Q43LTD Posted January 5 Share #3526 Posted January 5 11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Q104: I would've preferred a through-Broadway route as previously proposed I would have left that for the 63, instead of it being a supplement to the 66. I believe there was talk back on RD that the 66 should be a LTD or have articulated buses. 6 hours ago, Cait Sith said: In any event, I'll take the current day Q112 over that god awful Q57 any day of the week. The thing that got me was it was proposed to run 24/7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 7 Share #3527 Posted January 7 On 1/2/2024 at 1:36 AM, checkmatechamp13 said: 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) 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 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). 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..... 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. Q4: They had buses terminating at the NE corner of Linden & Elmont Rd.... That layover space along Linden you're referencing is across the street from where they had it terminating... I'm of the belief that they second guessed having buses terminate on that side of Linden - which unfortunately put the kibosh on the whole extension. Q7: As long as they kept it covering the rest of Rockaway Blvd east of Cross Bay, I'm straight..... The flaw I saw with the Cedarhurst extension was the terminal itself... They had it terminating on Burnside b/w Rockaway Tpke & Lawrence Pkwy.... That would've been unmanageable.... The current Far Rockaway bound Q114 stop at Buena Vista/Rockaway Tpke. (which is one block north) should've been the last dropoff stop instead, with it going on layover along Lawrence Pkwy (if anything), to then having the first NB/WB pickup stop on Lawrence Pkwy/Buena Vista (before the turn)... Q11: What I don't quite get about this take is that you bring up the footbridge as an argument to not solely have buses terminating in Old Howard Beach (operating via Hamilton Beach), yet you want to preserve the current branching of the route.... Ridership on both branches being low would be an argument for having every trip serve both Old Howard Beach & Hamilton Beach.... The footbridge argument would actually be an argument for eliminating service to Hamilton Beach.... Be there as it may, I have no issue with trips terminating on the Old Howard Beach side only, nor running via Hamilton Beach (doing away with having anything terminate on that end).... With the having of it running via Hamilton Beach though, I'd say the stops they should've gotten rid of (unlike a lot of the stops being slated for discontinuation borough-wide), are those NB stops along 104th, along the railing.... The only real concern I have with the southern portion of the impending route is the serving of Lindenwood after serving Old Howard Beach & Hamilton Beach.... Q14: I simply think they got hesitant; not wanting to risk running another route along that part of Fresh Pond (if they think those Q98's are gonna be breezing along that part of Fresh Pond (south of Metropolitan), they got another thing coming).... On 1/3/2024 at 2:47 AM, checkmatechamp13 said: Q15: At this point, I'd rather just have the current Q15/15A setup, and the current Q20A/B setup than what they have proposed for the area. The Q62 isn't even going to be running that frequently for the extra diversion they're subjecting Beechurst riders to. Q22: ....on the eastern end, I think the Lawrence extension might've actually worked out...I think part of the issue was that the Q113 itself wouldn't have stopped at that shopping plaza (instead running straight up Nassau Expressway). Maybe if all three routes (Q7, Q22, and Q113) actually stopped there, it would've been a more convenient transfer point. Q23: At first glance, I thought it was absolute nonsense that they truncated it to Roosevelt from the south, but on second glance, it might not be the worst idea in the world(still don't agree with it, though)...riders from points north still have the Q14 which connects to the Queens Blvd Line at Woodhaven Blvd...still think it would be better off going to East Elmhurst via 108th Street as originally planned. Q24: I'd agree with the truncation if it weren't for what they're replacing it with on Broadway Q30: Agree with everybody that it has no business ending at Briarwood of all places...I think a boost in service on the Q31 for Utopia Parkway riders (who are now completely screwed frequency/span-wise) and having the Q75 run along 188th Street/HHE would've been a good way to serve the area Q36: Definitely doesn't need to run down to Jamaica Avenue and back up...I'd also consider if something else can cover the northern end of Little Neck Parkway, and if the Q36 could run to North Shore University Hospital as was proposed in the original draft plan (QT34). Q39: I guess I could agree with leaving it as-is Q50: The Co-Op City segment needs to run similar to the BxM7 and not make a full loop around the whole neighborhood... Q52: I'd try my hand at extending it to Far Rockaway via Bayswater... Q15: Yeah, the current Q15/a setup is as good as you're gonna get... Glad to see that couplet doing as well as it has been, despite (some) Whitestone patrons' bitching regarding the routing up there over the years... Breaking that up to have [this impending Q15 terminate at Clintonville/7th like the former Q14 did] & [a ridiculously forced ass rush route like this impending Q62] comes off as tone deaf to me.... Q22: Rockaway/Burnside as a terminal for that QT22 would've worked out - To be a stub.... The ideal move is to send it up to 5 Towns (which is what they had the Q22 in the previous draft doing)... The problem with that though, is there's no place to end a bus route over there... Forget about having buses on layover on Rockaway Tpke, and with 5 Towns apparently gaining back popularity, there's literally no space inside the parking lot to accommodate public buses (like, with suburban area malls & what not....) Q23: It's not that it's a problem conceptually, it's that it's going to loom problematic logistically... Folks think the Q29 situation at 82nd is hectic, ending a bus at Corona Plaza will be worse.... With that said, I agree with having the Q23 be the 108th st route.... However, I would run it to Ditmars/94th (well, 95th) at the current Q33 terminal (they have the impending Q47 replacing the Q33 over there, but I would truncate the Q47 to where it would terminate with the Q69 at Astoria Blvd/82nd)... Regarding the current Q23 north of Astoria Blvd, I'd continue to have (a modified version of) the current Q48 serve that part of East Elmhurst.... The current Q48 tends to do better than the current Q23 up there.... In any event, if I were to formulate a new route from the 102nd/103rd/104th st portion of the current Q23, I'd agree with having it serve National & 99th to/from Lefrak like this impending Q14 would - but I wouldn't bother running such a route past QB - especially along Eliot of all things.... The way I would handle this whole Q14/Q23 bit, is more or less this.... Q24: Interesting.... So what would have you concurring with that truncated Q24? Q30: The impending Q30 will still end at LIRR Jamaica (the issue with the Q30 is on the opposite end of the route, the having of all trips end at QCC).... It's that Q75 they got ending at Briarwood subway. Q36: That QT34 would've made for a nice little peak direction route, but that thing would've carried a shit ton of air during middays... They actually had this thing running overnight hourly hawks also.... Anyway, So I take it that you'd have buses ending at Jamaica/257th? Or would you run them down to LIRR Floral Park with the impending Q110? Q39: The impending Q39 is being slightly altered on the northern/western end..... After hitting Jackson, buses would parallel/take on the current B62 terminal & layover scenario.... The current routing, if you need QBP, is a PITA.... Fully agree with the change. Q50: I agree with the general sentiment.... I've never stated this publicly up until now, but I sincerely believe that the Q50 should end right there at the Peartree shopping Plaza - and (lol) use the very depot it runs out of, as a layover & to turnaround .... Compared to the other Co-op routes, it's very *meh* in section 5.... Almost every single time I've taken it from section 5, passenger activity significantly increases once it hits that shopping plaza - even moreso than at Bartow/Co-op City blvd..... Q52: If you're talking about running buses along Beach Channel Drive north of Seagirt, that's Wavecrest.... Bayswater is the area the old Q22a used to serve, north of that aforementioned part of Beach Channel Drive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted January 7 Share #3528 Posted January 7 2 hours ago, B35 via Church said: However, I would run it to Ditmars/94th (well, 95th) at the current Q33 terminal (they have the impending Q47 replacing the Q33 over there, but I would truncate the Q47 to where it would terminate with the Q69 at Astoria Blvd/82nd)... But then there wouldn't be any westbound service on 23rd Avenue between 82nd and 94th Streets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted January 7 Share #3529 Posted January 7 And it would also cut off their access to 74th Street/Roosevelt Avenue. Is this a worthy exchange for having the Q23 take over Ditmars/95th? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 7 Share #3530 Posted January 7 (edited) On 1/3/2024 at 2:26 AM, Ex696 said: Then what happens to the B20? 7+ year old post that I haven't wavered from, not one bit. 7 hours ago, Ex696 said: But then there wouldn't be any westbound service on 23rd Avenue between 82nd and 94th Streets. I would alter the Q48 where it would serve the length of 23rd av. What I wouldn't have happen is the running of the Q48 inside the airport..... Was never fond of a Flushing - LGA route; the thing performs infinitely better as the Flushing - North Corona link anyway... Airport usage is too inconsistent on the thing..... The East Elmhurst portion of the route would actually be enhanced, compared to the current Q48.... I posted a google map link in the same part of the post you extracted the snippet you're replying to from... Albeit in an inactive layer (because I wanted to portray how I would handle a Q23 split of sorts, in comparison to what the MTA has planned for the Q23 & the impending Q14), I also drew up what I would do with the Q48.... 6 hours ago, Ex696 said: And it would also cut off their access to 74th Street/Roosevelt Avenue. Is this a worthy exchange for having the Q23 take over Ditmars/95th? Lol.... For whatever the reason, those riders up there take Q48's to 111th more than they do the Q33 to 74th... I don't see them exactly missing having the Q33 run up there (nor do I see them valuing the Q47 any more or less, when that change to the network ends up happening).... As far as that question goes, having the Q23 (and my version of their impending Q14, which I dubbed the "Q73" on the google map I referenced in the above part of the post) terminate at Ditmars/95th really has nothing to do with a worthy exchange (considering the impending Q33 running to LGA Terminal A & my suggesting of having the Q47 terminate with the Q69 at Astoria/82nd) or whatever... It has everything to do with how useless I see the current Q23 north of Astoria Blvd.... Ever since they took the Q33 out of the airport, the thing's been rather dead in East Elmhurst. Edited January 7 by B35 via Church split post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted January 7 Share #3531 Posted January 7 4 hours ago, B35 via Church said: As far as that question goes, having the Q23 (and my version of their impending Q14, which I dubbed the "Q73" on the google map I referenced in the above part of the post) terminate at Ditmars/95th really has nothing to do with a worthy exchange (considering the impending Q33 running to LGA Terminal A & my suggesting of having the Q47 terminate with the Q69 at Astoria/82nd) or whatever Interesting...but what made you decide to streamline the Q23 on 108th Street as opposed to the current routing? I never got the reasoning behind that in the actual redesigns either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted January 7 Share #3532 Posted January 7 It's to have a bus route serving all of 108 St between Forest Hills and East Elmhurst. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted January 7 Share #3533 Posted January 7 But are there large consequences from cutting the area around 103rd Street-Corona Plaza from direct access to Forest Hills? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznit1987 Posted January 7 Share #3534 Posted January 7 On 1/1/2024 at 8:27 AM, MysteriousBtrain said: 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). I'd love if the Q64 went straight down 71st then down Metropolitan to Atlas Park. Would make for a nice subway connector for Forest Hills/Glendale. The Q23 can be cut back to Continential to serve as a FH-Corona crosstown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznit1987 Posted January 7 Share #3535 Posted January 7 On 1/2/2024 at 5:24 PM, IAlam said: There is demand it's just that it shouldn't be the job of the Q44. Had it been a Flushing to Fordham route that would be one thing but Jamaica to Fordham, is just too much. Jamaica to Fordham would honestly benefit from a regional express bus, but we don't do that here in MTA land. This is why I suggested breaking up the Q44: Q44 SBS: Fordham to Flushing Q45 SBS: Flushing to Jamaica w/ possible extention to JFK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted January 7 Share #3536 Posted January 7 5 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said: This is why I suggested breaking up the Q44: Q44 SBS: Fordham to Flushing Q45 SBS: Flushing to Jamaica w/ possible extention to JFK. There is too much through ridership at Flushing for the Q44 to broken up. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 7 Share #3537 Posted January 7 (edited) 5 hours ago, Ex696 said: Interesting...but what made you decide to streamline the Q23 on 108th Street as opposed to the current routing? 3 hours ago, Q43LTD said: It's to have a bus route serving all of 108 St between Forest Hills and East Elmhurst. For me, it's wanting to detach the 102nd/103rd/104th portion of the route with the 108th st. portion of the route.... In terms of filling gaps, the one on 99th always bothered me far more than the one along 108th.... if there was a subway station at 108th/Roosevelt, I'd end the Q23 right there... But realizing how much of a dud the Q23 is in East Elmhurst IMO, I started thinking of ways the thing could be more useful in/for that neighborhood (hence, the shooting across Astoria from 108th to 94th, and up 94th to eventually end at 95th/Ditmars)... The only segment of the impending Q14 that I concur with, is the stint b/w Astoria Blvd & QB. 2 hours ago, Ex696 said: But are there large consequences from cutting the area around 103rd Street-Corona Plaza from direct access to Forest Hills? If you're trying to implicate that there's a large amt. of people from North Corona seeking Forest Hills, it's simply not the case.... The thing about the Q23's ridership is that it's well spread out along 108th, before ever turning off for Corona Plaza.... Healthy mix of short distance riding & intermediate distance riding... It isn't like contemplating detaching the area around Corona Plaza from Forest Hills being a make or break decision.... 2 hours ago, Ex696 said: There is too much through ridership at Flushing for the Q44 to broken up. Exactly. Edited January 7 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted January 7 Share #3538 Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Ex696 said: But are there large consequences from cutting the area around 103rd Street-Corona Plaza from direct access to Forest Hills? That area still has direct access to Forest Hills 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted January 7 Share #3539 Posted January 7 1 minute ago, B35 via Church said: For me, it's wanting to detach the 102nd/103rd/104th portion of the route with the 108th st. portion of the route.... In terms of filling gaps, the one on 99th always bothered me far more than the one along 108th.... if there was a subway station at 108th/Roosevelt, I'd end the Q23 right there... But realizing how much of a dud the Q23 is in East Elmhurst IMO, I started thinking of ways the thing could be more useful in/for that neighborhood (hence, the shooting across Astoria from 108th to 94th, and up 94th to eventually end at 95th/Ditmars)... The only thing I like about the impending Q14 is the portion b/w Astoria Blvd & QB. There's those 23 to LaGuardia discussions that will come up. Take the 48 out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 7 Share #3540 Posted January 7 15 minutes ago, Q43LTD said: There's those 23 to LaGuardia discussions that will come up. Take the 48 out Send the Q72 inside LGA.... Send the Q23 inside LGA.... Combine the Q32 & Q33 (back when that ran inside LGA, serving terminal B & C)... Don't miss those age-old discussions at all. The Q72 was never the most reliable route per se, but it ran way more smoother when it didn't run inside LGA.... Being perfectly honest, I miss when it stopped short there at Ditmars... That route is insufferable to fan, so I can only imagine how daily commuters feel about having to take/rely on that route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted January 7 Share #3541 Posted January 7 2 hours ago, shiznit1987 said: This is why I suggested breaking up the Q44: Q44 SBS: Fordham to Flushing Q45 SBS: Flushing to Jamaica w/ possible extention to JFK. I like the idea of separate routes, but there may be too much through riding for a complete split. My preference would be the following: Q94 Limited/Express: Fordham to Jamaica with stops only at Fordham Plaza, St. Barnabas, West Farms, Parkchester, Lafayette, Main St , Horace Harding, Jewel Av, Union Turnpike, Jamaica LIRR, Merrick/Archer. (If it were a subway or light rail line, where would the stations be?) Q44 or Bx44: West Farms to Flushing, local with a few stops removed. Q20: Enhanced service along full route, local with a few stops removed, short trips if needed south of Roosevelt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted January 7 Share #3542 Posted January 7 38 minutes ago, B35 via Church said: Send the Q72 inside LGA.... Send the Q23 inside LGA.... Combine the Q32 & Q33 (back when that ran inside LGA, serving terminal B & C)... Don't miss those age-old discussions at all. The Q72 was never the most reliable route per se, but it ran way more smoother when it didn't run inside LGA.... Being perfectly honest, I miss when it stopped short there at Ditmars... That route is insufferable to fan, so I can only imagine how daily commuters feel about having to take/rely on that route. I'm actually surprised the 23 to LGA was not considered in these redesigns 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex696 Posted January 8 Share #3543 Posted January 8 5 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said: Q94 Limited/Express: Fordham to Jamaica with stops only at Fordham Plaza, St. Barnabas, West Farms, Parkchester, Lafayette, Main St , Horace Harding, Jewel Av, Union Turnpike, Jamaica LIRR, Merrick/Archer. (If it were a subway or light rail line, where would the stations be?) Q44 or Bx44: West Farms to Flushing, local with a few stops removed. Q20: Enhanced service along full route, local with a few stops removed, short trips if needed south of Roosevelt. The problem with this is that it prevents Queens College students from having access to the Bronx. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubBus Posted January 8 Share #3544 Posted January 8 On 12/25/2023 at 1:29 PM, B35 via Church said: You don't have to rely on talking points if the merits of what's attempting to be accomplished are on point. Nailed it... West of Fresh Meadows is definitely more dense than east of it.... Hmmm..... There's a game where you can create a (bus) network on steam? What's the name of it, if I may ask? And what's the ultimate point of the game (is it akin to sim city or something)? Q7: When I replied to @Ex696 post below, I was thinking about something similar, but different.... With the Q8 being shifted to New Lots , they're going to end up needing more B13 service south of the ... Which then led to the thought of, what if the B13 was split to only run b/w Jamaica av & Gateway Mall, to have the Ridgewood portion of the B13 run along Jamaica av to Lane H.S., to eventually run down Rockaway Blvd & end at the Casino or whatever.... Q8: Same... I see it being more useful as an interborough route, compared to the current Q8.... Just got through mentioning about terminal space in one of the posts I replied to yesterday.... Forgot they also had the B103 proposed to running up there... If they'd just have the proposed B5/B6 & the Q8 ending there, I think they could pull it off.... Throwing the B103 into the mix, there's not a chance in hell - especially with them wanting to cut the route from Downtown... Something would have to give... If push came to shove, I'd support the Q8 ending there, moreso than the B103.... Q111: Yeah, they kept those trips running to Cedarhurst.... For what, is the question I have. Q113/114: Being perfectly honest, outside of the flooding issues along snake road, I didn't have a problem with Brewer service when it was just the Q111/113. Yup, Spring Creek is still growing.... With the Q8 no longer masking the need for more B13 service south of Euclid subway, they're going to end up needing more B13's running b/w the & Gateway Mall.... Q8: 101st av riders in-particular? No..... But what I do think though, is that the Q8 would be a stronger interborough route in the network if you had people in close enough proximity to the taking the subway to the Q8 to get to Jamaica (or Woodhaven blvd., or Lefferts blvd), than how lowly used the current Q8 is, connecting Queens to Gateway Mall.... Most people taking Q8's to/from Gateway Mall are Brooklynites... Most folks that take the Q8 from along/around 101st av. due west, tend to not ride past Euclid ... The proposed B5 will terminate at Gateway Center and the B103 is proposed to terminate at New Lots IRT.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 8 Share #3545 Posted January 8 9 hours ago, Q43LTD said: I'm actually surprised the 23 to LGA was not considered in these redesigns They were too preoccupied with combining parts of the Q23 with parts of the Q46... Some of those QT proposals featured some very very strange combinations.... Not that I ever wanted the Q23 running inside there, but it looks like we're gonna end up getting the Q50 running in there instead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 8 Share #3546 Posted January 8 On 1/4/2024 at 1:20 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: Q31: 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.... I'm not necessarily opposed to that either, although at that point I think it can be it's own standalone route (with a slight variation to operate via Zerega Ave & Westchester Square) enroute to/from the medical centers. Q36: 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.... My gripe here isn't with Little Neck Parkway at all, it's about the setup with the Q2/Q36/Q82/Q110 in that area. The Q36 could have been that route to cover the far east end of Jamaica Avenue in Queens to the at Jamaica Center for those who asked/needed it, while also connecting to the at Parsons Boulevard. The overlap between the Q36 and the Q110 would have then been a local/limited setup (the Q110 local, Q36 limited hence why I mentioned that it could have remained being a rush route). Q38: 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 For me with the Q14 more favorably for two reasons: It goes to Corona Plaza which I frequent [no more walking to the Q58 to get home and walking even more after getting off, or doing the stupid ass backtrack to Willets Point when the Manhattan-bound skips 103rd (which lately has been almost every f**king weekend) to just miss the Q47 and wait 30 minutes ]. Its frequencies and service span (off peak in particular) not only rivals the existing Q38, but the current Q47. Overall I agree they didn't give it too much thought with the Q38 split, the proposed Q14 managed come out better than the proposed Q38 section. As far as the Q38 portion goes, what would it do to get to Metropolitan/Lorimer, just straight across Metropolitan or what? I have no idea personally what to do with that segment, so anything that will juice ridership up I'm on with. I'm with you on the sentiment regarding it's Rego Park/Forest Hills terminal (feels a bit north to be called Forest Hills, but on the Q38 timetable they has flipped notations between the two in the past). I still think that if the Q38 isn't going anywhere east of Flushing Meadows Park, that it should end at Queens Blvd/63rd Drive. Has no business running north/east of it. Q67: 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... What would you have done with the Q67 on it's eastern end? That former QT77 in the first draft would have been interesting to see in reality. While it would have provided some benefit, it screwed by too many people by having nothing serving the from residential portions of Middle Village unless you were close to the Q54 (which cut off a vast majority of the neighborhood). Q82: 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... The Q82 would be faster than the Q2 without a doubt, although given that the Q2 will be up to twice as frequent as the Q82 I don't know whether there will be any consistent gains. Your last statement is a part of the issue I have with this route: aside from the Q2 being more frequent, the Q43 (and Q1) along Hillside would operate much more frequently, and the n1/n6 stops by UBS Arena which already likely attracts some of those people plus those in Queens very close to the city line. They're even adding n6 trips between Jamaica and UBS Arena. Put them altogether, and I see a route that outside of the 212s, would largely get its ridership on the basis that it was the first one to show up. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. For all we know they'll water it down or throw some new curveball when the final plan actually comes out. ======================================= Replies in dark blue. Q31: Yeah, it can be given another number or whatever, but the one thing I wouldn't have a route of sorts do, is serve Westchester Square... Waste of time, for the intended purpose of the route AFAIC. Q36: When you started the comment by saying "Quite honestly, if that's the proposed routing why bother serving Hillside Avenue.", I'm taking that to mean you're referencing the whole route - as if to say, why is it going Hillside-Springfield-Jamaica-LNP, instead of staying on Jamaica av all the way to LNP; like you were trying to preserve it serving the length of LNP (hence my previous reply)..... In any case, given that you're talking about a local/LTD setup along Jamaica av, the only question I really have here is, where would you have the Q36 ending on the eastern end of the route? 257th/Jericho Tpke, LIRR LNP, LIRR Floral Park, or something else? Q38: An extension to the from Middle Village in general, would supplement a significant amount of folks that currently use the Q54 to/from Brooklyn (which, given how unreliable the thing is, could use some consistent help).... Ending it at Lorimer subway specifically would not also connect it to the , but would (IMO) be more of a viable area to terminate a bus route, over, say, having it terminate at Graham like the old B18 or like an older rendition of the B13 used to.... Instead, buses could layover on either side of the triangle (Meeker/Metropolitan)... So to answer your question, buses (from Fresh Pond/Metropolitan) would continue on Metropolitan - to Grand - to Union - back to Metropolitan, to terminate.... I wouldn't subject buses to the more eastern portion of the Brooklyn portion of Metropolitan.... Too much truck traffic over there around Morgan, specifically.... Q67: Could've sworn I had a map for it, but I had one rendition/idea of it running to the Forest View Crescent apts. (this was before they barred buses terminating on the same side of the apartments along Union Tpke), and another rendition/idea of it running to that area where Cooper runs into Myrtle... I'll redraw the latter when I get home later.... But as for that QT77, that shit screamed potential & utter failure on multiple levels.... Q82: I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, but I just want to touch on the n6 point right quick (are they really running n6 short turns to UBS? wow, what a waste of resources).... The n6 won't factor into anything in this regard.... It obviously doesn't run inside that terminal (where the Q2/Q110 currently ends) to pick up those folks.... It'll also be no different than the phenomenon with the Q43/n22 by the county line... Virtually nobody in Queens walks back to catch a Jamaica bound n22 at Cherry lane... Everybody & their mammas all pile up at that first stop of the WB Q43 - even though there's only a short block difference or so between that last WB stop in Nassau on the n22 & the first Q43 pickup stop.... The difference in distance between Hempstead/225th (which is technically the 2nd WB pickup stop of the current Q2/Q110) & the last n6 WB stop in Nassau is greater/longer.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBTA Posted January 8 Share #3547 Posted January 8 I got a couple of questions that people can answer if they like: Would an extension/combination of the Q47/49 be feasible? How about the Q33 via 69th Street to Middle Village? Can the Q72 replaces the southern portion of the Q29 (below Woodhaven)? Would combining the Q104 and the northern section of the B53 be too much? Just some extensions I put in the simulator, to “save resources” like the MTA does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 9 Share #3548 Posted January 9 https://qns.com/2024/01/mta-queens-bus-network-redesign-plan-under-fire/?fbclid=IwAR00dFzR-dnYN7V0c3xIYl5IEKc9LNztPc1qIQQ-SaQVvgVXSNGWsDY9SNc Queens Advocates speak out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted January 9 Share #3549 Posted January 9 On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q4: They had buses terminating at the NE corner of Linden & Elmont Rd.... That layover space along Linden you're referencing is across the street from where they had it terminating... I'm of the belief that they second guessed having buses terminate on that side of Linden - which unfortunately put the kibosh on the whole extension. Ugh...they're so "creative" when it comes to some of these other routes, and all of a sudden the creative juices stop when it comes time to figure out a layover space...SMH... On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q7: As long as they kept it covering the rest of Rockaway Blvd east of Cross Bay, I'm straight..... The flaw I saw with the Cedarhurst extension was the terminal itself... They had it terminating on Burnside b/w Rockaway Tpke & Lawrence Pkwy.... That would've been unmanageable.... The current Far Rockaway bound Q114 stop at Buena Vista/Rockaway Tpke. (which is one block north) should've been the last dropoff stop instead, with it going on layover along Lawrence Pkwy (if anything), to then having the first NB/WB pickup stop on Lawrence Pkwy/Buena Vista (before the turn)... I agree, layover would've been better off on Lawrence Parkway if serving that shopping center was their goal. On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q11: What I don't quite get about this take is that you bring up the footbridge as an argument to not solely have buses terminating in Old Howard Beach (operating via Hamilton Beach), yet you want to preserve the current branching of the route.... Ridership on both branches being low would be an argument for having every trip serve both Old Howard Beach & Hamilton Beach.... The footbridge argument would actually be an argument for eliminating service to Hamilton Beach.... Be there as it may, I have no issue with trips terminating on the Old Howard Beach side only, nor running via Hamilton Beach (doing away with having anything terminate on that end).... With the having of it running via Hamilton Beach though, I'd say the stops they should've gotten rid of (unlike a lot of the stops being slated for discontinuation borough-wide), are those NB stops along 104th, along the railing.... The only real concern I have with the southern portion of the impending route is the serving of Lindenwood after serving Old Howard Beach & Hamilton Beach.... My issue with the setup is that they're basically giving both of those neighborhoods the same levels of service that "mainline" Woodhaven Blvd/Cross Bay Blvd gets. I think that's overkill. For example, weekend service is every 15 minutes, whereas right now it's hourly on each of the two branches. I think doubling the frequencies would be fair...quadrupling...not so much... On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q14: I simply think they got hesitant; not wanting to risk running another route along that part of Fresh Pond (if they think those Q98's are gonna be breezing along that part of Fresh Pond (south of Metropolitan), they got another thing coming).... I mean to a certain extent, I can understand attempting to avoid congested areas, but not when you avoid major hubs and transfer points because of it...especially the sole subway connection on that end of the route... On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q15: Yeah, the current Q15/a setup is as good as you're gonna get... Glad to see that couplet doing as well as it has been, despite (some) Whitestone patrons' bitching regarding the routing up there over the years... Breaking that up to have [this impending Q15 terminate at Clintonville/7th like the former Q14 did] & [a ridiculously forced ass rush route like this impending Q62] comes off as tone deaf to me.... Agreed. On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q22: Rockaway/Burnside as a terminal for that QT22 would've worked out - To be a stub.... The ideal move is to send it up to 5 Towns (which is what they had the Q22 in the previous draft doing)... The problem with that though, is there's no place to end a bus route over there... Forget about having buses on layover on Rockaway Tpke, and with 5 Towns apparently gaining back popularity, there's literally no space inside the parking lot to accommodate public buses (like, with suburban area malls & what not....) Good point...might be there be a chance they could get some layover space by the Amazon warehouse? On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q23: It's not that it's a problem conceptually, it's that it's going to loom problematic logistically... Folks think the Q29 situation at 82nd is hectic, ending a bus at Corona Plaza will be worse.... With that said, I agree with having the Q23 be the 108th st route.... However, I would run it to Ditmars/94th (well, 95th) at the current Q33 terminal (they have the impending Q47 replacing the Q33 over there, but I would truncate the Q47 to where it would terminate with the Q69 at Astoria Blvd/82nd)... Regarding the current Q23 north of Astoria Blvd, I'd continue to have (a modified version of) the current Q48 serve that part of East Elmhurst.... The current Q48 tends to do better than the current Q23 up there.... In any event, if I were to formulate a new route from the 102nd/103rd/104th st portion of the current Q23, I'd agree with having it serve National & 99th to/from Lefrak like this impending Q14 would - but I wouldn't bother running such a route past QB - especially along Eliot of all things.... The way I would handle this whole Q14/Q23 bit, is more or less this.... I think the Q14 proposed in the New Draft Plan would've gone a long way towards providing a reasonable alternative to the Q58 (in addition to the Q98 of course). For discussion sake, what would you have serving Eliot Avenue in your plan? On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q24: Interesting.... So what would have you concurring with that truncated Q24? I guess I got a bit ahead of myself when making that statement...I definitely can't stand the B53 (and especially the fact that they combined the Broadway route with the Williamsburg/Greenpoint route)...as for that segment of the Q24 west of Broadway Junction, I can't think of something better to replace it than leaving it as is, and I don't think that segment of Broadway should be left without bus service, so I'd just leave the Q24/B46 as-is. On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q30: The impending Q30 will still end at LIRR Jamaica (the issue with the Q30 is on the opposite end of the route, the having of all trips end at QCC).... It's that Q75 they got ending at Briarwood subway. Ah...got it...the Q30 is basically the existing Q30 QCC short-turns, while the Q75 is the Little Neck portion of the Q30 rerouted via Union Turnpike to end at Briarwood. On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q36: That QT34 would've made for a nice little peak direction route, but that thing would've carried a shit ton of air during middays... They actually had this thing running overnight hourly hawks also.... Anyway, So I take it that you'd have buses ending at Jamaica/257th? Or would you run them down to LIRR Floral Park with the impending Q110? To clarify, I would have Q36 buses via Hillside Avenue-Little Neck Parkway-LIE Service Road-Community Drive. Q43 buses would run via Hillside Avenue and Langdale Street to LIJ Q110 buses would run via Jamaica Avenue all the way to the 257th Street (as much as I agree with LIRR Floral Park from a connectivity point of view, I think NIMBYs are too much of an issue in that area). Q82 would also run to 257th Street and provide a connection to Hillside Avenue from that end of Jamaica Avenue (I don't see a need for the Q2, Q82, and the n1/n6 to all run towards Belmont Racetrack and provide service to Hillside Avenue). On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q39: The impending Q39 is being slightly altered on the northern/western end..... After hitting Jackson, buses would parallel/take on the current B62 terminal & layover scenario.... The current routing, if you need QBP, is a PITA.... Fully agree with the change. Yes, I agree...the Q67 already provides the quicker/more direct route to the anyway, so it's better to let the Q39 focus on serving QBP directly. On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q50: I agree with the general sentiment.... I've never stated this publicly up until now, but I sincerely believe that the Q50 should end right there at the Peartree shopping Plaza - and (lol) use the very depot it runs out of, as a layover & to turnaround .... Compared to the other Co-op routes, it's very *meh* in section 5.... Almost every single time I've taken it from section 5, passenger activity significantly increases once it hits that shopping plaza - even moreso than at Bartow/Co-op City blvd..... Hmm...definitely an interesting concept...I wonder how many Section 5 residents take the Bx23 down to PBP for the Q50 rather than getting a grand tour of their own neighborhood... On 1/6/2024 at 9:57 PM, B35 via Church said: Q52: If you're talking about running buses along Beach Channel Drive north of Seagirt, that's Wavecrest.... Bayswater is the area the old Q22a used to serve, north of that aforementioned part of Beach Channel Drive. No, as odd as it might seem, I'm thinking of the old Q22A route...I'd have it go up Norton-Bayswater-Mott...I know that the area isn't super high-density, but I definitely didn't like the way the MTA made it seem as if it's Todt Hill or the far northern section of Douglaston or some other area with mansions that doesn't warrant bus service...I mean there's apartment buildings along those blocks of Mott west of the station...I don't think a standalone shuttle would really serve that area properly, and an extension of the Q22 down to the old Q22A terminal would be somewhat more of a backtrack...I think Far Rockaway could use a connection up to Cross Bay anyway (meaning, a counterpart to the Q53 out in Rockaway Park), and I think this accomplishes it without duplicating the Q22 too much. 19 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Q38: An extension to the from Middle Village in general, would supplement a significant amount of folks that currently use the Q54 to/from Brooklyn (which, given how unreliable the thing is, could use some consistent help).... Ending it at Lorimer subway specifically would not also connect it to the , but would (IMO) be more of a viable area to terminate a bus route, over, say, having it terminate at Graham like the old B18 or like an older rendition of the B13 used to.... Instead, buses could layover on either side of the triangle (Meeker/Metropolitan)... So to answer your question, buses (from Fresh Pond/Metropolitan) would continue on Metropolitan - to Grand - to Union - back to Metropolitan, to terminate.... I wouldn't subject buses to the more eastern portion of the Brooklyn portion of Metropolitan.... Too much truck traffic over there around Morgan, specifically.... To clarify, you're referring to the proposed Q38 only (meaning the Furmanville Road, 63rd Drive, etc segment), correct? Or would this also include the Eliot Avenue segment (current Q38, proposed Q14)? 19 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Q38: An extension to the from Middle Village in general, would supplement a significant amount of folks that currently use the Q54 to/from Brooklyn (which, given how unreliable the thing is, could use some consistent help).... Ending it at Lorimer subway specifically would not also connect it to the , but would (IMO) be more of a viable area to terminate a bus route, over, say, having it terminate at Graham like the old B18 or like an older rendition of the B13 used to.... Instead, buses could layover on either side of the triangle (Meeker/Metropolitan)... So to answer your question, buses (from Fresh Pond/Metropolitan) would continue on Metropolitan - to Grand - to Union - back to Metropolitan, to terminate.... I wouldn't subject buses to the more eastern portion of the Brooklyn portion of Metropolitan.... Too much truck traffic over there around Morgan, specifically.... On 4/15/2022 at 1:02 AM, checkmatechamp13 said: @BM5 via Woodhaven I think part of it is just that they aren't super familiar with those areas and figure that if the current QM12 stops at 98th Street (when the pedestrian bridge is at 99th Street) and the current QM8X doesn't stop west of 188th Street, then they might as well have the new routes do the same. In any case, they probably figure that the QM8 will take virtually all of the Fresh Meadows riders from the QM7, thus leaving space for the riders along Queens Blvd. Plus with the impacts of work from home on ridership, I don't find that assumption to be too outlandish. If they need a couple of extra trips at the height of rush hour to handle the combined ridership, it's still more efficient than running it as two separate routes. (Plus it's simpler for the passengers to understand, rather than having remember that they take the QM7 if they leave work at 2pm but the QM11 if they leave at 4pm). The other thing of course is that some of the people getting on the QM11 along Queens Blvd may actually live closer to Yellowstone Blvd (either side of QB) or 108th Street, but they walk down to Queens Blvd because that's where the bus happens to stop. For the HHE corridor, I think they're better off having the QM5/8/35 make a few extra stops as far west as Main Street (or College Point Blvd, but I think Main Street would be better). Leave the QM11/12/42 covering the areas west of Flushing Meadows Park, and the QM5/8/35 covering areas east of there. Off-peak, you can have the QM5C covering the whole corridor. To add onto my comments from this thread, after some thought and discussion, I'd like to modify my earlier comments (from almost 2 years ago...how time flies...or more likely...how long this whole thing has dragged on for...) Anyway, for the QM11 reroute to Kew Gardens, I agree with you, since it's the only Downtown express route in that area (so people coming off the Queens Village expresses have the option to transfer to this or the QM65). Like you said, with the Atlantic Ticket being so popular (before they foolishly killed it), it probably would've been faster for most passengers to take the LIRR from that section of Queens to Atlantic Terminal for the subway, but I guess now that Atlantic Ticket isn't an option, I guess that makes the QM65 a bit stronger of a route. At the height of rush hour, the QM7 should continue running straight to Union Turnpike & Main Street. For LeFrak, one idea I'd try my hand at is seeing if the LeFrak section of the QM10/11/40 could be extended out to College Point. Probably the simplest way would be to have it start at the Q25 terminal, and follow the Q25 route down to the Whitestone Expressway, Then go down through the Whitestone/GCP and get off at HHE/108th Street, serve LeFrak City, and continue down the route...outbound would be a bit more difficult, since buses would have to go through the Junction Blvd/HHE intersection, but it would still technically directly serve part of the complex (and if riders really need to get to 57th Avenue specifically and can't walk it out, there's the Q14 available to transfer to). I definitely agree with separating the 63rd Drive services from the LeFrak services. On the Manhattan side, I generally think buses should be using the Queens-Midtown Tunnel wherever possible...ideally most Queens buses would be using the BM5 route, but having all those buses on layover by 57th & 1st or 57th & 3rd/Lexington, and then having all those buses turning from 57th onto 5th would probably prove problematic. I'd try to at least give some more options via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, though. I think having the 3rd Avenue routes run down Lexington would be manageable, since there aren't as many 3rd Avenue variants as there are 6th Avenue variants. I'd also have some more trips running across 34th Street towards Hudson Yards (I think the MTA had the right idea with that...basically take the super-express trips and run them across to Hudson Yards to provide more coverage...but they picked random routes). For Hudson Yards service, I'd have a few QM2, QM5, and QM20 trips operate to Hudson Yards (say, every 20 minutes or so from 6am - 8am and 4:30pm - 6:30pm peak direction). Those routes already have the super-express trips in the evening, and don't run near the LIRR, so their riders don't have easy access to the Penn Station area. Then adjustments could be made from there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDL Posted January 9 Share #3550 Posted January 9 9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: No, as odd as it might seem, I'm thinking of the old Q22A route...I'd have it go up Norton-Bayswater-Mott...I know that the area isn't super high-density, but I definitely didn't like the way the MTA made it seem as if it's Todt Hill or the far northern section of Douglaston or some other area with mansions that doesn't warrant bus service...I mean there's apartment buildings along those blocks of Mott west of the station...I don't think a standalone shuttle would really serve that area properly, and an extension of the Q22 down to the old Q22A terminal would be somewhat more of a backtrack...I think Far Rockaway could use a connection up to Cross Bay anyway (meaning, a counterpart to the Q53 out in Rockaway Park), and I think this accomplishes it without duplicating the Q22 too much. Try putting an artic on the narrow streets of Bayswater. At most you could only get 40-footers in there. So only the Q22 would work. Unless a new Q116 is created going from Mott Ave-Sheepshead Bay via. Bayswater with the following limited stops: Far Rockaway LIRR Far Rockaway Mott Ave/McBride Street Mott Ave/Eggert Place Mott Ave/Bay 24th Street Bayswater Ave/Bay 25th Street Bayswater Ave/Bay Park Place Bayswater Ave/Norton Drive Norton Drive/Cold Spring Road Norton Drive/Healy Avenue Bay 32nd Street/Bessemund Avenue Bay 32nd Street/Falcon Ave Bay 32nd Street/Beach Channel Drive Beach 36th St Beach 44th St Beach 60th St Beach 67th St Beach 79th St/Rockaway Beach Blvd Beach 84th St/Rockaway Beach Blvd Beach 90th St Beach 98th St Rockaway Ferry Beach 116th St Newport Ave/Beach 129th St Riis Park Beach 169th St Floyd Bennet Field (Aviator) Shore Pkwy/Knapp Street Shore Pkwy/Nostrand Ave Shore Pkwy/Bedford Ave Shore Pkwy/Ocean Ave Sheepshead Bay 0 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.