Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[B35 via Church]

On 12/26/2023 at 2:59 PM, JAzumah said:

The MTA official from 50 years ago is correct. If you are running a transportation system, people have to know what services you provide in order for them to determine its usefulness.

The B103 used to carry around 150 passengers a day in each direction. It was hard to find on bus signs. It was not on the regular bus map (only the NYCDOT Express Bus Map). You had to know it existed to find the schedule (which was part of the Command Bus Company brochure). When it started appearing on schedules and bus maps, the ridership EXPLODED. 4 buses/day in each direction had to be expanded even under the stingy NYCDOT because the buses got too full to carry everyone. 4 buses/day became an all day service on a largely hourly schedule. Bad service became better service because more people found out about it and drove demand for that service. The "bad service" was still useable enough to grow!

First, you maximize the use of bad service. That drives demand to improve it.

Right... I mean FFS, the thing used to end on 94th & Flatlands - and as a courtesy/on request, it used to swing way over on Ashford & Cozine, going on a grand tour through Starrett City before the fact... All that, as an attempt to try to spawn patronage.....

Now imagine today's B103 did all that shit

And oh, there's always the myth of what was supposedly the BQM1.... Much of nobody knew just what the hell that was before it became the BM5...

Anyway, it did so for other former PBL's as well, but since we're on the subject {B103}, the PBL takeover, moreso than any other former PBL route, exponentially made the route more popular.... But of course, we can kiss the B103 as we know it today goodbye if the MTA's proposal for it in the Brooklyn redesign becomes a finality....

7 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Damn. I never knew bout that. That’s wild

Yeah man, I remember it like yesterday... Out of all the former PBL routes, the Command bus routes back then (at least IMO) felt much like the B110 still does today - in the sense that you may see it from time to time, but you never really knew if it was "for the public", or what.....

Edited December 30, 2023 by B35 via Church

[Cait Sith]

Does anyone happen to have the remix links for the "QT" plans? I have the remix maps for the previous local and express drafts, but not the QTs.

[B35 via Church]

25 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Does anyone happen to have the remix links for the "QT" plans? I have the remix maps for the previous local and express drafts, but not the QTs.

Sure man, I got it bookmarked.

God awful QT remix map proposals {Local}

God awful QMT remix map proposals {Express}

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by B35 via Church

[Q43LTD]

Those definitely need to be in a dumpster fire

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Right... I mean FFS, the thing used to end on 94th & Flatlands - and as a courtesy/on request, it used to swing way over on Ashford & Cozine, going on a grand tour through Starrett City before the fact... All that, as an attempt to try to spawn patronage.....

Now imagine today's B103 did all that shit

And oh, there's always the myth of what was supposedly the BQM1.... Much of nobody knew just what the hell that was before it became the BM5...

Anyway, it did so for other former PBL's as well, but since we're on the subject {B103}, the PBL takeover, moreso than any other former PBL route, exponentially made the route more popular.... But of course, we can kiss the B103 as we know it today goodbye if the MTA's proposal for it in the Brooklyn redesign becomes a finality....

Yeah man, I remember it like yesterday... Out of all the former PBL routes, the Command bus routes back then (at least IMO) felt much like the B110 still does today - in the sense that you may see it from time to time, but you never really knew if it was "for the public", or what.....

I remember standing on the corner of Cozine and Pennsylvania Avenue with some friends who were bus cleaners from ENY depot and we would be shocked every time a Command bus made an appearance. There weren’t any signs or schedules posted there or at Flatlands that I can recall. I think that Command or Pioneer had their own schedules that weren’t posted anywhere. We used to see the buses to Atlantic City more often than the PBL ones.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Trainmaster5
Additional thought

[JAzumah]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

And oh, there's always the myth of what was supposedly the BQM1.... Much of nobody knew just what the hell that was before it became the BM5...

That is correct, especially when one bus stop justified the "Q" portion of the name. 

 

 

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Anyway, it did so for other former PBL's as well, but since we're on the subject {B103}, the PBL takeover, moreso than any other former PBL route, exponentially made the route more popular

To the MTA's credit (bookmark that I said that), the B103 was one of the first routes that they poured resources into to grow ridership. They boosted service to every 15 minutes with every RTS CNG that could keep alive and the route took off. I remember it like yesterday. They also tried to break down the company silos as much as possible to make the system work better. The city could have done the same thing on its own, but they had no interest in investing those resources. To this point, they have also kept paying for the better service in its entirety.
 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, JAzumah said:

To the MTA's credit (bookmark that I said that), the B103 was one of the first routes that they poured resources into to grow ridership. They boosted service to every 15 minutes with every RTS CNG that could keep alive and the route took off. I remember it like yesterday. They also tried to break down the company silos as much as possible to make the system work better. The city could have done the same thing on its own, but they had no interest in investing those resources. To this point, they have also kept paying for the better service in its entirety.

 You knew what time it was when you started seeing people taking B103's over B6's... That would have NEVER happened during Command's run.

 

[Q43LTD]

It's safe to say the B103 has come a long way since the Command days. It was an intra borough limited, then a certain former member got upset when it became "just another" LTD

Edited December 30, 2023 by Q43LTD
Quotation marks

[MTA Dude]

On 12/29/2023 at 5:58 AM, B35 via Church said:

I wasn't trying to implicate that particular stretch carries lightly, but at the same time, I do see more people from Flushing have more of a use for a Q98 of sorts, compared to the current Q58 LTD.... So if they're going to do away with the Q58LTD, I would look to increase local service along Grand av & that section of the route b/w QB & 108th st. in Corona.... Basically what I'm getting at is that there's more usage along the Grand st. corridor than there is on the Q58 b/w QB & 108th....

As far as having the Q59 ending at Rego Center vs. ending it where the current Q38 does (which I thought about doing at first), the latter would be too huge of a deterrent - even more so than not retaining the Q58 local to/from Flushing for those folks b/w QB & 108th.....

I was asking about how many people use the Q58 specifically to get from Flushing to the Broadway/Corona Ave stop, then walk further up Broadway to get to Elmhurst Chinatown. But I guess people who want to make that trip are more likely to take the given the amount of traffic the Q58 often has to deal with.

Still not sure why the Q59 should loop back to Rego Center. The only benefit I see is to connect it to 108th St. It's way too big of a loop to benefit anyone along Grand or Corona Ave.

[B35 via Church]

11 minutes ago, MTA Dude said:

I was asking about how many people use the Q58 specifically to get from Flushing to the Broadway/Corona Ave stop, then walk further up Broadway to get to Elmhurst Chinatown. But I guess people who want to make that trip are more likely to take the given the amount of traffic the Q58 often has to deal with.

Still not sure why the Q59 should loop back to Rego Center. The only benefit I see is to connect it to 108th St. It's way too big of a loop to benefit anyone along Grand or Corona Ave.

From Flushing, Q58 usage at Broadway/Corona in-particular is rather light.

As for the uncertainty you express, well if the Corona av. route wouldn't go to go to Flushing, in terms of potentially generating (more) ridership, I'm taking my chances with connecting it to a relatively nearby mall, over that of stubbing it at whichever current Q38 terminal you're talking about.... Hell, the current Q38 (or anything else, for the matter) shouldn't be ending over there along that gas station along Otis anyway (which the final draft of the MTA proposal doesn't have anything doing btw), and to end a proposed Q59 of sorts at the other Q38 terminal (on 108th/62nd) would be even more of a stub.... If connecting the Q59 to Corona av would come at the behest of terminating it at either of the current Q38 terminals, then I'd just leave the Q58 local going to Flushing & leave the Q59 going to Rego Center via QB....

As for your point about a loop, it would only be so for Grand av. riders....  If those folks want to get off at QB & xfer to the Q60, they have that option.... Connecting Corona av to Rego Park isn't a loop; it's a mere descension from the neighborhood to that mall.... Especially for the latter, I don't concur with the premise that it wouldn't be of any benefit....

[Nova Fly Guy]

14 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

It's safe to say the B103 has come a long way since the Command days. It was an intra borough limited, then a certain former member got upset when it became "just another" LTD

Once they extend to Williams it became non exclusive as many didn’t know it existed. Didn’t live far from command one of the best privates outside of Queens Surface. The last stop was E 92nd and Flatlands Av the B103 was really for working class people in the PH.

[Robert Spire]

On 12/30/2023 at 7:18 AM, JAzumah said:

That is correct, especially when one bus stop justified the "Q" portion of the name. 

 

 

To the MTA's credit (bookmark that I said that), the B103 was one of the first routes that they poured resources into to grow ridership. They boosted service to every 15 minutes with every RTS CNG that could keep alive and the route took off. I remember it like yesterday. They also tried to break down the company silos as much as possible to make the system work better. The city could have done the same thing on its own, but they had no interest in investing those resources. To this point, they have also kept paying for the better service in its entirety.
 

They're paying for this service in its entirety because MTA Bus Company is a no man's land. The city doesn't want to be directly accountable for bus service, the MTA does its thing and no one upsets the apple cart. This is partly why I believe the proposed express bus cuts in 2018 were stopped, this is why the Bronx express bus routes haven't been redesigned, this is why in the final plan MTA is more willing to leave Queens alone compared to before. The moment NYC upsets the apple cart for any reason is when this all breaks down. 

[IAlam]

On 12/26/2023 at 4:57 AM, Sylveon said:

then you have the Q30 and Q75.... that's gonna piss off a lot of people..... cuz why terminate at Briarwood... Kew Gardens would've been better

On 12/26/2023 at 1:41 PM, xD4nn said:

Kew Gardens doesn't make any sense either. They aren't going to change jack after this final plan since they claim that west of QCC has "greater ridership". My guess for them rerouting it to Briarwood is so that it can still be based out of JA. It would be horrible to base it out of QV. QV is way too far and they can't do street reliefs since it goes nowhere near QV. Jamaica is the better option and schedules have decreased on the Q75 in favor of greater service on the Q30 so I don't see why it can't be based out of JA.

The Q75 really should be going to Forest Hills, Forest Hills and Fresh Meadows are both destinations, and Q88 passengers having to ride a long haul for a local stop are just getting shafted at this point. Forest Hills would be a better destination and can supplement the Q64 which is ridiculously crowded.

On 12/29/2023 at 5:58 AM, B35 via Church said:

I wasn't trying to implicate that particular stretch carries lightly, but at the same time, I do see more people from Flushing have more of a use for a Q98 of sorts, compared to the current Q58 LTD.... So if they're going to do away with the Q58LTD, I would look to increase local service along Grand av & that section of the route b/w QB & 108th st. in Corona.... Basically what I'm getting at is that there's more usage along the Grand st. corridor than there is on the Q58 b/w QB & 108th....

As far as having the Q59 ending at Rego Center vs. ending it where the current Q38 does (which I thought about doing at first), the latter would be too huge of a deterrent - even more so than not retaining the Q58 local to/from Flushing for those folks b/w QB & 108th.....

23 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

I was asking about how many people use the Q58 specifically to get from Flushing to the Broadway/Corona Ave stop, then walk further up Broadway to get to Elmhurst Chinatown. But I guess people who want to make that trip are more likely to take the given the amount of traffic the Q58 often has to deal with.

Still not sure why the Q59 should loop back to Rego Center. The only benefit I see is to connect it to 108th St. It's way too big of a loop to benefit anyone along Grand or Corona Ave.

The proposed Q98 is one of the best things in the proposal for Flushing riders IMO. QCM is a major destination that's pretty popular for people in NE Queens, but that requires either backtracking via the subway or taking the Q88 and transferring. As for Broadway and Corona, I feel people would rather take the subway, and the only people who would take the Q58 live by the line or are trying to save money on a return trip. The center of where people want to is by Elmhurst Ave which is a bit of a walk on top of the fact the Q58 doesn't even stop near the station in Flushing either.

On 12/29/2023 at 7:29 PM, B35 via Church said:

Sure man, I got it bookmarked.

God awful QT remix map proposals {Local}

God awful QMT remix map proposals {Express}

MY EYES THEY BURN

 

[MysteriousBtrain]

4 hours ago, IAlam said:

The Q75 really should be going to Forest Hills, Forest Hills and Fresh Meadows are both destinations, and Q88 passengers having to ride a long haul for a local stop are just getting shafted at this point. Forest Hills would be a better destination and can supplement the Q64 which is ridiculously crowded.

Hmm, the Q75 via 73 Av to Forest Hills sounds ok. 

Or basically, a Q73/75 combo.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

7 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Hmm, the Q75 via 73 Av to Forest Hills sounds ok. 

Or basically, a Q73/75 combo.

 

I like that idea, too, but the NIMBYs along 73rd Avenue (west of 188th) don't like it at all.

 

I might have made this Q75 an extension of the  (via Jewel, 164th, Horace Harding). 

[MysteriousBtrain]

37 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I like that idea, too, but the NIMBYs along 73rd Avenue (west of 188th) don't like it at all.

 

I might have made this Q75 an extension of the  (via Jewel, 164th, Horace Harding). 

The first part, I felt NIMBYs had a huge play in the Q73 not being a factor in the final plan.

The second part, idk I thought that too bit if it was gonna go further east I would give it a LTD variant. But the current eastern terminal is good as is

What I may be more interested in is if the Q64 was able to be extended west connecting Glendale Mall to Forest Hills for easier connections of the mall and the . (One could argue or won't really do much but it's also a way to take ease from the long ride to Victor Moore so I feel 50/50 on this).

[B35 via Church]

On 12/13/2023 at 12:43 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Alright so going through a little more of the proposals more in-depth, here are my comments on the system

 

Individual Routes:

Q14: Cutting the route back from Fresh Pond Road  is just outright dumb. That's not an easy walk and much of nobody is gonna do that for the subway. There might be an uptick in both Q58 and Q67 riders if that happens. Way I see it, this may also be a way to try to cut the route's popularity / potential before it begins. It's a relatively fast route between Ridgewood and Corona (runs on less congested streets than either the Q58 or Q98), and it serves a lot more of Corona than either route to boot. Speaking about Corona, while ridership on the Q23 tends to tank at Roosevelt, I don't know that I see the Q14 having more through riders there either.

You're not wrong here, but I just don't care for this Q14 in general because it's an obvious mish-mash (and a poor attempt at one at that) of current routes that I don't see doing much for the network - even if they continued it along Fresh Pond to connect with the (which of course, would do a hell of a lot more for Eliot riders, than just stubbing it at Metropolitan)....

Q20: The previous draft plan probably had the best iteration of a Main Street local north of Flushing. My one gripe with the route as a whole was it serving the Briarwood subway station instead of Union Turnpike. Space issues I suppose, but still, there's more going on at Union Turnpike than at Briarwood. Anything ending there is a stub. Additionally, from the Main Street side it's also rather convoluted process to get to/from the platform. Not to mention the  skips the station during most daytime hours on weekdays. This is basically them giving the Q20B full-time service, and replacing what was an IMO decent route with the Q20 to Beechhurst in draft 2 with a hodge-podge of routes (I'll get to those some other time).

Quite frankly, I've long grown tired of seeing Q20's taking up road space in/on/through Jamaica, when there's too obvious a preponderance of folks gunning for Q44's over Q20's.... That's the main reason I supported the proposed Q20 in the previous draft.... I wouldn't necessarily categorize Briarwood as a stub, when there's clearly a line of folks at Main/Manton (basically Main/QB) that be seeking NB service.... I don't disagree that the area around Kew Gardens has more going for it, but it would also take more time getting to that station from along Main st, than just simply sending it down to the end of the street, to accomplish the same general thing....

Q26: Having the Q26 run up to College Point is even more pointless than the previous Q27 proposal to College Point. I don't think the previous Q26 proposal was necessarily a bad idea minus a few tweaks here and there. Also, they're giving this route overnight service on top of the Q27 and overserving 46th Avenue at night with 15 minute frequencies, JFC. The Q65 should have been kept going to College Point, it already has and is also proposed to continue having overnight service. What's the end game here?

I had no problem with the previous Q27 proposal - especially when coupled with that of the previous Q17 proposal.... I absolutely detested the previous Q26 proposal.... As much as I'm not all too high with this final Q26 proposal, I'd MUCH rather have it take over the current Q65 north of Flushing, over having it take over significant enough a portion of the current Q27 south of Flushing.... But yeah, I'd still rather retain the current Q65, over having this final rendition of the Q26.

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). 

I'd much rather increase Q50 service (the current rendition, not this impending Q50 to LGA BS) & send some Q50's over to Bronx State, HMC, and Jacobi (well, Eastchester/Pelham Pkwy South) via Jarvis-Middletown-Waters, etc....

Q32/Q60: Buses skipping Queens Plaza North is something that I'm not surprised about them trying to get away with because it does get pretty congested and it is hard to make that turn off of Northern onto 41st Ave. However that stop at Queens Boulevard & Jackson is equally hard to get to from most of the Queens Plaza area, so something has to give. The bypassed stops are where any ridership into Manhattan is coming from. 

Also with the Q32, I personally think that this route should have overnight service. I think it would fair well. They can justify running overnight service on the damn B53 but not the Q32 (which is not even as duplicative to the  as it the B53 is to the )?

Agreed on all points here... I always thought the Q32 should've been a 24/7 route - even before the overnight subway shutdowns..... Wasn't all that surprising to me to see that buses were quite crowded (both directions) during those shutdowns, and I'm not convinced at all that the vast majority of people taking buses around that time normally took the ....

Q36: Quite honestly, if that's the proposed routing why bother serving Hillside Avenue. It could have still been a rush route or whatever they wanna call it, but it could have stayed on Jamaica Avenue, to then hit Jamaica Center and head up to the  at Parsons Boulevard. Hillside Ave already has the Q1 and Q43, and the only segment you're left to cover with is Springfield Boulevard. With the Q1 frequencies I don't think branching it would be a big deal. Anyone that far out east needing Hillside Avenue in particular would have to hop on the n24 (which would be the case on weekends). 

The question I have is, why bother continuing to cover all of LNP with one route at this point? I honestly don't think LNP area patrons would even wince if they have kept the previously proposed Q45 (the Hillside-LNP route)... I have less of an issue with the Springfield-Jamaica-LNP aspect of this impending Q36, and more of an issue with this having the Q36 continuing to uphold the entire serving of LNP like the old Q79 did.... I don't think there should be any type of route (rush, or whatever) running along Jamaica av, for the sake of retaining service along all of LNP..... I see it as nothing short of odd to be more decisive about having a Jamaica av - LNP route, than having a Hillside route turn down Springfield.... That's how that part of this take of yours comes off to me.

As long as *something* covers the 212's (which the Q82 does, which I get you don't care for), I'm straight.... The impending Q36 going Hillside - Springfield - Jamaica, I have zero issue with whatsoever (as I see it garnering more patronage, compared to the current Q36)..... I just don't see this need to cover all of LNP... I would even question having buses run north of Northern at this point also....

On 12/14/2023 at 11:34 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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.

I simply find this attempt at breaking up the current Q38 to be very underwhelming.... There's been better proposals for doing so on this forum alone, over the years.... Even with that truncation from the with the impending Q14, you're still higher on it than I am.... In any case, funny that the same sentiment you convey regarding the existing Q38 in the first half of that first paragraph, is the exact same sentiment I have for this impending Q14.... As much as IDC for anything ending at either of the current Q38 terminals (being that they're keeping the impending Q38 ending at the Apex apartments), I'd do more with the route on the western end - sending it to terminate at/around Lorimer/Metropolitan

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.

The interesting thing in that regard is, I've been seeing more of the reverse critique (as in, should the Q11 run to Lindenwood, if they're going to maintain having the Q41 do so)... But yeah, you don't need the Q11 & the Q41 serving Lindenwood....

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. 

Enough can't be said about this particular impending route.... Guess I'll come up with another crafty way of conveying a disapproval of this thing..... So, let's bear witness to the 21st century version of the Qbx1 - instead of the problem being at Pelham Bay Park, it'll be at Flushing.... I fully expect within months of this abomination coming to fruition that they'll start scaling trips back to Flushing from The Bronx.....

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.

LMAO.... Agreed though.

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. 

I'm defiantly in the camp of the latter..... I would say that I take issue with having both of these routes running to Queens Plaza, but I have a bigger issue of this creating of an unnecessary layer of service along Northern.... On top of it, I don't see this need of having LTD service or "rush" service along the corridor.... I would do away with this Q63 & have the impending Q66 run local & have it be called a day..... Something else can serve 35th for all I care.

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. 

So would virtually everyone else... The industrial Maspeth workers mostly disembark at Hunters Point & essentially everyone else on the bus is off the bus at Court Square.... This truncation is a no-brainer to me.... As for the sentiment regarding the impending route being closer to LTD service, I can't complain, because that's exactly what I think the route should be.... Kind of like a Queens version of the B103.... I've always thought it should serve a little more of Queens, due east...

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.......

Shocked in what sense?

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. 

Yeah, criminally underserved indeed.... You speak of spite regarding the retaining of the current Q44, but what I've long seen as spiteful is this (purposeful, IMO) doing much of nothing to improve service on the Q72, everrrrrrrrrr since people started complaining that the route should run inside LGA....

Q75: I see people passing up Q75s for any of the other Union Turnpike local bus routes....

So do I.... Worse than that, I see people on the more eastern part of the route completely refusing to use it as well.... This route is simply a poor allocation of mileage.

On 12/23/2023 at 5:04 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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. 

Glad someone else sees this.... The potential the previously proposed Q78 had to flourish in the network isn't somehow nullified, or of some compromise, by merely sending the Q77 down to JFK Depot..... I don't see this extension doing much of anything for the Q77.... Most will gravitate towards the Brewer routes (as much as they've disjointed service along that corridor) or the Q3 down in that immediate area....

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. 

They're underserving this route IMO because the Q2 will still serve Hempstead av.... I see the Q82 slowly taking pax. away from the Q2 along Hempstead av.... While the Q2 will be busy picking up pax along Hollis av (dwell times at stops increasing), this thing'll be flying along Hillside...

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....

I'm of the belief they believe that the current Q42 is majorically used as an Q83 supplement... So in order to change what they likely see as duplicative service (pattern), they're making the Q83 a rush route, as to not continue having 2 local routes along that part of Liberty.... In any case, it makes no sense whatsoever....

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.

I'm not sure if this is in opposition to, or in concurrence with those 2 sentiments of yours above, but I'll say this.... I do not like what they're doing with the Q86 on three fronts:

1. Running it down to residential Rosedale as a means to replace the current Rosedale branch of the current Q85.... No Rosedale resident worth their salt (especially in large numbers) is going to choose that Q86 over the Q111 for getting to/from Jamaica - especially given how many god damn stops they have the Q111 skipping along Brewer...
2. Apparently pitting the current Q5 usage to/from Green Acres & current Q85 usage to/from Green Acres against each other - and using THAT as a barometer to determine service levels of the Q86 & Q87 past Merrick/Laurelton Pkwy.
3. Giving the Q86 that much more service than the Q87 in & of itself....

To sum it up, even given those BS headways, I bet anything there'll still be more demand for Green Acres along Merrick, compared to demand for getting deep into Rosedale from Merrick.

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?

Better than the previous proposal, but I'm still not at all satisfied with what they're doing with Brewer... Like, why is the short turn a] a LTD, and b] being used as a basis for determining how service should run along the rest of Brewer (as in, south of Farmers)..... I personally miss when it was just the Q111 & the Q113 along Brewer, but that's neither here nor there.... To parrot what I said in my assessment, if they're going to have this Q115 be a thing, then the Q111 may as well be the rush route, the Q114 may as well be the LTD, and the Q115 should most definitely be a local.....

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.

Yeah, I was disappointed when they reverted to having it backdoor into Jamaica also.... However, I was (and still am) absolutely livid that they have this running to Euclid ... Dam thing should be left alone right where it is on the western end of the thing.... I'd gladly boot the Q51 elsewhere in Queens to have the Q112 continue to terminate where it currently does.... Run the B14 along that current Q7 stretch west of Cross Bay & call it a day.... I went more in depth in my assessment, so I won't parrot everything here; this whole post is long enough anyway.

Retorts across these 3 posts/replies are all in dark red.

[Metro CSW]

Damn.... And I was rooting for the Q44 to Fordham. Oh well, guess it wasn't much of a demand anyways.

[The TransitMan]

14 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I like that idea, too, but the NIMBYs along 73rd Avenue (west of 188th) don't like it at all.

 

I might have made this Q75 an extension of the  (via Jewel, 164th, Horace Harding). 

Why? The Q46 uses 73rd Av on a detour and NIS buses...mainly express buses have a field day along 73rd Av.

[xD4nn]

They could just route every Q30 to Little Neck and into and out of QCC rather than having short turns. Hardly anyone uses that short turn except the high school students.

[Ex696]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Run the B14 along that current Q7 stretch west of Cross Bay & call it a day

What about  ridership to and from the Postal Facility?

[checkmatechamp13]

Comments by route (On a side note, did they take out the stops from Remix when you try to enter from the main map? It seems like you can only see the stops when you go there from the route profile)

Q1: I think it would've been better to have it combined with the Merrick Blvd local route (thus providing a connection from Merrick Blvd to the 169th Street subway station without having to go through Downtown Jamaica.

Q2: I'm good with how it's proposed

Q3: I'm good with how it's proposed (It's a long, circuitous route, but there's not much that can be done, especially with the construction around the passenger terminals)

Q4: I don't see why they dropped the Elmont extension...looking at the old plan, it seems like they would've had it run down Linden and Stuart, and there's some layover space available towards the end of Linden

Q5: As mentioned, I'd probably have the Q1 be the Merrick local (I'd end it around Merrick & Springfield), and leave the Q5 as the Merrick local running to Jamaica Center. (With the Q86 covering the eastern end of Rosedale, and the Q85 covering Green Acres, the only segment that would have local-only service would be Hook Creek Blvd)

Q6: I think they could've had one branch running down 150th Street to the cargo area, and the other branch going to the Post Office. 

Q7: I think this should've gone down towards the Rockaways as proposed in the first two drafts. I'd probably have it do Rockaway Blvd - South/North Conduit Avenue, Guy R Brewer Blvd - Rockaway Blvd (that way, it connects to the Springfield Blvd route, and the 147th Avenue route...arguably, it's also walking distance of the Q85 if anybody wants to transfer to reach Green Acres).

Q8: I'm good with how it's proposed

Q9: It should definitely take 130th Street up at least as far north as 109th Avenue (It's not like 130th runs straight to Lincoln Street anyway). I'd probably just run it across 109th/Lakewood to Sutphin, and move the Q40 to run across Linden to Sutphin. (Another alternative would be to have the Q9 run across 109th Street to 127th/128th Street, and then take the Q41 route into Jamaica).

Q10: Good to see they detached it from the Jewel Avenue route.

Q11: I like the way the route operates north of 157th Avenue. The issue is I would still have it as two separate branches on Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach (I wouldn't have it start/terminate in Old Howard Beach, and then run every trip via Hamilton Beach...especially when ridership is relatively low on both sides, and you have a footbridge connecting the two.

I'd also have a third branch running to Howard Beach via 84th Street (It can be called Q21 if necessary). It would basically just run along 84th Street south of 157th Avenue, and provide service in both directions...I think there's more demand from that area heading up Woodhaven Blvd instead of towards Jamaica. (In any case, if they insist on leaving the Q41 in that area, I'd still have it run up 84th Street bidirectionally) 

Q12: I get that they want a route running the full length of Northern Blvd east of Flushing, but it's just simpler to have it run along Sanford out to Northern Blvd.

Q13: I'd have this route run like the QT51 in the original plan (Northern Blvd - Crocheron Avenue/35th Avenue - Bell Blvd)

Q14: I'd definitely keep this route ending at the Fresh Pond Road  station...it seems like they realized that route would be "too successful for its own good", and instead of adding the proper amount of service to it (perhaps even shifting a bit of service from the Q58/98), they just cut it back and left it at roughly current Q38 headways.

To be continued.....

4 hours ago, Metro CSW said:

Damn.... And I was rooting for the Q44 to Fordham. Oh well, guess it wasn't much of a demand anyways.

This is the problem...with all the time they spent putting these reports together, you would think they would actually show the calculations that justified any given change. I'm sure they could've taken some Bx9/Bx22 origin-destination data, some census travel data, some factor for any new ridership that would've been encouraged as a result of this extension, and put together a solid case for this extension...instead, they basically just said "It looked good on a map" and then decided "Eh, it might make the route longer and more unreliable" (again, without quantifying it) and dropped it.

Every single change should have justification behind it...point blank, period. I cringe at the thought that there might be some planners who have said those those exact words after months of all these studies..."It looked good on a map....eh, it's a shame, there probably wasn't too much demand anyway"

@B35 via Church Do you happen to have the Remix maps saved for the second draft? (The one from March 2022 or so)

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Every single change should have justification behind it...point blank, period.....

Or at the very least, an extensive enough an explanation (not those lazy ass explanations they typically give either)....

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church  Do you happen to have the Remix maps saved for the second draft? (The one from March 2022 or so)

Yup.

Second draft - Local routes

Second draft - Express routes

4 hours ago, Ex696 said:

What about  ridership to and from the Postal Facility?

Ridership, period to/from there is very low nowadays.... Once upon a time, ridership across the then 4 routes (as in, B13, B14, B15, and B20) was rather moderate.... Around the time they took the B15 out of there, overall usage across all the routes had already gotten low then.....

At this point, I would only have the B13 running in & out of there, with absolutely nothing terminating in there anymore....

Edited January 2 by B35 via Church

[Gotham Bus Co.]

9 hours ago, xD4nn said:

They could just route every Q30 to Little Neck and into and out of QCC rather than having short turns. Hardly anyone uses that short turn except the high school students.

 

Eastbound to Little Neck via QCC:

• HHE, left Springfield, right 56th Ave, right East Hampton Blvd, into West Alley Road.
• Short trips end at 56th Ave & 223rd Street.

 

Westbound from Little Neck via QCC:

• HHE, West Alley Road, East Hampton Blvd, left 56th Ave, left 223rd, right 58th Ave, left Springfield, right HHE.
• Short trips start from 223rd Street & 56th Av.

 

Drawback:  NIMBYs along 56th Ave and East Hampton Blvd.

 

[Ultimategamer12c]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Or at the very least, an extensive enough an explanation (not those lazy ass explanations they typically give either)....

Yup.

Second draft - Local routes

Second draft - Express routes

Ridership, period to/from there is very low nowadays.... Once upon a time, ridership across the then 4 routes (as in, B13, B14, B15, and B20) was rather moderate.... Around the time they took the B15 out of there, overall usage across all the routes had already gotten low then.....

At this point, I would only have the B13 running in & out of there, with absolutely nothing terminating in there anymore....

It's going to get even more worse as the ridership also used those routes to get to that Movie Theater, which will be getting demolished soon and replaced with an Key Food so there's that. 

Edited January 2 by Ultimategamer12c