP.

Q76 could go to CP, CS, or JA

Q110 could go to BP, JA, or QV.

Also, wouldn't Q11 and Q41 work better at JFK (and wouldn't Q52 work better at FR)?

I dont think they can due to union issues. If they were combined, then ill do a different list soon.

[Robert Spire]

On 12/14/2023 at 1:03 AM, QM1to6Ave said:

If I'm reading the Union Tpke Exp bus changes correctly:

They walked back the most egregious cuts (weekends and midday), and will have both the QM1/31 and QM5/35 continue to serve Union Tpke west of 188th St

BUT, the QM6/36 will still be cut west of 188th street.

I don't understand why they are so insistent on cutting the West of 188th street service! That is where a majority of ridership comes from, even on the QM6. The QM6/36 will now basically be private service for North Shore Towers.

With congestion pricing, I really don't understand why they would reduce options, especially if congestion pricing should theoretically be reducing traffic overall, which means that the time savings on the QM6 would not be needed.

How much time and money was wasted on those ridiculous plans (there was the Q46 that would go all the way down 108th Street, and all those crazy renumbered routes with T's and all sorts of nonsense)?? 

I think it is cover for the MTA to continue to insist on other cuts. So when the public hearing comes around they'll walk back this cutback and keep other cuts. 

[FLX9304]

Q68 should be operated out of Grand Ave Depot because its service pattern does end at WBP. so why would it go to LGA?  

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 12/14/2023 at 1:03 AM, QM1to6Ave said:

BUT, the QM6/36 will still be cut west of 188th street.

I don't understand why they are so insistent on cutting the West of 188th street service! That is where a majority of ridership comes from, even on the QM6. The QM6/36 will now basically be private service for North Shore Towers.

 

Sounds like NST wanted a faster ride to Manhattan. Will there be more QM1/31 to cover the "inner zone"?

[Bill from Maspeth]

22 hours ago, xD4nn said:

This seems a bit more reasonable in my opinion.

So you want B57's having driver reliefs, entering service and dropping out to go to the depot near where it terminates today?

[NBTA]

38 minutes ago, FLX9304 said:

Q68 should be operated out of Grand Ave Depot because its service pattern does end at WBP. so why would it go to LGA?  

Once again, guesstimate, could easily come outta GA, but we will see once it’s fully implemented.

[Ex696]

What made the MTA decide to increase overnight service on most routes? Has there been an increase in the amount of night shift workers?

[NBTA]

3 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

What made the MTA decide to increase overnight service on most routes? Has there been an increase in the amount of night shift workers?

Yes. Also, late nights out, and more development.

[QM1to6Ave]

1 hour ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Sounds like NST wanted a faster ride to Manhattan. Will there be more QM1/31 to cover the "inner zone"?

I wish! 

4 hours ago, Robert Spire said:

I think it is cover for the MTA to continue to insist on other cuts. So when the public hearing comes around they'll walk back this cutback and keep other cuts. 

I hope so! I already wrote to my (mostly useless) representatives to push back. Maybe one will answer if I'm lucky. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

2 hours ago, Ex696 said:

What made the MTA decide to increase overnight service on most routes? Has there been an increase in the amount of night shift workers?

yes, and since there are more people who have jobs that start at 4am/5am, those hourly overnight routes that currently exist aren't doing them any good