Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alon Levy. He blogs about Transit in a website called “pedestrianobservations.com” or something like that.

Who gives a rat's @ss about what he has to say when he doesn't even live here. 

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If you have an issue with higher costs of operation then I suppose you aren't a fan of the new ferries or Metro-North or the LIRR. They all have high operating costs too... 

Prior to the City HIGHLY subsidizing the cost of the ferries, they were only really used by people with deep pockets, so when I hear that line used I laugh because the ignorance is mind boggling.

Well, that's just it. Ideally, we'd find ways to bring down all costs without cutting service. For that matter, it would be great to have a more integrated system (OMNY's a step, but it's far from the only necessary thing). And yes, if we need to reduce the ferry subsidy (if I'm being honest, a $6.75 fare is too much if the plan is to transport more than the wealthy) to put more money into other transit modes, then so be it.

The reason I take issue with the express buses in particular is because those routes physically have the fewest restrictions and use the same medium as the local buses and subway, yet they're still well out of reach for much of the population simply because the inherent costs of operation negatively impact the price. (A neighborhood such as Brownsville could probably benefit from express bus service to the point of helping to lift the neighborhood out of poverty if planned correctly, but because of how damn expensive it is, it simply wouldn't make sense to run one through there.)

[7-express]

Did they just nuke the Remix site?  I tried to load it and it's just asking me to logon now instead of being able to view the routes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

13 minutes ago, Lex said:

Well, that's just it. Ideally, we'd find ways to bring down all costs without cutting service. For that matter, it would be great to have a more integrated system (OMNY's a step, but it's far from the only necessary thing). And yes, if we need to reduce the ferry subsidy (if I'm being honest, a $6.75 fare is too much if the plan is to transport more than the wealthy) to put more money into other transit modes, then so be it.

The reason I take issue with the express buses in particular is because those routes physically have the fewest restrictions and use the same medium as the local buses and subway, yet they're still well out of reach for much of the population simply because the inherent costs of operation negatively impact the price. (A neighborhood such as Brownsville could probably benefit from express bus service to the point of helping to lift the neighborhood out of poverty if planned correctly, but because of how damn expensive it is, it simply wouldn't make sense to run one through there.)

Quite frankly I don't understand what you mean by fewest restrictions and use the same medium?  Express buses were created solely for areas that were either devoid of subways, or that were in two fare zones, so technically speaking if you lived in a neighborhood without a subway prior to the Metrocard, you ALWAYS paid more than someone that had a subway, which meant that neighborhoods without subways were seen as LESS desirable to live in. In fact you paid TWICE each way, so the idea of express buses being for the rich is absurd because people in such neighborhoods always had a higher transportation cost without receiving a faster commute. That was always the point of the express bus... Charge a bit more for a faster commute to make up for having to take a bus to then take a subway or paying more due to living in a two fare zone.  They are commuter buses, just like the express buses in New Jersey, and just like the commuter trains for Metro-North and the LIRR.  You are talking about areas that are further out from the main business hubs.  Completely different dynamic... And yes, they are going to cost more. That's just the way it is. 

I don't see why Brownsville would need an express bus when it has one or two subways? From a transportation perspective it has options... Subways and buses....

Edited January 2, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[paulrivera]

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I like the plan so far, it addresses issues I've had with the network, especially connectivity. Currently, many routes are segregated, "I'll take you to Jamaica or Flushing and that's it, you'll have to transfer there to get anywhere else!" Hours of service can be addressed.

I'm hyped about the Q50 and Q44 personally, but yea I'm hoping hours of service gets addressed. Losing not just the hawk runs on the Q44 but also evening runs on Saturday and Sunday is a very steep cut.

Doing more reading, why is the QT4 getting overnight service when none of its three predecessors (B57, Q18, Q47) have overnight service today?

[B35 via Church]

2 minutes ago, 7-express said:

Did they just nuke the Remix site?  I tried to load it and it's just asking me to logon now instead of being able to view the routes.

Yeah, same here....

Something I noticed with those maps on remix, is that for some routes, the stops shown along them did not correspond with the stop lists of that of the MTA-released PDF.... An example I can pull off top is the BM5 (BMT155 IIRC).... The illustration on remix had a stop on Pitkin/Cross Bay & Atlantic/Woodhaven - but on the PDF, they have the BMT155 making no stops along Woodhaven or Cross Bay.... At that point, it's like who/what am I supposed to believe....

That, and the map was rather slow-loading for me anyway....

[7-express]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, same here....

Something I noticed with those maps on remix, is that for some routes, the stops shown along them did not correspond with the stop lists of that of the MTA-released PDF.... An example I can pull off top is the BM5 (BMT155 IIRC).... The illustration on remix had a stop on Pitkin/Cross Bay & Atlantic/Woodhaven - but on the PDF, they have the BMT155 making no stops along Woodhaven or Cross Bay.... At that point, it's like who/what am I supposed to believe....

That, and the map was rather slow-loading for me anyway....

Okay glad it wasn't just me.  I did notice some oddities like the QT48 stopping at one of the supposed non-stop portions.  Maybe they realized there were errors and yanked it down to fix them.

[N6 Limited]

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

During the workshops, it was just asking people about their commutes.  The  didn't first released the routing, which wasn't terrible in some cases. The real kicker was the cuts to the spans in service.  That was when people started to wake up.  As far as Queens goes, I see a lot of problems with this re-design.  I don't know how you can call this an improvement when some lines will stop running at 9:30 at night compared to midnight or longer. That is hours of service cut!

I agree with that. The Q2 is 24/7, they are planning to cut it (QT38) back to 10PM. I've seen SRO buses from 179th St after 10, so riders won't be happy about that. On the other hand, buses to Jamaica are somewhat light at that time.

Of the late trips from Jamaica I've been on, It lightens up by the time it gets to Francis Lewis Blvd and shortly after, with a few hanging on to Hempstead & Springfield. 

I've also noticed, that in general, it seems that the Q110 is preferred along Hempstead Ave, they'll let a Q2 go by and wave down a Q110. Also, the Hempstead and Springfield Stop has a lot waiting for the Q110 , so we'll see how  the removal of that route will go. ( Some may be transfers from the Q27, haven't paid attention to know)

6 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Adding parking is politically incorrect these days. The city wants you to believe if they add parking, people will rush out and buy cars and congestion will increase. Some are too dumb to realize this is BS. That if they add parking congestion will be reduced because fewer car will be circling looking for parking spaces. 

Right, they lower the speed limit, remove parking spots, make traffic signals out of sync then wonder why there's congestion.

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@N6 Limited What do you mean "outsourced"? My understanding is that this was done in-house with MTA planners (I know The Bronx and Staten Island express were in-house)

I thought I read somewhere that the Bronx and Staten Island was in-house but Queens and Brooklyn won't be?

[Brillant93]

So it looks like the QT6 is going to be like a limited/sbs version of the Q58. 

[NewFlyer 230]

9 hours ago, 7LineFan said:

If they have their way Main Street will have no bus service at all during weekend nights.

I've been on Q44s much later than 9:30 that are SRO. It's ridiculous.

I’ve been on Q44’s later than that and the bus was SRO especially if it is heading to The Bronx. The only problem with the Q44 is the bunching with is inevitable on a route that is over 13 miles long. It is not uncommon to see 3 buses bunched at midnight especially heading to Jamaica. With the way this plan is looking, I prefer our existing system over this. There are a couple of ideas that I like such as the removal of the Q58 from 108th street, the Q88 continuing along Horace Harding Expressway, a 73rd Ave route. I like that the Rikers Island route is a part of the current Q102, but the Q102 isn’t this weird C shaped route anymore. I do like how the Q55 would go into Jamaica because currently ending it at 117th and Jamaica Ave seems so abrupt and in the middle of nowhere almost. I like how they reduced the amount of routes traveling on Woodhaven Blvd but of course as I’ve stated before the Q52 needs to go not the Q53.

One of my biggest gripe with this Queens bus plan besides the random combination of some of these routes, the stupidity of some of this proposed routes and the eliminate of stops is that they are renaming all these bus routes. Like for example I don’t see why they wouldn’t want to keep the route that runs along Kissena Blvd and Parsons Blvd called the Q25. The Q25 has run along Kissena Blvd ever since bus routes were created. So instead of naming it the new Q16 call it the Q25. People are familiar with the current naming scheme anyway so if possible they should try to keep the numbers the same if possible. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by NewFlyer 230

[7-express]

38 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve been on Q44’s later than that and the bus was SRO especially if it is heading to The Bronx. The only problem with the Q44 is the bunching with is inevitable on a route that is over 13 miles long. It is not uncommon to see 3 buses bunched at midnight especially heading to Jamaica. With the way this plan is looking, I prefer our existing system over this. There are a couple of ideas that I like such as the removal of the Q58 from 108th street, the Q88 continuing along Horace Harding Expressway, a 73rd Ave route. I like that the Rikers Island route is a part of the current Q102, but the Q102 isn’t this weird C shaped route anymore. I do like how the Q55 would go into Jamaica because currently ending it at 117th and Jamaica Ave seems so abrupt and in the middle of nowhere almost. I like how they reduced the amount of routes traveling on Woodhaven Blvd but of course as I’ve stated before the Q52 needs to go not the Q53.

One of my biggest gripe with this Queens bus plan besides the random combination of some of these routes, the stupidity of some of this proposed routes and the eliminate of stops is that they are renaming all these bus routes. Like for example I don’t see why they wouldn’t want to keep the route that runs along Kissena Blvd and Parsons Blvd called the Q25. The Q25 has run along Kissena Blvd ever since bus routes were created. So instead of naming it the new Q16 call it the Q25. People are familiar with the current naming scheme anyway so if possible they should try to keep the numbers the same if possible. 

As stated before, the numbering scheme is only temporary until they finalize what they're going to do.  They're just using different numbers here so it's easier to tell what people are commenting about when it comes to old vs new.

[Lawrence St]

3 minutes ago, 7-express said:

As stated before, the numbering scheme is only temporary until they finalize what they're going to do.  They're just using different numbers here so it's easier to tell what people are commenting about when it comes to old vs new.

No, only the QT part is temporary, the numbers are official.

Unless I missed a memo?

[7-express]

21 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

No, only the QT part is temporary, the numbers are official.

Unless I missed a memo?

Actually neither of us are correct.  The numbers are proposed but subject to change depending on how they feel.  Here's the exact quote:

 

To help facilitate this conversation, we created a temporary numbering system that
we hope will make it easier to discuss the proposals in this plan. Throughout this
document, we will use the prefix “QT” before the route numbers to designate routes
that are part of our proposals in this Draft Plan.
For example, in this document we propose a new route called the QT46. The “QT”
prefix indicates that it is a proposed route, though it is reminiscent of the former Q40
route. The QT46 may change again prior to the proposed Final Plan based on feedback
from customers. When we release the proposed Final Plan, we will replace the
temporary “QT” route designation system with the simplified “Q” system in use today.
Using the same example as above, the QT46 route in the Draft Plan would become the
new Q46 route in the proposed Final Plan. This future Q46 is unrelated to the existing
Q46 currently operating in an entirely different part of Queens.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

3 hours ago, paulrivera said:

I'm hyped about the Q50 and Q44 personally, but yea I'm hoping hours of service gets addressed. Losing not just the hawk runs on the Q44 but also evening runs on Saturday and Sunday is a very steep cut.

Doing more reading, why is the QT4 getting overnight service when none of its three predecessors (B57, Q18, Q47) have overnight service today?

That's not say it's not warranted. It's currently hard to get through parts of northern Brooklyn during overnight hours. The B57 used to operate during overnight hours, and now that service will be reinstated in a different form. Also, I'm not opposed to overnight service along 69th Street. The Q18 operates late enough that overnight service wouldn't require adding a bunch of service. 

The only part of Queens that basically benefits is Western Queens (LIC-Astoria-Sunnyside). Virtually everyone else loses in some way. The only main issue regarding NW Queens service is the truncating of the Q66. There's been complaints on twitter about the proposed Q66 ending at Broadway (Which I agree with, as the Q66 buses start filling up once they turn off 21st Street towards Flushing). 

The Q44 is a big issue. In order to retain "cost neutral" service with the expansion to Fordham, not only would they take buses off Parsons, but they would cut weekend service past 9:30 PM. Insane. A lot of riders from Jamaica are going to be pissed, on top of Main Street riders. Those NE Queens politicians better be ready to face the MTA, because I don't expect their constituents to be silent about this at all. It's bad enough the express bus cuts also severely impacts this area. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[B35 via Church]

I'm unbothered with any changing of any route number.... For me, it's about the routings of these routes themselves & how frequently they're going to be running....

[7LineFan]

47 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve been on Q44’s later than that and the bus was SRO especially if it is heading to The Bronx. The only problem with the Q44 is the bunching with is inevitable on a route that is over 13 miles long. It is not uncommon to see 3 buses bunched at midnight especially heading to Jamaica. With the way this plan is looking, I prefer our existing system over this. There are a couple of ideas that I like such as the removal of the Q58 from 108th street, the Q88 continuing along Horace Harding Expressway, a 73rd Ave route. I like that the Rikers Island route is a part of the current Q102, but the Q102 isn’t this weird C shaped route anymore. I do like how the Q55 would go into Jamaica because currently ending it at 117th and Jamaica Ave seems so abrupt and in the middle of nowhere almost. I like how they reduced the amount of routes traveling on Woodhaven Blvd but of course as I’ve stated before the Q52 needs to go not the Q53.

One of my biggest gripe with this Queens bus plan besides the random combination of some of these routes, the stupidity of some of this proposed routes and the eliminate of stops is that they are renaming all these bus routes. Like for example I don’t see why they wouldn’t want to keep the route that runs along Kissena Blvd and Parsons Blvd called the Q25. The Q25 has run along Kissena Blvd ever since bus routes were created. So instead of naming it the new Q16 call it the Q25. People are familiar with the current naming scheme anyway so if possible they should try to keep the numbers the same if possible. 

Honestly what they did with the Q58 is the best thing about this redesign and long overdue. If you want to get to Flushing from the Queens Boulevard subway, for example, now you don't have to deal with the long and winding Corona section and can just go straight there, and there's a real chance it'll decrease bus bunching which is still a big problem especially on the Flushing end. Too many times I've pulled up the MTA app and seen four buses in a row all 15 minutes away from me. I would, however, make it a red route instead of a blue--with the QT6 being a blue route and the QT12 being a red, my little section of Flushing has had all of its east-west local service stripped from it.

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the renaming. Boils down to either keep as many route numbers the same as possible to increase familiarity or blow the whole thing up and renumber everything and force people to learn the new routings. I can see both arguments, but I'm probably more in favor of renumbering the entire network because it would force people to actually read the map and actually learn about the new network. Mostly the same is not exactly the same. Either way, however, there's going to be people not paying attention to where they're going or what bus they're on no matter how well publicized this is...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve been on Q44’s later than that and the bus was SRO especially if it is heading to The Bronx. The only problem with the Q44 is the bunching with is inevitable on a route that is over 13 miles long. It is not uncommon to see 3 buses bunched at midnight especially heading to Jamaica. With the way this plan is looking, I prefer our existing system over this. There are a couple of ideas that I like such as the removal of the Q58 from 108th street, the Q88 continuing along Horace Harding Expressway, a 73rd Ave route. I like that the Rikers Island route is a part of the current Q102, but the Q102 isn’t this weird C shaped route anymore. I do like how the Q55 would go into Jamaica because currently ending it at 117th and Jamaica Ave seems so abrupt and in the middle of nowhere almost. I like how they reduced the amount of routes traveling on Woodhaven Blvd but of course as I’ve stated before the Q52 needs to go not the Q53.

One of my biggest gripe with this Queens bus plan besides the random combination of some of these routes, the stupidity of some of this proposed routes and the eliminate of stops is that they are renaming all these bus routes. Like for example I don’t see why they wouldn’t want to keep the route that runs along Kissena Blvd and Parsons Blvd called the Q25. The Q25 has run along Kissena Blvd ever since bus routes were created. So instead of naming it the new Q16 call it the Q25. People are familiar with the current naming scheme anyway so if possible they should try to keep the numbers the same if possible. 

I don’t see what’s great about having fewer buses go down Woodhaven Blvd. You’re buying into the idea that having one bus is good enough, and the  wants people to believe that the one bus running will be MUCH MORE reliable than before. Problem is that isn’t necessarily the case, so if that one bus is a mess, you have a BIG problem now. They are trying to sell frequency over coverage, which in an ideal situation can be better, but this is NYC we’re talking about.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

49 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

That's not say it's not warranted. It's currently hard to get through parts of northern Brooklyn during overnight hours. The B57 used to operate during overnight hours, and now that service will be reinstated in a different form. Also, I'm not opposed to overnight service along 69th Street. The Q18 operates late enough that overnight service wouldn't require adding a bunch of service. 

The only part of Queens that basically benefits is Western Queens (LIC-Astoria-Sunnyside). Virtually everyone else loses in some way. The only main issue regarding NW Queens service is the truncating of the Q66. There's been complaints on twitter about the proposed Q66 ending at Broadway (Which I agree with, as the Q66 buses start filling up once they turn off 21st Street towards Flushing).

The current Q66 from QBP to Flushing is a waste of mileage... The proposed QT66 is long overdue; from QBP, it's more or less supplemental Q69 service (I've been on too many Q66's over the years from QBP that have virtually emptied out before it turns off 21st) & that usage you're referring to that takes the Q66 towards Northern Blvd. over from Ravenswood typically don't ride past Broadway/Northern.... That isn't to say I concur with their QT78, as I don't believe (a portion of) the western portion of the Q66 should be combined with a 69th st. route to Middle Village.... Even if they wanted to run a 36th av route on in to Roosevelt Island, all they had do was pan the eastern portion of that route (the QT78) towards Moore Terminal, instead of creating that QT63.... Looking at the headways of that QT63, you know as well as I do that 10 mins. won't suffice for Broadway between Roosevelt & Queens Blvd....

As far as overnight service, they chose the B62 over the B57 to address that usage between Downtown Brooklyn & the Farragut houses... Having B57's & B62's running overnights between Downtown Brooklyn & Clinton Hill was overkill.... B57's between Broadway & Maspeth carried air..... Where I agree with you is that this QT4 I can see getting decent usage overnights (they still need to add more stops though), because it runs to 74th subway.... The B57 would've had to have ran to QB for it to increase its attractiveness for overnight riders...

Edited January 3, 2020 by B35 via Church

[7-express]

15 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don’t see what’s great about having fewer buses go down Woodhaven Blvd. You’re buying into the idea that having one bus is good enough, and the  wants people to believe that the one bus running will be MUCH MORE reliable than before. Problem is that isn’t necessarily the case, so if that one bus is a mess, you have a BIG problem now. They are trying to sell frequency over coverage, which in an ideal situation can be better, but this is NYC we’re talking about.

Agreed...they're trying to sell on one or two routes in a corridor to handle the load that used to be handled by more.  It'll only work if service is reliable, which it won't be.  And when shit hits the fan, you have no alternatives other than standing and fuming.

They combined the Q25/65 into College Point into a single line, which will just end up creating one massive snaking line in Flushing during the PM rush.  I can guarantee you none of the planners took a look at how much traffic both routes get into College Point during the PM.

They also claim reducing forks in service are going to make the system simpler.  When in fact it's just reducing service options further and forcing people to transfer.  Forks in service can be made easy to understand if routes have universal A/B suffixes.  It'll avoid the weird mishmash of schemes that currently exist such as the Q20A/B, Q25/34, Q15/15A, Q16 with two routings that can only be distinguished by looking closely at the sign.

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven That, and some of the inner parts of the eastern Queens lines (e.g. Union Turnpike west of 188th, Merrick Blvd west of Springfield Avenue, Guy R Brewer west of Farmers, though that one is debatable since those QT19 buses apparently won't stop at Jamaica Center)

@Lawrence St @7-express If you notice, there is a bit of a numbering scheme going on. The QT30s and QT40s are the eastern Queens feeders, with the numbering (generally) going up as you head south. The low-numbered routes are those blue long-distance and red grid routes (for lack of better terms) and the higher-numbered ones are the local routes. But I agree, anything is subject to change.

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church I think they might be thinking of something along the lines of the Bx15 split, where they figure most Woodhaven Blvd riders will go straight for the subway (actually it would be worse, since the Bx15 & M125 have somewhat similar frequencies, whereas riders looking to go up Broadway will likely see a bunch of Q52s arrive before their Q63 shows up)

[QM1to6Ave]

I sent in some choice comments about the express bus cuts through the Remix site. It doesn’t even ask for contact info, it just says “your comment has been submitted to the group owner” whoever the hell that is. Somehow I don’t think anyone will read these comments. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

The current Q66 from QBP to Flushing is a waste of mileage... The proposed QT66 is long overdue; from QBP, it's more or less supplemental Q69 service (I've been on too many Q66's over the years from QBP that have virtually emptied out before it turns off 21st) & that usage you're referring to that takes the Q66 towards Northern Blvd. over from Ravenswood typically don't ride past Broadway/Northern.... That isn't to say I concur with their QT78, as I don't believe (a portion of) the western portion of the Q66 should be combined with a 69th st. route to Middle Village.... Even if they wanted to run a 36th av route on in to Roosevelt Island, all they had do was pan the eastern portion of that route (the QT78) towards Moore Terminal, instead of creating that QT63.... Looking at the headways of that QT63, you know as well as I do that 10 mins. won't suffice for Broadway between Roosevelt & Queens Blvd....

As far as overnight service, they chose the B62 over the B57 to address that usage between Downtown Brooklyn & the Farragut houses... Having B57's & B62's running overnights between Downtown Brooklyn & Clinton Hill was overkill.... B57's between Broadway & Maspeth carried air..... Where I agree with you is that this QT4 I can see getting decent usage overnights (they still need to add more stops though), because it runs to 74th subway.... The B57 would've had to have ran to QB for it to increase its attractiveness for overnight riders...

The people from Ravenswood might be the ones getting at the subway, but there's also a good amount of people getting on between the   and Steinway Street (with virtually all staying on until Jackson Heights). The evening buses in particular can be almost SRO by the time they get to Broadway. I don't disagree with taking the Q66 out of QBP, but I still feel like the Q66 should remain operating until 31st Street or replace the western half of the QT78, (and then have short-turns at Broadway like there currently is). 

With respect the QT78 and QT63, there's no dispute on that. 

As far as B57 overnight service, it appears like it was there for people working the overnight shifts in industrial Maspeth, and not necessarily specifically for subway access to/from some of the areas it served. That's how I see it. However, yes, the QT4 needs several more stops. There should be a stop at Calamus Avenue. 69th Street  should be a stop if the 69th Street local doesn't run to 74th Street. However, I feel like the QT78 (or whatever the final 69th Street local route ends up being) should serve 74th Street regardless of where it actually ends (where Roosevelt Island like it's proposed, or somewhere else). The QT4 going to Jackson Heights makes it difficult for certain areas along 69th Street to reach Jackson Heights. We don't know what the Brooklyn stops are yet, so I can't really comment on that yet. 

[paulrivera]

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The Q44 is a big issue. In order to retain "cost neutral" service with the expansion to Fordham, not only would they take buses off Parsons, but they would cut weekend service past 9:30 PM. Insane. A lot of riders from Jamaica are going to be pissed, on top of Main Street riders.

I live in the Bronx and I'm not pleased about potentially losing a crosstown on weekend nights either.

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church I think they might be thinking of something along the lines of the Bx15 split, where they figure most Woodhaven Blvd riders will go straight for the subway (actually it would be worse, since the Bx15 & M125 have somewhat similar frequencies, whereas riders looking to go up Broadway will likely see a bunch of Q52s arrive before their Q63 shows up)

The Bronx redesign was fair, reasonable, and rational compared to all this mess.

Other than the express buses, seems like we got off easy.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

2 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I sent in some choice comments about the express bus cuts through the Remix site. It doesn’t even ask for contact info, it just says “your comment has been submitted to the group owner” whoever the hell that is. Somehow I don’t think anyone will read these comments. 

 

5 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

I live in the Bronx and I'm not pleased about potentially losing a crosstown on weekend nights either.

The Bronx redesign was fair, reasonable, and rational compared to all this mess.

Other than the express buses, seems like we got off easy.

It seems like they're now making everybody submit comments for the individual routes from the route profile page (basically click the corresponding route and then click where it says to submit comments). Intentional or not, the Q44s routes are not listed (but the QT44 is listed for the Q50, along with the QT50). 

Another thing that sucks is basically how the borough redesigns also impact people using routes in/from outside the particular borough. See M100, Q50 truncation to Pelham Bay. So while the borough the intended redesign is for might be aware of the changes, the other boroughs which are affected by route changes have no clue, because they believe that it only affects routes of one borough prefix.