xD4nn Posted December 16, 2023 Share #3401 Posted December 16, 2023 15 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said: So you want B57's having driver reliefs, entering service and dropping out to go to the depot near where it terminates today? There isn't really anywhere else you can assign the B57 to except Grand ave. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBTA Posted December 16, 2023 Share #3402 Posted December 16, 2023 1 hour ago, xD4nn said: There isn't really anywhere else you can assign the B57 to except Grand ave. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but just like everyone else who’s commented, we don’t know due to two things.. The Unions/Superintendents at the depots and What company would get what bus line Just because a bus line is closer to a depot, doesn’t mean it’ll get it. Generally, that’s how it should be, but it’s not all like that. For example, the M98, literally drives past 100th, but it’s outta MHV. The Bx40/42 literally drives past WF, but it’s outta GH. Sometimes it’s just not gonna be the depot it literally drives past. We just gotta wait and see. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 16, 2023 Share #3403 Posted December 16, 2023 On 12/14/2023 at 10:34 PM, SubBus said: Thats it. Thanks bro. Yeah, I see that the going to end by the strip mall with the bowling alley... There's a strip mall on Elmont Rd? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xD4nn Posted December 16, 2023 Share #3404 Posted December 16, 2023 6 hours ago, NBTA said: I’m not saying you’re wrong, but just like everyone else who’s commented, we don’t know due to two things.. The Unions/Superintendents at the depots and What company would get what bus line Just because a bus line is closer to a depot, doesn’t mean it’ll get it. Generally, that’s how it should be, but it’s not all like that. For example, the M98, literally drives past 100th, but it’s outta MHV. The Bx40/42 literally drives past WF, but it’s outta GH. Sometimes it’s just not gonna be the depot it literally drives past. We just gotta wait and see. the B57 still has to be finalized under Brooklyn Bus Redesign so I highly doubt it would be sent over to BC... "Note that trips involving Q8, Q24, Q59, Q68, B53, B57, and B62 may not show accurate travel times, since those routes will still be reviewed and finalized under the Brooklyn Redesign." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted December 16, 2023 Share #3405 Posted December 16, 2023 6 hours ago, NBTA said: I’m not saying you’re wrong, but just like everyone else who’s commented, we don’t know due to two things.. The Unions/Superintendents at the depots and What company would get what bus line Just because a bus line is closer to a depot, doesn’t mean it’ll get it. Generally, that’s how it should be, but it’s not all like that. For example, the M98, literally drives past 100th, but it’s outta MHV. The Bx40/42 literally drives past WF, but it’s outta GH. Sometimes it’s just not gonna be the depot it literally drives past. We just gotta wait and see. I think it's pretty safe to say that a good majority of the routes will stay where they are at. And judging by how this draft came about, I'm also sure the union(s) also got involved, because the previous draft would've had them in an uproar. 8 hours ago, xD4nn said: There isn't really anywhere else you can assign the B57 to except Grand ave. Fresh Pond can house the B57. It wouldn't be the first time that they've had the line. But right now, it's best not to make guesses or assumptions as to what goes where. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 17, 2023 Share #3406 Posted December 17, 2023 Now I have some time this weekend, my analysis on the final proposed plan. The should listen to Barry White's Practice What You Preach, but that may be like pulling teeth. Anyway: Q1- Glad that merger with the Q6 is gone. Loses the Queens Village LIRR branch, but gets extended west to Jamaica LIRR to help out the Q43. Does it retain it's rush hour trips to 179 St though? Q2- Stays as is Q3- Stays as is. Q4- Stays as is. Maybe Elmont Rd and Dutch Broadway would have been better than Elmont and Central by the SSP Q5- So the 233 St branch becomes the 24/7 route. The Rosedale LIRR branch is combined with the Q85 Rosedale branch to be the reinvented Q86. The Green Acres branch becomes the Q87. Little ironic history here. First time since the 80's it will not travel to Nassau County full time. Q6- Stays as is Q7- Stays as the through Rockaway Blvd route ending at Lane HS. Doesn't go to Cedarhurst or Inwood though. No service to the Cargo area. Gets overnight service. Q8- No service south of East New York New Lots . I'm guessing those Euclid short turns are gone. Q9- Extended south to 135 Av to cover the elimination of the Q10 via Rockaway branch. Short as it is, and it gets "rush" service? Q10- Service stays entirely on Lefferts. So glad it is not combined with the Q64 Q11- Stays as is, however it will serve Lindenwood to replace the Q21 and combines the Old Howard Beach and Hamilton Beach branches into one. Late night service between Queens Center and 157 Av. I guess the short trips will be extended to 157. Better than extending the Q21 to Jackson Hts or making it a shell of itself by turning it into a shuttle between Rockaway Blvd and the branches. Q12- Stays as is, service is entirely on Northern. I guess those 165 short trips are gone. Q13- Stays as is, shifted to Sanford. No more Lippman arcade service Q14- New route. Eliot leg of the Q38 combined with the Q23 north of Corona. I feel it would have better if it ended at Ridgewood or Fresh Pond Rd . Better than its former incarnation I guess. Q15- Stays as is with no service east of Whitestone. Ends by the former Q14 terminal. Glad it is not merged with the Q19. Q16- Stays as is but the Franny Lew branch becomes its own route. In the last plan, it was cut back to Bayside and extended west to Skyview. Q17- Stays as is. I suppose it's better than the College Pt-Fresh Meadows bit. Q18- Stays as is, service straightened out in Maspeth. In the original, service was supposed go to Ridgewood. Q19- The only change I would do is have it run until 10 or 11. So glad it's not going to Beechhurst. Q20- Stays as is, but would be rerouted in Linden Hill to replace the Q34. Service shifted to 14 Av. Last I checked, 14 is residential. At least it's not ending at a stub called Briarwood. Q22- Stay as is with no service west of Rockaway Park. But extended to Far Rockaway LIRR? They didn't learn anything when they took the Q113 away from there? I guess it would be closer to Redfern PJ's Q23- Stays as is with no service north of Corona. I liked the plan when it went from East Elmhurst to Fresh Meadows becoming a 108 St route. It still could be. I guess they did not want to overserve 108 St with the 23 and 50. Q24- Brings back the B22 although no service east of Jamaica Center and no service west of Broadway Junction. Q25- Stays as is. Has no business going to Springfield Gardens anyway. Q26- Stays as is but extended north to College Point. Regains off peak and weekend service. Doesn't go to Cambria though Q27- Stays as is, service removed from Holly. Doesn't do the College Point-Oakland Gardens thing Q28- Stays as is Q29- Stays as is. I thought Dry Harbor was too narrow for buses. Considering the Queens Center-Jackson Hts portion would have went to the Q21 and the Queens Center-Glendale portion would been rerouted and became a Q80. Q30- Stays as is with no service east of Queensboro and loses weekend service. The Q75 from the last plan was slightly better. Q31- Stays as is for the most part but rerouted in Auburndale and Bayside and extended to Bay Terrace SC. Wasn't this supposed to go to College Point? Q32- Stays as is Q33- Stays as is however goes back to LGA, this time serving Marine Term only. NB service is shifted to 81 St though Q35- Stays as is but shifted to Rockaway Beach Blvd to cover the loss of the Q22. Extended to 108 St for the ferry Q36- Little Neck branch becomes the full time route. Rerouted in Queens Village, loses weekend service. They had to do something to keep bus service on LNP. I suppose it's better than the Q45 and 57 proposals. Q37- Stays as is with an extension to JFK and gets 24 hour service. Realigned in South Ozone Park. Will it still have buses not serving the casino? Q38- No longer a loop route. I feel Fresh Pond-Metropolitan is a stub. Q39- Stays as is. No service to Astoria though. No longer serves Court Square Q40- Stays as is. I guess proposed service on 143 went to the wayside? Q41- Stays as is. Has part of the proposed Q109. Q42- Stays as is. Glad it's not ending at Jamaica Hospital. Maybe it could run later? Q43- Stays as is. I'm glad LTD stops are added west of 179. I was really feeling the extension to LIJ too. Q44- Stays as is. Somewhat glad it's not going to Fordham Plaza Q45- New route from Kew Gardens to Fresh Meadows was originally part of an extended Q23. Service is busiest west of 188. I would probably not run it 24/7 though. Maybe not even weekends Q46- Stays as is. Glen Oaks branch becomes Q48. Does it keep the Springfield short turns? Q47-Stays as is with no service to LGA. Extended to East Elmhurst to cover the Q33. SB service shifted to 75 St, no longer serves Bulova Ctr, Instead of Roosevelt uses Woodside to get to 69 St. Previous draft had it going to Ridgewood Q48-See comments for Q46 Q49- Stays as is. Will not go to 108 St this time Q50- Stays as is with a western extension to LGA. Gains 24/7 service. Is Eastchester considering artics in the future? Q51-Originally supposed to go between Cambria and Spring Creek and run 24/7. Now it will run between Cambria and Ozone Park. Gateway won't have service to Queens from a Queens route though. Q52- Stays as is. Glad it's not ending in Jackson Hts Q53- Stays as is. Glad it's not cut back to Jackson Hts Q54- Stays as is. It still serves Atlas Park Q55- Stays as is with an extension to 121 . I was feeling the extension to Jamaica Q56- Stays as is Q58- Stays as is, gets a new complimentary service in the Q98 Q59- Stays as is. Gets to Williamsburg directly Q60- Stays as is Q61- New route, former Q16 via Francis Lewis branch. Originally supposed to run rush hours only. Replaces part of the Q34 Q62- New route, not attached to the Q16, but replaces the Q15 east of Whitestone Q63- New route, instead of being it's own route from Elmhurst to LIC, it now complements the Q66. So who gets the short trips to Woodside? Q64- Stays as is. So glad it didn't combine with the Q10. Q65- Stays as is with no service north of Flushing. No longer serves Flushing Hospital. Had no business ending in St Albans. They felt the Q83 was that bad between Jamaica Center and Farmers? Q66- Stays as is. No longer serves 35 Av, Queensbridge . Doesn't go to Hunters Point Ferry though Q67- Stays as is, no service to Queens Plaza Q68- New route, would take on the southern half of the B24 but instead of going to Steinway, it ends at Elmhurst Hospital. Q69- Stays as is. no longer serves Court Square, does not go to Hunters Point Ferry Q70- Stays as is Q72- Stays as is Q75- New route. Operates from Briarwood to Little Neck. Briarwood is a stub. Couldn't it do Kew Gardens or Jamaica LIRR instead? Q76- Stays as is, no longer serves the Cross Island and extended deeper into College Point Q77- Stays as is with an extension to Rockaway Blvd. If the Q78 proposal was well liked, why didn't they keep it? Q82- New route replaces the Q36 and 110. Will not use Hollis Court SB Q83- Stays as is, loses the overnight Queens Village LIRR branch. Previous draft had it not going to Hillside Q84- Stays as is. So glad it did not go along with the first draft plan Q85- Stays as is. Loses the Rosedale branch to the Q86. Does the Rochdale branch gets it own route too? Q86- New route covering the Q5 and 85 Rosedale branches and goes deeper into Rosedale Q87- New route, former Q5 to Green Acres Q88- Stays as is. Does not become a through HHE route Q98- New route, faster version of the Q58 Q101- Returns, however no service east of Steinway St and extended to Hunters Point Ferry. Better than those proposals to Columbus Circle Q103- Returns, However stays on 21 St to Court Square and extended to Hunters Point Ferry like the QSC days Q104- Stays as is with service extended west to Roosevelt Island ending at the and running later Q105- New route serving 31 St and would serve Court Square. Replaces the Q100, 101 (20 Av portion) and 102 Q110- Stays as is, extended east to Floral Park LIRR, loses the 179 short trips. I'm kind of glad the Q57 isn't a thing now. Q111- Stays as is. Keeps the Cedarhurst trips. The Farmers short turns become the Q115. I miss those Rochdale short trips Q112- Stays as is with an extension to East New York. Makes a return. Q114- Stays as is. No Far Rockaway service for 147 customers though. No nonstop path on 878. I miss those Q115- New route B53- New route. Since it will be a thing now, no more B46 on Broadway B57- Extended east Jackson Hts, but no service south of Downtown Brooklyn. Will go to the B27 B62- Extended north to Astoria. Would no longer serve Court Sq or Queens Plaza I'll get to the express routes later 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Fly Guy Posted December 18, 2023 Share #3407 Posted December 18, 2023 (edited) On 12/15/2023 at 4:34 PM, Bill from Maspeth said: So you want B57's having driver reliefs, entering service and dropping out to go to the depot near where it terminates today? GA does not do Street reliefs on any routes don’t think that would change. Short turn at Flushing & Grand then DH to GA. Edited December 18, 2023 by Nova Fly Guy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubBus Posted December 19, 2023 Share #3408 Posted December 19, 2023 (edited) On 12/16/2023 at 9:29 AM, Q43LTD said: There's a strip mall on Elmont Rd? No, it's on Village Ave and Elmont, north of Dutch Broadway.... Edited December 19, 2023 by SubBus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAlam Posted December 20, 2023 Share #3409 Posted December 20, 2023 (edited) So hidden in Remix I found out the Q26 overnight service is from Flushing to College Point only. But they don't have it starting on Main St and Roosevelt Ave but instead at 38th Ave and Main St at a stop that it doesn't use during the day. https://platform.remix.com/project/d6368ff6/line/8171a407?latlng=40.76631,-73.83294,14.261&pat=606483087&dir=0 Edited December 20, 2023 by IAlam 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted December 20, 2023 Share #3410 Posted December 20, 2023 On 12/15/2023 at 10:07 AM, Gotham Bus Co. said: 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. So does the overnight Q83 serve the full route or just end at Springfield Boulevard? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 21, 2023 Share #3411 Posted December 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Ex696 said: So does the overnight Q83 serve the full route or just end at Springfield Boulevard? Overnight goes to Queens Village LIRR. It is proposed to be eliminated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted December 21, 2023 Share #3412 Posted December 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Q43LTD said: Overnight goes to Queens Village LIRR. It is proposed to be eliminated. IIRC, the proposal is for Q83 overnight to follow the daytime route up the hill to 227th. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 21, 2023 Share #3413 Posted December 21, 2023 44 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said: IIRC, the proposal is for Q83 overnight to follow the daytime route up the hill to 227th. I meant the branch, not the route itself 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridgeviewer382 Posted December 22, 2023 Share #3414 Posted December 22, 2023 (edited) On 12/16/2023 at 7:43 AM, xD4nn said: There isn't really anywhere else you can assign the B57 to except Grand ave. It wasn't that long ago when the B57 was a Fresh Pond route (January 2019-January 2020). Edited December 22, 2023 by Kingsbridgeviewer382 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 22, 2023 Share #3415 Posted December 22, 2023 I thought it was Fresh Pond until 2008, when Grand Avenue was formed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpn4179 Posted December 22, 2023 Share #3416 Posted December 22, 2023 3 hours ago, Q43LTD said: I thought it was Fresh Pond until 2008, when Grand Avenue was formed Yes, it was. The B57 operated out of Fresh Pond Depot until January 2008 when Grand Avenue Depot officially opened, along with original FP routes B13, B24, B39, and Q59. The B48 was also an original FP route, but went to GA two months prior (November 2007) to the opening as a “soft launch”. The B38 LCL/LTD was also an original FP route as well, but did not go to GA until the 2010’s. The Metropolitan Avenue portion (B38 LCL) went in 2011 and the Seneca Avenue portion (B38 LTD) went in 2019. When the Seneca Avenue portion of the B38 (as well as the Q58 LCL/LTD) was transferred to GA, the B13, B48, B57 and B60 was sent to FP in its place. When the Q58 LCL/LTD went back to FP a year later, they sent back the B48, B57, and B60 to GA and kept the B13 at FP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 22, 2023 Share #3417 Posted December 22, 2023 Continuing on from the first part of my sentiments about this final proposed network... Back this past Saturday, I realized they made a remix map for it, but I'll continue my assessment of the impending network by scrolling down this PDF containing the route profiles for all the routes here.... Q41: After noticing what's going to happen with the new Q11, I didn't think they'd retain the current Q41 south of Rockaway Blvd ... Nonetheless, IDC for the new Q41 routing on the opposite end of the thing.... Quite frankly, even with the Q24, Q8, and Q112 in close enough proximity of each other, I still see a need for something panning in a northerly-southerly fashion east of Lefferts Blvd making its way to Jamaica... Another way of saying this is that there should be something else west of the Q9 running north-south in that part of Queens..... I don't really see the need to have had that gap along 109th be closed, by connecting it to Lakewood av.... What I do see is a routing going 109th-Lakewood-Sutphin being a deterrent for current Q41 riders going in/out of Jamaica proper... If you're a South Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park patron, the longer you spend on Sutphin, the worse off your commute will typically be... I fully expect the new Q41 to be less popular than the current Q41 for that reason alone. Q43: I would be more supportive of this being a rush route if they kept the previously proposed running of it to LIJ.... To me, it doesn't seem worth it to have the (main catchment area for) the rush portion only be b/w Springfield & 268th.... I think the portion west of Springfield a] will be just as utilized as the impending Q1 b/w LIRR Jamaica & Hillside/Springfield, and b] more utilized than the portion east of Springfield.... Q44: Came in with the (unfortunate, IMO) expectation that it would end up running to Fordham... Instead, they retained the current routing.... I have no qualms here, because running it to Fordham would've made it that much more unmanageable.... Q45/Q46/Q48: Where do I even start with this shit? Right off the bat, I'm vehemently against the way service will be segmented along Union Tpke.... AFAIC, this is all being done to avoid having anything end at Springfield (because after all, they mention that combined service of these 3 routes will be an increase, compared to current Q46 service)... While I actually like the Q45 route, it shouldn't be part of any main segment along the corridor - Instead, it should be a SUPPLEMENT along the corridor (and a local one at that, not a LTD).... Even though there are a lot of riders that use the current Q46 west of 188th, Union Tpke shouldn't be segmented with a LTD west of 188th & 2 rush routes east of 188th.... The core of the riderbase along Union Tpke is b/w Kew Gardens & Springfield... All you really have to do with Union Tpke (if you want to create complementary routes along the corridor, that is) is have one complement run b/w QB & Springfield, with the other complement running the current LIJ branch of the Q46.... Since they're doing this pigeonholing shit with all the routes (meaning, one route can only be a green route, a blue route, a red route, or a purple route), the QB-Springfield complement can be one of those red routes, with the complement running past Springfield being a rush route or whatever... With that said, throughout the years, I have always thought that the Glen Oaks branch ran excessively; they do this as to not have have too many BPH running in/out of LIJ.... I personally wouldn't bother with the Q48 & (if push came to shove), just have the Q45 as a local & the Q46 as one of the red routes or whatever... If it means running more Q45 service over Q46 service (again, with the sentiment/surmisal that they don't want anything ending at Springfield) to avoid running too many buses in/out of LIJ, then so be it.... To sum it up, service shouldn't be segmented at 188th... If there's to be any line of demarcation along the corridor, it should be at Springfield. Q47: So, swap northern terminals with the Q33.... This just makes the Q47 a junk route in the network; kind of like back in the day before you had to separate recyclables from regular trash... You threw the empty Domino's pizza box, the empty 2-liter bottle of Sprite, and the empty container having contained honey BBQ wings all in the same damn receptacle... Lol.... I mean, if you're gonna take it out of LGA, just have the thing continue up 80th to the GCP service road, to end with the Q69.... I will say though, that I do concur with taking the route off Roosevelt b/w 69th & Moore Terminal.... It's "waste"ful .... The masses want 74th over 69th (subway stations).... Putting the thing on Woodside av. instantly makes it more useful in that immediate area.... The SB direction shift from 73rd to 75th I'm alright with.... It should've never been running inside Bulova to begin with, for there to be a proposal suggesting service be eradicated from there.... Q49: Thank f*** this is going to remain a local... With as dense as the southern part of Jackson Heights is, with the thing particularly running along 35th av, having it run LTD would've been dumb as hell.... Q50: This has fail written all over it... The previous proposal to even have it running to LGA was bad enough, this final rendition is actually worse... Sever it from Co-op during off-peak hours, to have it virtually swallow up the entirety of the current Q48.... As crazy as this sounds, I'm now honestly of the belief that this has less to do with serving LGA & more to do with merely taking a bus route away from terminating in the heart of Flushing.... Some of you may know that I've not been a big fan of connecting Flushing & LGA with a (public) bus route (e/g the current Q48), but I'm not at all relieved with this new Q50, because they are severely underestimating its use in Co-Op..... Not to say that they should revert to the old QBx1, but the Bx23 experiment has been anything but successful... Still far too many buses carrying too lightly.... To subject the Q50 to current Q48 patronage b/w Flushing & Corona is just plain stupid..... Q51: Well, I did say that I thought the previous proposal to have it running to Gateway would've been for naught, since SE Queens patrons patronize other shopping areas (such as Green Acres, and even RFM).... That much added mileage from Rockaway Blvd to Gateway IMO is just too big of a risk for an unknown (which I'd say is an extremely low) level of demand to have tried to cater to.... Yeah, you gotta start from somewhere in order to get somewhere (so to speak), which is what the rest of this Q51 route basically is - How many SE Queens riders are willing to abandon making their way to Jamaica for 's, 's, or 's, to embark on the instead... We'll find out soon enough, with how patronized this impending route will be.... Even though I'm not all that fond of it, I will admit that it's smart to not have it running on coverage headways to start out.... Q53: Yeah, retain the terminating of it at Woodside-61st.... The previous proposal to have both the Q52 & Q53 end in the general vicinity of Moore Terminal would've been chaotic. Q54: Quite honestly, I'd have tried my hand at segmenting service along Metropolitan before doing so with Union Tpke... Hell, the blueprint's already there with the current short turns on the route.... Q55: Sigh of relief that it won't run to Jamaica.... Absolutely makes sense to have it directly connect to the at 121st; curious as to what the turnaround scenario will be though. Q58/Q98: The thing about this coupling to me is that I don't have a problem with the routes individually - but I don't think there's necessarily a need for both these variants of the current Q58 to run between Ridgewood & Flushing either.... I would try my hand at combining the two core concepts into one route; as in, running b/w Ridgewood & Grand/QB making Q58 stops, to then doing the Q98 routing b/w Grand/QB & Flushing (putting it another way, maintaining the Q98 route, but have it make more stops south of QB).... If a concept like that ends up attracting more of the masses (than the Q58, which I would expect, because I find that significantly more of the masses that board in Flushing disembark at QB, moreso than any accumulation/total of pax that disembark along 108th or along Corona av, short of QB), then I'd have the Q59 run over the Q58 routing along Corona av, to circle back down towards the Rego Center, like this.... Q59: I can understand wanting to have it parallel the Q54 in Brooklyn... However, if it's going to do that, then I think the Q68 should continue along Metropolitan to at least Bedford/Driggs, to then get to/from WBP that way... I would not completely do away with having no east-west service west of the BQE in the immediate area - especially given that they have the proposed B62 bypassing WBP..... As for the "change" to have Queens bound buses utilize Gardner, they already do that now!!! Wtf are they talking about?!?!?!? In the PDF here it says "Queens-bound in East Williamsburg, the proposed Q59 would use Gardner Av to connect to Grand St to avoid a difficult turn."... I went to look at the stop list, and they have the current stop at Grand/Gardner eliminated due to the "new routing".... The change that they're actually making to the Queens-bound Q59 in the immediate area, is to ELIMINATE the turn onto Gardner Av, to instead have buses turn on Stewart Av to get to Grand st... (a change I actually agree with btw; that right turn off Gardner on the Q59 is a hassle, to say the least.... Buses spend too much time at that corner (Gardner/Grand, before the right turn) waiting for trucks (especially) making that left off Grand to turn down on Gardner - which impedes traffic turning off Gardner to get EB on Grand, since Gardner is a 2-way street).... Idiots.. Q61: They proclaim that frequencies would resemble the Willets Pt. branch of the Q16, but the problem (as I see it) is that it won't garner (near) the amount of ridership of that branch of the current Q16.... Hell, I actually think it's going to perform worse than the current Utopia branch of the Q16... By having this be a rush route, they are severely overestimating the potential of this thing..... I'd say it needs to serve all stops along Union at minimum, to even have a chance (of being worth its existence)..... Q62: This is a shortened, rush version of the proposed Q20 in the previous draft.... I mean, the only redeeming quality to it AFAIC, is that it reconnects Flushing to College Point Center (since in the previous draft, they got rid of both branches of the current Q20a/b to run it over to Beechhurst).... There's nothing that says "rush" about having riders sitting in traffic along 20th av b/w the Whitestone Expwy. & the shopping center itself.... On top of that, ridership along the service area of the thing (as in, at & east of 20th/132nd) simply isn't strong enough to even warrant a rush route.... All in all, with this new network, while they've closed some service gaps in NE Queens, they've simultaneously dismantled the feeder network in Flushing (which was all that was really necessary up there) - and it's going to loom detrimental.... Q63/Q66: It says that the Q63 would be a new route complementing the (new) Q66, but unless I'm missing something, it looks like the new Q63 is nothing more than a renumbered (current) Q66.... For all that, they could've just numbered the rush route along Northern the 63.... Aside from route nomenclature, while this will be the unpopular opinion, I don't see this need for skip-stop service along Northern... I see far more of a need for a greater concentration of service along Northern Blvd. b/w Northern Blvd & Flushing proper.... I also think 35th av, at best, should've been served with another route - but that's neither here nor there.... It's something to be said that they could have those current Q95's (the 21st - QBP shuttle buses) terminating at 21st , but they can't have the impending Q63 end at 21st .... You do not need the Q63 & the Q66 running from QBP - especially now that they're scaling the Q69 back from serving Court Sq, running from QBP to the Queensbridge & Ravenswood PJ's the same way the current Q66 does / impending Q63 would.... To sum my sentiment of this part of the plan up, I'm not in favor of the complementary nature of it all... If they're that hell bent on running/retaining having a Northern Blvd. service run to QBP, then have it run the new Q66 routing & call it a day.... The current Q66 from the east, dies at 21st & Flushing bound Q66's from QBP, are quite noticeably used interchangeably with the current Q69 - and at a lesser extent on top of it, because there's still a greater demand for the Q69 over the Q66 at QBP.... Q64: The route is short... Plagued by traffic along Jewel av traffic by the GCP & the Van Wyck during certain times moreso than others... Stop spacing isn't remotely an issue on a route like this.... It should've remained serving all the current stops that it does. Q65: I'm somewhat torn on this one, mostly in disagreement of it... Yes, the current route from end to end is a drag, but to swap the serving of the hospital with the Q26, to have it (the new 65) continue up 162nd to Sanford, yikes.... I'm not so sure if having the new Q65 do that would even be for the greater good... By that I mean, It may end up being a wash in terms of runtime, compared to the current Q65 routing b/w Downtown Flushing & 162nd/45th... I get decongesting that pocket of Flushing binding Kissena - Sanford - Parsons - Holly, but holy crap.... And not for nothing, but I do notice a fair amt. of patronage seeking Flushing Hospital from off the current route from points south.... Q67: Yeah, agreed with cutting it back from QBP to Court Sq... Come to think of it, this is something I used to advocate for the Q39 to do also (but, compared to the Q67, I will admit that the Q39 is far more sought after at QBP than the Q67 is).... Anyway, especially being that I take the B32 from the first stop from time to time, I always see a sizable amt. of people waiting for Q67's right behind it.... Very few people take the Q67 to/from QBP.... Those that work in industrial Maspeth prioritize the over the & the anyway.... Q68: Quite frankly, I think this route's footprint should be slightly expanded in Brooklyn (see my commentary for the Q59) & sent elsewhere in Queens... I see the Q47's short stint on Woodside av. doing more for that route, than having this thing run on Woodside av for a longer stint for, it.... And not for nothing, but the immediate area around Elmhurst Hospital is not the greatest of places to terminate a bus route at... FWIW, I think they were on the right track with the QT76 in the very first draft, as far as connecting (points south of) QB & (up to) Northern is concerned.... Instead of turning this off for Elmhurst Hospital, I'd end this at Northern Blvd , via 46th st & 39th st & call it a day.... I can definitely see people coming off the Q66 (well, the impending Q63 & Q66) & xferring to a route that pans south of QB on down to industrial Maspeth & Brooklyn (in general) without having to go through Queens Plaza or QBP.... Q69: Doing this to the Q69 makes sense, given that the B62 (and the Q63, to an extent) fills in the blank (so to speak) along the lower portion of 21st st... The problem I have with this has less to do with this Q69 (especially in juxtaposition with eliminating the current Q100) & almost everything to do with the B62 being the route filling in the proverbial blank.... The B62 goes too deep into Brooklyn & pans up too much of 21st st. for this type of a setup to be (as) effective along 21st st..... Not sure how else to express this general sentiment. For the sake of post length, I'll end this here & finish up my assessment of this new network in a 3rd post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNextGen2009 Posted December 22, 2023 Share #3418 Posted December 22, 2023 32 minutes ago, B35 via Church said: Q55: Sigh of relief that it won't run to Jamaica.... Absolutely makes sense to have it directly connect to the at 121st; curious as to what the turnaround scenario will be though. Come to think of it, there are little options for a turn around at that area. I think the only way for the Q55 to turn around is to use 120th Street (since the route profile has it ending at Lefferts Blvd), turn right onto Hillside and continue up to 122nd Street, turn onto said street and then right on Jamaica Avenue to start service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 23, 2023 Share #3419 Posted December 23, 2023 6 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Q45/Q46/Q48: Where do I even start with this shit? Right off the bat, I'm vehemently against the way service will be segmented along Union Tpke.... AFAIC, this is all being done to avoid having anything end at Springfield (because after all, they mention that combined service of these 3 routes will be an increase, compared to current Q46 service)... While I actually like the Q45 route, it shouldn't be part of any main segment along the corridor - Instead, it should be a SUPPLEMENT along the corridor (and a local one at that, not a LTD).... Even though there are a lot of riders that use the current Q46 west of 188th, Union Tpke shouldn't be segmented with a LTD west of 188th & 2 rush routes east of 188th.... The core of the riderbase along Union Tpke is b/w Kew Gardens & Springfield... All you really have to do with Union Tpke (if you want to create complementary routes along the corridor, that is) is have one complement run b/w QB & Springfield, with the other complement running the current LIJ branch of the Q46.... Since they're doing this pigeonholing shit with all the routes (meaning, one route can only be a green route, a blue route, a red route, or a purple route), the QB-Springfield complement can be one of those red routes, with the complement running past Springfield being a rush route or whatever... With that said, throughout the years, I have always thought that the Glen Oaks branch ran excessively; they do this as to not have have too many BPH running in/out of LIJ.... I personally wouldn't bother with the Q48 & (if push came to shove), just have the Q45 as a local & the Q46 as one of the red routes or whatever... If it means running more Q45 service over Q46 service (again, with the sentiment/surmisal that they don't want anything ending at Springfield) to avoid running too many buses in/out of LIJ, then so be it.... To sum it up, service shouldn't be segmented at 188th... If there's to be any line of demarcation along the corridor, it should be at Springfield. So, in your case, Union Tpke would get the Brewer treatment in a way: Q45- Kew Gardens-Springfield Blvd Q46- Kew Gardens-LIJ Q48- Kew Gardens-Glen Oaks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The TransitMan Posted December 23, 2023 Share #3420 Posted December 23, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Continuing on from the first part of my sentiments about this final proposed network... Back this past Saturday, I realized they made a remix map for it, but I'll continue my assessment of the impending network by scrolling down this PDF containing the route profiles for all the routes here.... Q41: After noticing what's going to happen with the new Q11, I didn't think they'd retain the current Q41 south of Rockaway Blvd ... Nonetheless, IDC for the new Q41 routing on the opposite end of the thing.... Quite frankly, even with the Q24, Q8, and Q112 in close enough proximity of each other, I still see a need for something panning in a northerly-southerly fashion east of Lefferts Blvd making its way to Jamaica... Another way of saying this is that there should be something else west of the Q9 running north-south in that part of Queens..... I don't really see the need to have had that gap along 109th be closed, by connecting it to Lakewood av.... What I do see is a routing going 109th-Lakewood-Sutphin being a deterrent for current Q41 riders going in/out of Jamaica proper... If you're a South Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park patron, the longer you spend on Sutphin, the worse off your commute will typically be... I fully expect the new Q41 to be less popular than the current Q41 for that reason alone. Q43: I would be more supportive of this being a rush route if they kept the previously proposed running of it to LIJ.... To me, it doesn't seem worth it to have the (main catchment area for) the rush portion only be b/w Springfield & 268th.... I think the portion west of Springfield a] will be just as utilized as the impending Q1 b/w LIRR Jamaica & Hillside/Springfield, and b] more utilized than the portion east of Springfield.... Q44: Came in with the (unfortunate, IMO) expectation that it would end up running to Fordham... Instead, they retained the current routing.... I have no qualms here, because running it to Fordham would've made it that much more unmanageable.... Q45/Q46/Q48: Where do I even start with this shit? Right off the bat, I'm vehemently against the way service will be segmented along Union Tpke.... AFAIC, this is all being done to avoid having anything end at Springfield (because after all, they mention that combined service of these 3 routes will be an increase, compared to current Q46 service)... While I actually like the Q45 route, it shouldn't be part of any main segment along the corridor - Instead, it should be a SUPPLEMENT along the corridor (and a local one at that, not a LTD).... Even though there are a lot of riders that use the current Q46 west of 188th, Union Tpke shouldn't be segmented with a LTD west of 188th & 2 rush routes east of 188th.... The core of the riderbase along Union Tpke is b/w Kew Gardens & Springfield... All you really have to do with Union Tpke (if you want to create complementary routes along the corridor, that is) is have one complement run b/w QB & Springfield, with the other complement running the current LIJ branch of the Q46.... Since they're doing this pigeonholing shit with all the routes (meaning, one route can only be a green route, a blue route, a red route, or a purple route), the QB-Springfield complement can be one of those red routes, with the complement running past Springfield being a rush route or whatever... With that said, throughout the years, I have always thought that the Glen Oaks branch ran excessively; they do this as to not have have too many BPH running in/out of LIJ.... I personally wouldn't bother with the Q48 & (if push came to shove), just have the Q45 as a local & the Q46 as one of the red routes or whatever... If it means running more Q45 service over Q46 service (again, with the sentiment/surmisal that they don't want anything ending at Springfield) to avoid running too many buses in/out of LIJ, then so be it.... To sum it up, service shouldn't be segmented at 188th... If there's to be any line of demarcation along the corridor, it should be at Springfield. Q47: So, swap northern terminals with the Q33.... This just makes the Q47 a junk route in the network; kind of like back in the day before you had to separate recyclables from regular trash... You threw the empty Domino's pizza box, the empty 2-liter bottle of Sprite, and the empty container having contained honey BBQ wings all in the same damn receptacle... Lol.... I mean, if you're gonna take it out of LGA, just have the thing continue up 80th to the GCP service road, to end with the Q69.... I will say though, that I do concur with taking the route off Roosevelt b/w 69th & Moore Terminal.... It's "waste"ful .... The masses want 74th over 69th (subway stations).... Putting the thing on Woodside av. instantly makes it more useful in that immediate area.... The SB direction shift from 73rd to 75th I'm alright with.... It should've never been running inside Bulova to begin with, for there to be a proposal suggesting service be eradicated from there.... Q49: Thank f*** this is going to remain a local... With as dense as the southern part of Jackson Heights is, with the thing particularly running along 35th av, having it run LTD would've been dumb as hell.... Q50: This has fail written all over it... The previous proposal to even have it running to LGA was bad enough, this final rendition is actually worse... Sever it from Co-op during off-peak hours, to have it virtually swallow up the entirety of the current Q48.... As crazy as this sounds, I'm now honestly of the belief that this has less to do with serving LGA & more to do with merely taking a bus route away from terminating in the heart of Flushing.... Some of you may know that I've not been a big fan of connecting Flushing & LGA with a (public) bus route (e/g the current Q48), but I'm not at all relieved with this new Q50, because they are severely underestimating its use in Co-Op..... Not to say that they should revert to the old QBx1, but the Bx23 experiment has been anything but successful... Still far too many buses carrying too lightly.... To subject the Q50 to current Q48 patronage b/w Flushing & Corona is just plain stupid..... Q51: Well, I did say that I thought the previous proposal to have it running to Gateway would've been for naught, since SE Queens patrons patronize other shopping areas (such as Green Acres, and even RFM).... That much added mileage from Rockaway Blvd to Gateway IMO is just too big of a risk for an unknown (which I'd say is an extremely low) level of demand to have tried to cater to.... Yeah, you gotta start from somewhere in order to get somewhere (so to speak), which is what the rest of this Q51 route basically is - How many SE Queens riders are willing to abandon making their way to Jamaica for 's, 's, or 's, to embark on the instead... We'll find out soon enough, with how patronized this impending route will be.... Even though I'm not all that fond of it, I will admit that it's smart to not have it running on coverage headways to start out.... Q53: Yeah, retain the terminating of it at Woodside-61st.... The previous proposal to have both the Q52 & Q53 end in the general vicinity of Moore Terminal would've been chaotic. Q54: Quite honestly, I'd have tried my hand at segmenting service along Metropolitan before doing so with Union Tpke... Hell, the blueprint's already there with the current short turns on the route.... Q55: Sigh of relief that it won't run to Jamaica.... Absolutely makes sense to have it directly connect to the at 121st; curious as to what the turnaround scenario will be though. Q58/Q98: The thing about this coupling to me is that I don't have a problem with the routes individually - but I don't think there's necessarily a need for both these variants of the current Q58 to run between Ridgewood & Flushing either.... I would try my hand at combining the two core concepts into one route; as in, running b/w Ridgewood & Grand/QB making Q58 stops, to then doing the Q98 routing b/w Grand/QB & Flushing (putting it another way, maintaining the Q98 route, but have it make more stops south of QB).... If a concept like that ends up attracting more of the masses (than the Q58, which I would expect, because I find that significantly more of the masses that board in Flushing disembark at QB, moreso than any accumulation/total of pax that disembark along 108th or along Corona av, short of QB), then I'd have the Q59 run over the Q58 routing along Corona av, to circle back down towards the Rego Center, like this.... Q59: I can understand wanting to have it parallel the Q54 in Brooklyn... However, if it's going to do that, then I think the Q68 should continue along Metropolitan to at least Bedford/Driggs, to then get to/from WBP that way... I would not completely do away with having no east-west service west of the BQE in the immediate area - especially given that they have the proposed B62 bypassing WBP..... As for the "change" to have Queens bound buses utilize Gardner, they already do that now!!! Wtf are they talking about?!?!?!? In the PDF here it says "Queens-bound in East Williamsburg, the proposed Q59 would use Gardner Av to connect to Grand St to avoid a difficult turn."... I went to look at the stop list, and they have the current stop at Grand/Gardner eliminated due to the "new routing".... The change that they're actually making to the Queens-bound Q59 in the immediate area, is to ELIMINATE the turn onto Gardner Av, to instead have buses turn on Stewart Av to get to Grand st... (a change I actually agree with btw; that right turn off Gardner on the Q59 is a hassle, to say the least.... Buses spend too much time at that corner (Gardner/Grand, before the right turn) waiting for trucks (especially) making that left off Grand to turn down on Gardner - which impedes traffic turning off Gardner to get EB on Grand, since Gardner is a 2-way street).... Idiots.. Q61: They proclaim that frequencies would resemble the Willets Pt. branch of the Q16, but the problem (as I see it) is that it won't garner (near) the amount of ridership of that branch of the current Q16.... Hell, I actually think it's going to perform worse than the current Utopia branch of the Q16... By having this be a rush route, they are severely overestimating the potential of this thing..... I'd say it needs to serve all stops along Union at minimum, to even have a chance (of being worth its existence)..... Q62: This is a shortened, rush version of the proposed Q20 in the previous draft.... I mean, the only redeeming quality to it AFAIC, is that it reconnects Flushing to College Point Center (since in the previous draft, they got rid of both branches of the current Q20a/b to run it over to Beechhurst).... There's nothing that says "rush" about having riders sitting in traffic along 20th av b/w the Whitestone Expwy. & the shopping center itself.... On top of that, ridership along the service area of the thing (as in, at & east of 20th/132nd) simply isn't strong enough to even warrant a rush route.... All in all, with this new network, while they've closed some service gaps in NE Queens, they've simultaneously dismantled the feeder network in Flushing (which was all that was really necessary up there) - and it's going to loom detrimental.... Q63/Q66: It says that the Q63 would be a new route complementing the (new) Q66, but unless I'm missing something, it looks like the new Q63 is nothing more than a renumbered (current) Q66.... For all that, they could've just numbered the rush route along Northern the 63.... Aside from route nomenclature, while this will be the unpopular opinion, I don't see this need for skip-stop service along Northern... I see far more of a need for a greater concentration of service along Northern Blvd. b/w Northern Blvd & Flushing proper.... I also think 35th av, at best, should've been served with another route - but that's neither here nor there.... It's something to be said that they could have those current Q95's (the 21st - QBP shuttle buses) terminating at 21st , but they can't have the impending Q63 end at 21st .... You do not need the Q63 & the Q66 running from QBP - especially now that they're scaling the Q69 back from serving Court Sq, running from QBP to the Queensbridge & Ravenswood PJ's the same way the current Q66 does / impending Q63 would.... To sum my sentiment of this part of the plan up, I'm not in favor of the complementary nature of it all... If they're that hell bent on running/retaining having a Northern Blvd. service run to QBP, then have it run the new Q66 routing & call it a day.... The current Q66 from the east, dies at 21st & Flushing bound Q66's from QBP, are quite noticeably used interchangeably with the current Q69 - and at a lesser extent on top of it, because there's still a greater demand for the Q69 over the Q66 at QBP.... Q64: The route is short... Plagued by traffic along Jewel av traffic by the GCP & the Van Wyck during certain times moreso than others... Stop spacing isn't remotely an issue on a route like this.... It should've remained serving all the current stops that it does. Q65: I'm somewhat torn on this one, mostly in disagreement of it... Yes, the current route from end to end is a drag, but to swap the serving of the hospital with the Q26, to have it (the new 65) continue up 162nd to Sanford, yikes.... I'm not so sure if having the new Q65 do that would even be for the greater good... By that I mean, It may end up being a wash in terms of runtime, compared to the current Q65 routing b/w Downtown Flushing & 162nd/45th... I get decongesting that pocket of Flushing binding Kissena - Sanford - Parsons - Holly, but holy crap.... And not for nothing, but I do notice a fair amt. of patronage seeking Flushing Hospital from off the current route from points south.... Q67: Yeah, agreed with cutting it back from QBP to Court Sq... Come to think of it, this is something I used to advocate for the Q39 to do also (but, compared to the Q67, I will admit that the Q39 is far more sought after at QBP than the Q67 is).... Anyway, especially being that I take the B32 from the first stop from time to time, I always see a sizable amt. of people waiting for Q67's right behind it.... Very few people take the Q67 to/from QBP.... Those that work in industrial Maspeth prioritize the over the & the anyway.... Q68: Quite frankly, I think this route's footprint should be slightly expanded in Brooklyn (see my commentary for the Q59) & sent elsewhere in Queens... I see the Q47's short stint on Woodside av. doing more for that route, than having this thing run on Woodside av for a longer stint for, it.... And not for nothing, but the immediate area around Elmhurst Hospital is not the greatest of places to terminate a bus route at... FWIW, I think they were on the right track with the QT76 in the very first draft, as far as connecting (points south of) QB & (up to) Northern is concerned.... Instead of turning this off for Elmhurst Hospital, I'd end this at Northern Blvd , via 46th st & 39th st & call it a day.... I can definitely see people coming off the Q66 (well, the impending Q63 & Q66) & xferring to a route that pans south of QB on down to industrial Maspeth & Brooklyn (in general) without having to go through Queens Plaza or QBP.... Q69: Doing this to the Q69 makes sense, given that the B62 (and the Q63, to an extent) fills in the blank (so to speak) along the lower portion of 21st st... The problem I have with this has less to do with this Q69 (especially in juxtaposition with eliminating the current Q100) & almost everything to do with the B62 being the route filling in the proverbial blank.... The B62 goes too deep into Brooklyn & pans up too much of 21st st. for this type of a setup to be (as) effective along 21st st..... Not sure how else to express this general sentiment. For the sake of post length, I'll end this here & finish up my assessment of this new network in a 3rd post. *****I'm responding to the quotes in boldface***** I think it's more of catering to Fresh Meadows if anything. The fact that SOME riders like the short-turn Q17 and their personal express route. Also, I agree with the Springfield Blvd idea. I mean BOTH Q46 and Q48 as "rush" routes? The Q50...I see short-turns as in the original Q48 and original Q50. Also, there needs to be some clarification because I read that the Q50 was suppose travel along the Grand Central Pkwy into LaGuardia Airport. You're right...this is a problem. I'm on the N/W lines frequently and when I leave/enter 39th Av I can see WESTBOUND traffic on Northern Blvd as far back as around the corner to possibly Steinway St...maybe beyond that. I see sometimes up to THREE Q101s and an occasional Q94/Q95 shuttle deadheading towards Queens Plaza. So if you're having the Q66 travel down Northern Blvd, then the Q63 is a "great idea"! Edited December 23, 2023 by The TransitMan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted December 23, 2023 Share #3421 Posted December 23, 2023 Okay, so finishing off the local bus route comments (see Q11-Q36 and Q31,Q37-Q75 comments in their respective posts; I didn't have much to say about the Q1-Q10): Q76: Not sure how I feel about this change because while it serves more of (both commercial and residential) College Point, I don't cutting Whitestone out of a north-south option outside of Flushing being a good trade-off. Way I see, I doubt you'll see much of any change overall, if not perhaps may a bit of a dip. Something else would have had to been reworked up there because of the coverage losses and gaps, but had it been the Q31 running to College Point instead of the Q76, you would see more ridership on that section. There's more along Utopia Parkway the further south you go than on Francis Lewis Boulevard plus it hits Jamaica quicker. Q77: The extension was clearly compensation for the removal of the Q78 from this draft. Having the Q77 though just isn't the same as the Q78, because those two routes have different purposes. The Q77s section along Springfield Boulevard doesn't quite cut it to be considered an adequate crosstown. Given the reduction of the Q27 down in Cambria Heights by several stops to Linden, transferring is also not gonna be the most convenient either. Q82: Yikes, this is a huge downgrade from the current Q36/Q36 LIMITED setup. Every 15 minutes during rush hours is absurd for residents along the 212s, but that's because they're sending the thing to UBS Arena. From the get-go I wasn't fond of this route for multiple reasons. There's no reason for having two (four if you want to count the n1 and n6) UBS Arena routes to/from the with nothing to the . Also in addition to the other changes to the Q1 and Q36, Springfield Boulevard and 212th Street/Place lose overnight service, while Braddock keeps their service. That set up ain't right at all. The daytime frequencies are the worst part, but that's what happens when you duplicate multiple routes/purposes from start to end with very little unique segments. Q83: Completely pointless designation of a rush hour, the Q42 comes nowhere close to being a useful "local" alternative. This is probably one of the worst proposed "rush" routes, up there with the Q66. On the other hand, overnight service into Cambria Heights east of Springfield should have happened a long time ago. That late night Q83 branch is a relic of the past, that should stopped being a thing when they extended the overnight Q27 down to Cambria Heights. However taking a decade or so to do logical service/schedule changes isn't unheard of, such as changing the Q11/21's bunched up schedule. Q85: Overall I find it interesting that they're apparently operating the route 24/7 to Green Acres. I don't know, but with that along with the Q87 route it seems like they are trying to market/grow ridership from Valley Stream residents in that area or something. I don't know if it'll work at all, but whatever I suppose. Q86: Aside from the route itself, I have a feeling they're being a bit bullish with their proposed headways during most daytime hours on weekdays. I think a 10 minute peak/15 minute off-peak headway would have worked. I mean if they wanted to have both the Q86 and Q87 duplicate each other for as long as they do, they should have tried to keep the headways similar. Overall I see the Q86 beating out the Q87, but not by much as the MTA thinks with the proposed frequencies they have for each. Q87: Given the frequencies they're giving this route, I don't know whether this route warrants to even exist honestly (and in that case, the existing Q86's headways might be more warranted). The very far eastern part of Merrick Boulevard would have either the n4/n4X or the Q86 for "rush" options into Jamaica which would be faster than waiting for a Q87. Furthermore, I take issue with basically depriving all the Merrick Boulevard local stops from direct bus service to/from Green Acres. They can honestly just have some Q5 buses at that point go to Green Acres and call it a day. No need to dedicate an entire service solely for Green Acres Mall like that. Q88: I am extremely glad that it will continue to serve Queens Village, this goes far beyond what I expected with them insisting on making it more of a Horace Harding route. The Q88 is just a faster and more convenient option to transfer for buses or now the LIRR to points east out on Long Island, especially on weekends. I wish they would have kept the more frequent off peak service levels from the 2nd draft though, the Q88 I think gets short changed, more-so on weekends. Q98: See Q58 comments Q101 / Q103 / Q105 : All their routes in LIC are meh to me IMO. I guess they wanted enough coverage from Western Queens to Hunters Point Park and the ferry, which I suppose the Q101 and Q103 achieve (especially with the Q103 serving more of 21st Street). I was thinking that it would likely be better to have one of the three aforementioned routes cover the B32 section between Court Square and WBP (instead of the B53). There would be several differences from the existing B32, one being that instead of taking Franklin Street, I would have it take Manhattan Avenue between Freeman/Green Streets and Meserole/Wythe Avenues. Also I would have it use Grand Street instead of Broadway (SB buses taking Marcy Ave to Broadway and into WBP, NB buses taking Havemyer Street to Grand Street). Given how it was initially set to play out in the two previous drafts, I would be more inclined to have the Q101 be the route. That way Astoria and western Queens have decent coverage to/from northern Brooklyn. However, since the Q105 would be serving Rikers, I wonder if there would be demand using the bus from Northern Brooklyn as well (such as with riders connecting from other routes at WBP and to/from the B43 in Greenpoint). The Q103 has the closest service hours to the B32, however I'm not sure I'm too thrilled at having two routes from Western Astoria run close to each other like that. Unless they modify that Q68 proposal, I lean more on having the Q101 running to WBP via the modified B32. Q104: The headway decreases are welcomed, and it'll be interesting to see how that increased service span will play out. IDK how I feel that there's no direct bus between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Island though. Maybe RIOC can provide shuttle service or something to replace that service for residents, but I think there should have been something going between those two points. Q110: LMAO! As I mentioned previously, I want to see how it goes down when Floral Park finds out that the MTA's planning to extend a route into their neighborhood. I'll say this though, whether it's the Q110 or ultimately some other route, I can see the rationale for running buses out to Floral Park LIRR for the purposes of better transit connectivity. Since those Huntington and select Ronkonkoma branch trains now stop there, it'll be easier to hop on trains there instead of having to go out to Mineola in many instances due to the stopping patterns on the LIRR Main line. While the walk is not too far from Jericho Turnpike, Elmont station is still too cumbersome to get to and in many instances a 'forced' hub. Speaking of which, maybe they should have looked into sending something from SE Queens to Elmont LIRR station (from the UBS Arena end), with all the damn trains stopping that. Make it at least useful to get to and have some other purpose, because the lack of connection to anything makes the station close to useless outside of events. Also, not surprised to see that they're planning to eliminate the 179th Street trips. Not sure how the situation in the AM is, but in the PM the buses are infrequent, late, and in many occasions don't even show up. So you go from a 20 minute to 40 minute wait if you stay there after missing a bus. More often than not, what I see people doing is either walking down to Jamaica Avenue, or taking the Q2/Q36 buses. As a result, those trips just don't carry anywhere near what the regular route carries, and it's even more ironic when you have artics showing up on those 179th Street trips on some days. Q111/Q115: I think there's more proposed Q111 stops now along Guy R. Brewer compared to previous iterations. In either case, I am perfectly fine with that, as the previous proposals skipped way too much of Guy R. Brewer. Also, I don't see the need to have both the Q111 and Q115 operating during overnight hours, much less having any limited stop service at that hour. The current Q111 and Q114 setup (every 30 minutes each, all night) is fine. The proposed late night set up is excessive, especially when other corridors have lost or could use some overnight service. Also, don't know whether to LOL or SMH at the fact that they're keeping those two trips a day on weekdays that enter Nassau County, like really? Q112: So they have this route backdoor-ing it's way into Downtown Jamaica again? Personally I wish that they kept the Q57's routing along Sutphin and Jamaica/Archer Avenues to Parsons Boulevard and to/from the . Also, while the route now parallels the train more, IDK how I feel about having it be the route to replace to current Q7 west of Cross Bay Boulevard. The current Q112 while short is no easy route to deal with, and I would be somewhat concerned with reliability. B53: Enough mentioned about this damn route, I would have the segment between WBP and Greenpoint Ave replaced with either the Q101, Q103, or Q105 (see above). The Greenpoint Ave segment I would have it as part of a completely different route. One option I had in mind was to combine the Greenpoint Ave segment, to the Woodside Avenue portion of the Q68, but head north on 75th Street to Roosevelt Avenue. From there, maybe combine it with the northern portion of the Q47. The northern and southern portion (former Q45) of the Q47 honestly have no business being together. Perhaps riders along the Q47 north of Roosevelt might benefit from access to Woodside and Sunnyside in particular. Another option once getting to 75th & Roosevelt is running straight along Roosevelt Avenue until Corona (say 111th Street or so). I think there is demand for a route over the eastern part of Roosevelt Avenue. B57: I have no issue with cutting it back from 82nd Street as in previous drafts, although I wonder how it will turnaround and what spaces it will use at 74th Street. As far as everything else goes, I would rather have the B57 take Woodside and 69th over the Q47 if I had to choose one. The Q47 should still serve 69th Street though, there's a sizable amount of people getting on/off there and it's nowhere near an insignificant amount of ridership either. I can't agree with trading one for the other like that. B62: Aside from the changes on bypassing WBP (which I'm not too thrilled about), I can't get over the fact that they keep on insisting on routing buses on McGuinness Boulevard over Manhattan Avenue. Yes Manhattan Avenue is narrower and has a lot of traffic (especially trucks on weekdays), but that's not an excuse to not run service through there. Sometimes, that really is the least bad option, especially when Manhattan Avenue is a major commercial block in the area, and is about equidistant from the far east and west sides of residential Greenpoint. I also think they're getting away with this because Brooklynites may not be fully aware of the plan as it's being discussed more in the context of the Queens bus redesign (so far), than the Brooklyn bus redesign. That needs to change, hopefully enough people over there speak up. I'll comment on the express routes in a separate post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted December 23, 2023 Share #3422 Posted December 23, 2023 16 hours ago, The TransitMan said: The Q50...I see short-turns as in the original Q48 and original Q50. Also, there needs to be some clarification because I read that the Q50 was suppose travel along the Grand Central Pkwy into LaGuardia Airport. You're right...this is a problem. IIRC, the original plan had on the GCP and using 108th and Roosevelt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted December 23, 2023 Share #3423 Posted December 23, 2023 3 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said: IIRC, the original plan had on the GCP and using 108th and Roosevelt. And the previous draft as well. It would've gone via Seaver Way, a short stint on Astoria Blvd and right onto the GCP, whereas the Q19 would do the Q48 until Astoria Blvd. The previous draft also had the Q23 using 108th all the way through to East Elmhurst as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 24, 2023 Share #3424 Posted December 24, 2023 Final part of this assessment... Part one (Q1 - Q39) is in this post & Part two (Q41 - Q69) is in this post here.... Alright, so let's do this. Q75: I remember saying in my the first part of my assessment of this network that it was an odd choice to have the impending Q30 be a rush route.... This definitely explains the impending Q30... While better than the previously proposed Q88, it's still a stupid decision to split up the current Q30 into two rush routes.... This apparent trend of breaking up solidified current routes to form rush routes for a significantly lesser amount of people is irritating, at the very least... Sarcastically speaking, I also think its cute that they have it turning off Union Tpke. at Main st, so it can serve Briarwood subway (as a way to not further increase the amt of BPH at the current Q46 terminal at Kew Gardens subway) - never mind putting yet another route on Union Tpke. to begin with.... Q76: This is basically *whatever* to me.... Doing away with the portion north of 20th av. east of the Whitestone Expwy. to extend it deeper into College Point... I don't get this prioritization of the current Q20b over the Q20a, phasing out the (need for the) Q20a north of Flushing with the impending Q62 & having the new Q76 end over there by the current Q20a/b in College Point, but, whatever.... At least the Q76 won't have to jockey for position with trucks along 132nd (where it currently goes on layover & makes its first pickup at) anymore... Case in point, look at this bullshit; can't make this up... smfh.... Q77: Rush route or not, running this down the rest of Springfield I don't see accomplishing much of anything.... You'd be hard pressed to see any sizable amt. of people taking these Q77's over the Q3 to get to Jamaica or whatever, in that general area around the JFK depot.... One of the main, longstanding critiques about the current Q77 has been/still is its indirectness/roundabout nature.... It'd have been infinitely more beneficial to the network to have retained the previously proposed Q78 & to have had that run down the rest of Springfield (en route to the area around the JFK depot) instead.... Q82: My sentiment about this route hasn't changed; for the sake of repeating myself, I'm okay with this route having been kept (from the previous proposal) - even given the retention of the Q2.... The Q2 I still see garnering more patronage overall over it, but I am curious as to how many along Hempstead av. will end up ditching the Q2 for the Q82 (because on some notable level, I do see that eventually happening).... Right now, the Q2 is significantly more popular along Hempstead av. than the Q110... Not that it means too much of anything, but I think that popularity discrepancy/gap will narrow between the Q2/Q82.... As for the route's relation to the current Q36, I'm not going to complain over whether the impending Q36 or the impending Q82 should serve the 212's... Having the impending Q36 run along Springfield I see as an immediate benefit (especially compared to the current Q1).... The real issue out there isn't even whether the Q82 runs along the 212's to get to UBC (because the Q2 also runs to UBC) and/or the Q36 running along the 212's vs. running along Springfield.... For the love of all that is holy, it's about treating/running the Q110 far better than the muttley, odie, goofy, scooby, snoopy dog shit they've been running it like, since the god damn JBL days!!!!! Q83: The Q42 should be treated as another layer of service along Liberty, not some sort of complement to the Q83.... Few people use the Q42 & the Q83 interchangeably... If you can have two rush routes running along one corridor (there's a couple examples of that in this network), you can have two local routes running along Liberty.... Q85/Q86/Q87: Guess I'll lump this all into one, even though they involve both the current Q5 & Q85.... In the previous plan, they had the Q5 running down Brookville & 243rd to cover the Rosedale branch of the current Q85 (and then some)... the Q85 only doing the current Q85 Green Acres branch.... and the Q86 doing the current Q5 to Green Acres This final draft has the Q5 scaled back to just west of the Belt... the Q85 remaining doing the current Q85 Green Acres branch... the Q86 running down Brookville & 243rd to cover the Rosedale branch of the current Q85 (and then some)... and a Q87 that would do the current Q5 to Green Acres So to sum the above up, they split their previously proposed Q5 into two routes in this final plan - Which segues into the main thing I want to touch on... This impending Q86.... It's a slap in the face for a Rosedale rider - and I say that because I don't see it at all being competitive time-wise to the current Q85 Rosedale branch... that, and they also have the Q111 as a rush route... See, I never really cared for short turning the current Q5 at LIRR Rosedale in-particular - But basically giving it a new route number, to extend service down to residential Rosedale from LIRR Rosedale, from descending from Merrick, aint it... It's one thing to connect Merrick blvd. to Green Acres, it's quite another to connect it to residential Rosedale (which I personally see no need for whatsoever)... To sum up my thoughts on this part of the plan/network altogether, I like what they did with the current Q5 - breaking the route up to where the impending Q5 will end at Laurelton Pkwy/Merrick & the impending Q87 remaining running to Green Acres like the current Q5 does..... The Q85 remaining running to Green Acres, of course I also concur with... Instead of the impending Q86 running down to residential Rosedale from Merrick blvd. though, I would've simply gave the Q86 number to the current Q85 Rosedale branch (and incorporating the extension down Huxley, to terminate over there where the current x63 does).... Being that there's a lot of elderly folks down in Rosedale, I do wonder if the extending of local service (in general) down to that specific part of Rosedale would have folks taking x63's less & local service more... The current Q85 Rosedale branch stops dead at 147th (where the current Q111 runs along), leaving only the x63 in that immediate pocket south of 147th.... I'll touch a little more on the x63 (well QM63 now) later on though.... Q88: Relieved that they're not running it clear along HHE to LNP (as per the previous draft), but I still don't care for having this run to LIRR QV.... For as long as this route exists, I will always advocate stopping it dead at Union Tpke.... Q100: <petty> The baby mama express will be GONE.... Besides, what good is a baby mama express if the baby mamma's don't 'eeen use it no more </petty> Q101: Once I noticed that they had the impending Q68 running to Elmhurst hospital, my immediate thought was that they'd fully retain the Q101 - Only to scroll down to see the realization that they're finally going to take it out of Manhattan... I probably shouldn't be this elated about it, but I certainly agree with it; as the masses all line up/gun for Q60's in East Midtown anyway.... The Q32 of course garners an accumulation of interborough riders b/w Penn & E. Midtown.... I mean, overall, the Q101's been in a freefall for well over a decade now; I can only imagine having to actually commute on that route now post-covid, with all those outdoor dining sheds lining along Steinway st... I actually feel sorry for those folks.... It's truly embarrassing how many folks make their way from the more northern part of the route {Q101} to the current Q69.... When I'm around QBP, I always see Q101's carrying rather lightly, with much of no one waiting for it, regardless of direction.... Now I'm not advocating nothing running along Steinway, so what I will say is, as much as IDC for having anything run to Hunterspoint Ferry, they may as well have this route doing it... On the other end of the route, I suppose it'll draw more of those industrial workers up around Berrian to taking buses, but I'm curious as to why they're doing away with having anything end at 19th/Hazen.... Q103: In the previous plan, they split the current Q103 into [having the Q69 cover the portion south of 44th dr] & [having a weird rendition of a Q39 cover the portion north of 21st ].... With this final plan, while it won't run clear along Vernon, at least it'll be one route still connecting both ends of Vernon.... Although I've admittedly been in limbo over the years between [keeping the current Q103 as is] & [having the Q103 do the exact same thing this impending Q103 will], I have to say that this impending Q103 is the epitome of the word progression... The southern part of the current Q103, at best, is stagnant, and I certainly think having the route run along more of 21st st. would help with overall ridership of the thing.... As for the running of it to Hunterspoint Ferry, meh.... Q104: Routing-wise, I certainly agree with this; have been clamoring for it for god knows how long.... They say both the span & frequency would be increased to that of the Q102's, but that isn't saying shit, because the Q102 is still subpar service-wise (and that's putting it nicely).... An extension of this route to Roosevelt Island should at least come with 10 min, peak service & 15 min off peak service on weekdays, and 15-20 min. service on weekends.... Now I may be overrating this route (I don't think I am though), but AFAIC they're underrating it more than I may be overrating it.... Q105: The last draft had it ending at QBP... The final plan has it ending at Court Sq.... Regardless, whatever.... Q110: Well well, look at this... They finally decided to run *something* down to LIRR Floral Park from Jamaica av.... Push come to shove, I'd say it should be one of those red routes, as opposed to a local route though... Unless the thought process is that most people (east of Springfield) would still gravitate to Q36's & n24's? IDK, but the main thing with the Q110 is, if those folks can get some consistent, reliable service along the corridor, the popularity/patronage of this thing just might skyrocket... Won't hold my breath though. Q111/114/115: My immediate reaction to this part of the plan/network is that way too many stops along Brewer would (still) end up being eliminated... They got the Q111 & the Q114 as rush routes, making too few stops along Brewer, north of the Belt... They also got the Q115 as a LTD, only panning as far south as Farmers... Very strange... It appears to me that they're severely underrating the amt. of riders seeking Far Rockaway (or, the Rockaways in general) from along Brewer... The plan is a little too Jamaica focused. Way I see it, if they're going to base service along Brewer (or as they put it, "This new route would become the primary service along Guy R. Brewer Blvd") around the Q115, right off the bat, it should be a local - case closed.... Then we can talk about having Q111's & Q115's as skip-stop services.... They have the impending Q111 as a rush route; I don't necessarily disagree with that, as the current Q111 carries heavy & it does slog along Brewer... However, I still think they have it skipping too many stops along Brewer..... As for eliminating the current Q113 to have the impending Q114 make less stops (compared to the current Q114), I agree with the general idea..... I'd say the impending Q114 should be a LTD route instead of a rush route though, basically making the same amt. of stops south of the county line, but still with a couple more stops along Brewer,north of the Belt... As a side note, to eliminate the Doughty blvd. stop to keep the Monroe st. stop, **facepalm**.... A decent amt. of people that work in Inwood use Doughty (either direction).... But yeah, once the MTA even created the current Q114, I figured the current Q113 would end up being toast - And here we're about to be with it.... The fact that they seriously see the current setup along Brewer as redundant service (talking about avoiding redundant service with this impending setup) tells you all you need to know.... To sum up what I'm saying, the Q111 may as well be the rush route, the Q114 should be a LTD, and the Q115 should be a local if they're going to break up service along Brewer in such a manner..... Q112: I just deleted my rant to lay this out calmly imstead: If that portion of the current Q7 west of Rockaway blvd doesn't do much for the current Q7, why would it do much for the Q112? To retain what was lost with having the impending Q8 run to New Lots , compared to the current Q8 running to Jamaica from that part of Brooklyn? Vast majority of those folks (current Q8 riders) in Brooklyn aren't remotely riding to Jamaica anyway.... The thing with the current Q8 in Brooklyn in general as it is, is that it's majorically used as a B13 supplement (meaning, interborough usage is not all that great on the route).... I get that the Q112 is shorter than the Q8, however (and this is something that I have been clamoring for, for a good little minute in these spaces, even back during the RD days) - the B14 should be running along that portion of the current Q7... Not the current Q7, not the current Q112, not any 109th av route (like they had the Q109 in the previous draft run to).... You have a significant amt. of people from on/off B14's making their way to/from the ; that walk is an unnecessary PITA... The B14 running to Rockaway Blvd would also solve the problem of connecting East New York (the neighborhood) to the infamous Q53... I've seen ideas around these parts that has the B15 taking the exit off N/S Conduit at Cross Bay, just to have it connect with the SBS'... Absolutely unnecessary, given the amt. of traffic as it is in that immediate area... Lastly, they kicked the B15 out of the Brooklyn General Mail Facility some odd years ago... AFAIC, nothing should be terminating inside of there (like the current B14 & B20 does), and for all I care, just have the B13 run inside there.... The Q112 should be left right there where it is, regardless if they truncated the Q51 from the previous plan (from Gateway Mall) to terminate where the current Q112 does... ========================================= And that about wraps it up for my assessment of the local routes... The express routes will be commented on in another post.... I tried hard to not look at anyone's replies before completing my commentary, so I am curious to see what y'all got to say about this plan.... So I'll reply to some of yall's posts first (to try to catch up here), then I'll comment on these express bus changes.... Questions, comments, concerns? Have at it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 24, 2023 Share #3425 Posted December 24, 2023 On 12/12/2023 at 1:27 PM, DT323 said: I can't believe they took out a bunch of promising elements from the old plan! Also, the stop removal is crazy in this new one. Yeah, I'm probably the most disappointed at the previously proposed Q78 (the Springfield through route) & the previously proposed Q43 to LIJ not making the cut..... The stop removals & the pigeonholing (of a route only being of one route type & not having variants to them instead) were/are the two main things I vehemently disapprove/d of since the very first draft (with those "QT" routes & what not)..... On 12/12/2023 at 1:33 PM, NBTA said: Why would you need Rockaway-Sheepshead service…? On 12/12/2023 at 1:39 PM, NBTA said: How many people are actually going between Sheepshead Bay and Far Rockaway? Save your strength bro.... I've already been down this same road 3 separate times on this forum over the years... There are some route suggestions/discussions I'm just not going to delve down into bothering discussing anymore... The B36 to Kings Plaza, the B36 to the Junction, a B2/B100 combination, and some Sheepshead - Rockaways route are just a few..... On 12/12/2023 at 1:37 PM, Ex696 said: It's good that the Q62 was replaced with the Q16, but this new Q62 is subjectively even worse. I agree, to a point.... The branch of the current Q16 that should've been kept is the Francis Lewis branch IMO, not the Utopia branch.... This new Q62 though, yeah, I don't see it doing too well.... If you care to flip a coin as to whether which would perform the worst between the two (Q61, Q62), be my guest, On 12/12/2023 at 3:00 PM, xD4nn said: I don't get why they keep trying to cut the Q30 back to QCC. It's pointless. Can't say I entirely disagree, but I have far more of a problem with this new Q75 than I do this new Q30.... It's as if they came out with this rendition of a Q75 as a compromise to the previously proposed Q88.... That QCM - LNP/HHE route clear along HHE would've been sheer murder... On 12/12/2023 at 3:10 PM, limitednyc said: I see that the q34 will not be replaced. The Q34 will be gone, bro.... Phased out by an increase in Q25 service, Q20 service through Mitchell Gardens, and Q61 service along Willets Pt. On 12/12/2023 at 4:05 PM, Q43LTD said: The Q37 has 2 branches and the 112 goes to Euclid Av.... With the Q37, that's not a branch (ending at the Casino).... Everything you see on the map is all one continuous route.... Buses already (currently) double back to serve the casino, before proceeding onward in either direction... With the Q112 replacing the current Q7 west of Rockaway Blvd , it's clear they don't know what to do with that segment.... They went from completely eliminating service along that part of Sutter in the first draft, to having that Q109 running along that part of Sutter, to ultimately having the Q112 running along that part of Sutter..... On 12/12/2023 at 4:05 PM, Lex said: It's amazing how they backed off the Q10/Q64 merge but still thought it wise to stick with that unholy route combination. The only hope is that the proposal is still in there because of the Brooklyn redesign. I'd like to believe that those communities (along the Q10 & Q64) applied pressure to have that previously proposed Q10 rescinded.... Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think folks in Bushwick & Williamsburg a] have that kind of clout & b] even care enough to muster up enough of a fight to have that god-awful B53 proposal be done away with.... On 12/12/2023 at 4:12 PM, Ex696 said: Disappointed the Q7 was removed from Falcaros Plaza. Instead of at least sending it back to the Cargo Area, they have it ending at even greater of a stub....at least the reroute to 75th Street-Elderts Lane stayed. The 24-hour service is also nice. Burnside/Rockaway Tpke is a poor area to have a bus terminate at on any basis, let alone a full time basis... I do wonder how many from along the current (and/or new part of the route, NW of Rockaway Blvd ) Q7 would've taken it to/from 5 Towns, or the rest of the commercial areas along Rockaway Tpke. though.... What I will say is, they may as well have ended it at 150th/133rd; just short of that gas station over there by N. Conduit there.... On 12/12/2023 at 4:20 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: There's one proposal that I wanna see how it plays out in particular, and that's the Q110 to Floral Park LIRR. I'd like to see what folks end up doing once they catch wind of that proposal. For me, it's that Q51 (regardless if it went to Gateway or not)..... I just don't see SE Queens patrons (particularly, folks east of Merrick) warming up to the in any significant amount.... The NIMBY element/sentiment in regards to having buses run to LIRR Floral Park, I honestly don't think is near as potent as it once was, back when the Q79 was still in service.... I'll even go as far as to say that I can gradually see riders taking buses from LIRR Floral Park (to what extent, of course, will be the question)..... On 12/12/2023 at 4:35 PM, Ex696 said: The Q33 and Q47 changes are terrible. The whole point of the Q70 was to remove LGA riders from the Q33 and now they extended it back to LGA while cutting the Q47, which unnecessarily removes airport access for those in Glendale, Middle Village and Maspeth. ...of which there are few to none. Quite frankly, I don't think the Q33 or the Q47 should be serving 23rd st.... I'd have kept portions of the Q48 around (instead of them foolishly combining the Q48 & the Q50), to have it serve 23rd instead.... I would kick it out of the airport, to have it as an official (unlike an unofficial one, like the Q48 currently is) loop route though, basically doing this... This would work in conjunction with having the Q19 run the current Q48 b/w Downtown Flushing & Astoria Blvd/108th st (which is what they had the previously proposed Q19 do)... On 12/12/2023 at 4:41 PM, NBTA said: Some specifics I like: The Q12/13 swap; I’ve been calling for this for a while, the Q12 needs to solely be the main northern boulevard east route (yes I know the 13 and the 28 still runs on northern at sections, but you get what I mean). The Q26 actually being used; yes, while it does have Q65 riders lose the 1 seat ride To/From Jamaica-College Point, I’m pleased to see that the transfer would be right there in the form of a 24/7 Q26. Hopefully it’s used as much as it should be. The Merrick Boulevard/Guy R Brewer Boulevard Split ups; Now you’ll have less riders confused (yes, I’ve seen confused riders). You now have specifics, Q5 to 133rd, Q85 to the Mall 24/7 via Conduit and Bedell, Q86 to Huxley, Q87 to the Mall via Merrick/Hook Creek for the Merrick routes; and for the Guy R routes, Q111 to Rosedale, Q114 to Rockaway, and Q115 to Farmers. The removal of that weird *** Q10/64 combination and the Q44 to Fordham Extension; do I need to say more? What I don’t like: The Q30/36 being essentially reduced to weekday only; maybe it’s nit picky because there’s other routes replacing its weekend service, but it just seems weird to me. The Q15/62 mess; So the 15 becomes the 14 and the 62 becomes the 15A..via a different route. The Q75’s terminal; why not just send it to Jamaica LIRR? Q33/47 swap; I could be wrong, but this swap just worsens the Q47, but once again, I could be wrong. What made me laugh, Yes, this is a category: The Q51s downfall; it went from an SBS line to Gateway Mall, to only being a Limited to Rockaway Boulevard, seems like people didn’t really want this line. The Q105: I wonder how this is gonna work. The Q102/104 combination: I TRULY wonder how this is gonna work too. Just my two cents on the whole ordeal, I personally think it’s an improvement from the previous two drafts we had however. * You're only looking at the route numbering aspect of it... It's going to spawn more confusion because riders aren't going to know what variant stops where (along Merrick or along Brewer, respectively).... * In terms of runtime, absolutely it worsens the Q47.... Usage-wise OTOH, I don't think it makes a lick of difference as to whether the current Q33 or the impending Q47 serves 23rd av.... * ...and I'm one of them, lol..... But yeah, as much as I don't care for the Q51, I don't see it not serving Gateway as a major loss.... I really don't think SE Queens patrons would've bothered taking it to/from Gateway.... That's an issue with the current Q8 to/from Gateway; there's simply not a lot of Queens patrons using it to get to Gateway either.... * When you say you wonder how the impending Q104 & Q105 is gonna work, what particularly are you referring to? * To your general point there at the end, although I wish they'd kept some aspects/concepts from the previous draft, I also see this as an improvement over the previous draft (routings-wise anyway... On my own time, I have to take a deeper dive as far as the frequencies for all these routes are concerned)... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.