Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Lawrence St]

1 minute ago, paulrivera said:

Selfishly I would love it if the Q50 followed the Bx12 to Fordham after Pelham Bay. 😆

The Q44 I feel would make more of an impact with more riders tho. The Q50 to Fordham would just be a half-hearted Bx12 reliever without properly fixing the Bx12 itself, and they’d probably still take one of the Bx12 local intervals away to make it all cost neutral.

Well according to the MTA...

"We are not proposing any changes to the Bx12SBS because the route is relatively straight, has high ridership and serves important destinations". 

I mean, the Bx12SBS is a high ridership route, but it is so ridiculously plagued with delays that it has to get fixed one way or another. At least if the Q50 were to go to Fordham, it would take some ridership off the Bx12SBS.

[paulrivera]

5 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

This is current Fordham Plaza layout correct? Might be a-few slots open for the Q44. Maybe the BX17 and 34 move to 189th? The Q44 is taking Third Ave in. The BX52 was Fordham -LGA via the Hub tho correct?

Move Bee-Line back up to Fordham/Valentine where it belongs and there will be some room for the 17 and 34 on 189th.

I think the Bx34 should use stay on Webster and use 188th and 189th to turn around, maybe lay over on 189th between 3rd and Webster.

[Sak]

The q101 is being combined with the 62 so intead of taking residents into Manhattan to go to work, it runs express to Williamsburg. The stops they have eliminated along the way disenfranchise a public school, a senior home, middle class factory workers and the Steinway business district. It's not about servicing a neighborhood, it's about a sloppy attempt to brag about how fast they can get from point 1 to point 2. All neighborhoods in Queens are affected, we need to act to avert at least some of the damage.

[N6 Limited]

3 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I think they're trying to avoid situations like that. Several light buses serving the same corridor, essentially bunched, with riders waiting for particular routes that haven't arrived yet. I'm sure that's a major source of complaints to the MTA. It's frustrating to wait for a bus and you see a million other buses passing by, sometimes virtually empty.  Basically this new set up says "theres one route

I meant to finish, basically, "There's one route, it runs frequently, it'll reduce your waiting time, use it, and transfer if necessary". They don't want 3/4 buses/routes carrying 10 people each when one bus can carry them all.

 

They'll certainly need to do time based unlimited transfers or something like that.  Many riders don't want to transfer because it costs more, the network was put into place before free transfers became a thing. And even then, a bus-train-bus trip is only done by those with unlimited cards, because it'll be $5.50 otherwise. When that trip is much quicker than sitting on a bus forever to transfer to another bus.

[B35 via Church]

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I would have rather them give the Fordham Portion to the Q50 and leave the Q44 as it is.

Not sure what routing you're thinking of, but something going Fordham <> Pelham > Williamsbridge > E. Tremont > current Q50 towards Flushing, could catch on for Bronxites... They would have to space out the stops similar to what they're doing with these BRT-like blue colored routes in this Queens draft plan though.....

I would rather have that, than to [introduce the Q44 to the mini-network/bus hub that is Fordham Plaza] & [transform the Q50 into an airport route].... The Q48 should be eradicated without anything taking its place.... Q48 usage to the airport from Flushing & points east have long been lethargic... The Q70's been a success, so continue to advance it....

5 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The Q11 and Q21 is an afterthought and I feel like it is purposely run like so....

Nothing can convince me otherwise..... I still think they want to eventually phase out local service altogether along Woodhaven/Cross Bay blvd.... They don't have to necessarily accomplish that right now.... The whole Q21 LTD/Q52 project set the groundwork for it, having Q21 locals run up to QCM to complement the Q11 (which didn't need one).... It was kickstarted with the declination of local service & the overabundance of LTD (now SBS) service....

This QT88/QT83 IMO is a further step in that gradual process.....

5 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I mean hey, there was one point in time when the Q11 was the only route running on Woodhaven because the Q53 was nonstop from Rego Park to Jamaica Bay. I’m not saying we should have that type of service back but I wish we could have the Q11 as the local that runs on 5-10 minute headway’s throughout most of the day and the Q53 would run on 4-8 most of the day with every other bus terminating at Queens Center Mall. The Q52 could still exist but simply as a bus route that runs between B.54th and Rockaway Blvd.

I was with you, up until that very last sentence.... Running a whole SBS service between Arverne & Rockaway Blvd is excessive - especially when that side of the wye already has full-time subway service.... I'd say either they:

• do away with the Q52 altogether (and leave the Q53 alone in the Rockaways), or...
• break up that QT88 & extend the western portion down to Arverne (while still leaving the Q53 alone in the Rockaways)

[B35 via Church]

14 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I meant to finish, basically, "There's one route, it runs frequently, it'll reduce your waiting time, use it, and transfer if necessary". They don't want 3/4 buses/routes carrying 10 people each when one bus can carry them all.

Roosevelt av between 108th & Main st says otherwise.... Currently there's only the Q48 - Now they have the QT50 (Q50 extension), QT58 (Q58 local diversion), and the QT81 (Q19/Q15a combo) running along that part of Roosevelt...

That is going to be a shitshow....
Bonus points for whenever they're doing weekend work on that part of the & they commence bustituting service between Mets - Willets Pt. & Flushing

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

28 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Nothing can convince me otherwise..... I still think they want to eventually phase out local service altogether along Woodhaven/Cross Bay blvd.... They don't have to necessarily accomplish that right now.... The whole Q21 LTD/Q52 project set the groundwork for it, having Q21 locals run up to QCM to complement the Q11 (which didn't need one).... It was kickstarted with the declination of local service & the overabundance of LTD (now SBS) service....

This QT88/QT83 IMO is a further step in that gradual process.....

I was with you, up until that very last sentence.... Running a whole SBS service between Arverne & Rockaway Blvd is excessive - especially when that side of the wye already has full-time subway service.... I'd say either they:

• do away with the Q52 altogether (and leave the Q53 alone in the Rockaways), or...
• break up that QT88 & extend the western portion down to Arverne (while still leaving the Q53 alone in the Rockaways)

They're slowly doing it here. The new Q83 would no longer during overnight hours, as it would operate 18 hours a day on weekdays (on 17 on Saturdays), while the Q52 would operate every 30 minutes. The current late night setup sucks (where the Q53 remains running LTD and the Q11 running local, both hourly, departing minutes from each other at Hoffman Drive), which should be all local service. Unfortunately, the schedule is extremely tight for the Q53 at night (3 minutes recovery at Rockaway Park, 4 minutes at Woodside). The way the runs are structured, they can operate the existing overnight trips 10 minutes later for no cost, but'll cut a little into the operators' break (since they do one roundtrip and then take an hour break). Maybe give it a "N" designation towards the end of the number to designation the overnight local variant, and then move the Q11 over to a different interval. 

Also, I'm not against the Q52 existing as it currently does, but I'm against the Q53 being sacrificed to improve the Q52 levels to that of both the Q52 and Q53 (which is not necessary). What I feel should be done is:

Daytime:

• Q83: Elmhurst to Howard Beach (existing Q21)
• Q52 & Q53 as they currently exist. 

Overnight:

• Option 1: Current Q53 route, running all local
• Option 2: Q53 all local, hourly, and QT83 all local, hourly. 

I feel like the MTA is being more generous than me when it comes to the eastern section of the QT88. If it were up to me, I would just eliminate everything on the Q11 south of Pitkin Ave. 

 

7 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Roosevelt av between 108th & Main st says otherwise.... Currently there's only the Q48 - Now they have the QT50 (Q50 extension), QT58 (Q58 local diversion), and the QT81 (Q19/Q15a combo) running along that part of Roosevelt...

That is going to be a shitshow....
Bonus points for whenever they're doing weekend work on that part of the & they commence bustituting service between Mets - Willets Pt. & Flushing

Perhaps that's an underhanded move to justify not running any subway shuttles 👀

Edited January 3, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lawrence St]

21 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

They're slowly doing it here. The new Q83 would no longer during overnight hours, as it would operate 18 hours a day on weekdays (on 17 on Saturdays), while the Q52 would operate every 30 minutes. The current late night setup sucks (where the Q53 remains running LTD and the Q11 running local, both hourly, departing minutes from each other at Hoffman Drive), which should be all local service. Unfortunately, the schedule is extremely tight for the Q53 at night (3 minutes recovery at Rockaway Park, 4 minutes at Woodside). The way the runs are structured, they can operate the existing overnight trips 10 minutes later for no cost, but'll cut a little into the operators' break (since they do one roundtrip and then take an hour break). Maybe give it a "N" designation towards the end of the number to designation the overnight local variant, and then move the Q11 over to a different interval. 

Also, I'm not against the Q52 existing as it currently does, but I'm against the Q53 being sacrificed to improve the Q52 levels to that of both the Q52 and Q53 (which is not necessary). What I feel should be done is:

Daytime:

• Q83: Elmhurst to Howard Beach (existing Q21)
• Q52 & Q53 as they currently exist. 

Overnight:

• Option 1: Current Q53 route, running all local
• Option 2: Q53 all local, hourly, and QT83 all local, hourly. 

I feel like the MTA is being more generous than me when it comes to the eastern section of the QT88. If it were up to me, I would just eliminate everything on the Q11 south of Pitkin Ave. 

 

Perhaps that's an underhanded move to justify not running any subway shuttles 👀

So you wanna do a similar M101 daytime LTD/late night local scenario?

[Lawrence St]

@B35 via Church That would be a highly successful route. Western Bronx riders no longer have to take the or the to 125th and then take the M60 to get to Queens. This also opens up a one seat ride between Fordham & Queens. 

Only issue is that you would overlap the Bx12 and the Bx12SBS, unless you do the super limited (let's call it Super +Select) section in the Bronx.

[N6 Limited]

17 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Q48 usage to the airport from Flushing & points east have long been lethargic... The Q70's been a success, so continue to advance it....

I tried using the Q48 once, the crawl made me regret it.

So this is also what we need to examine. Why is the Q70 a success, over the Q33 to LGA? I'd say because it's faster and "direct", so why are these new "faster" and direct routes getting ripped on?

34 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

40 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

 

Perhaps that's an underhanded move to justify not running any subway shuttles 👀

haha

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

47 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So you wanna do a similar M101 daytime LTD/late night local scenario?

It would a combination of the existing M101 and the B44 scenarios. On Woodhaven Boulevard and Cross Bay Boulevards, the Q53 would make all stops, since some of the current SBS stops are spaced rather far apart to walk to (and that doesn't even consider walking distance to Woodhaven/Cross Bay). However, the segments on Broadway, Roosevelt Avenue, and south of 164th Ave would only serve SBS stops, since for the most part, there's no local counterpart. 

[B35 via Church]

3 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

They're slowly doing it here. The new Q83 would no longer during overnight hours, as it would operate 18 hours a day on weekdays (on 17 on Saturdays), while the Q52 would operate every 30 minutes. The current late night setup sucks (where the Q53 remains running LTD and the Q11 running local, both hourly, departing minutes from each other at Hoffman Drive), which should be all local service. Unfortunately, the schedule is extremely tight for the Q53 at night (3 minutes recovery at Rockaway Park, 4 minutes at Woodside). The way the runs are structured, they can operate the existing overnight trips 10 minutes later for no cost, but'll cut a little into the operators' break (since they do one roundtrip and then take an hour break). Maybe give it a "N" designation towards the end of the number to designation the overnight local variant, and then move the Q11 over to a different interval. 

Yep, which is why I said "This QT88/QT83 IMO is a further step in that gradual process....."

3 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Also, I'm not against the Q52 existing as it currently does, but I'm against the Q53 being sacrificed to improve the Q52 levels to that of both the Q52 and Q53 (which is not necessary). What I feel should be done is:

Daytime:

• Q83: Elmhurst to Howard Beach (existing Q21)
• Q52 & Q53 as they currently exist. 

Overnight:

• Option 1: Current Q53 route, running all local
• Option 2: Q53 all local, hourly, and QT83 all local, hourly. 

You're more or less implicating that the Q52 should be a supplement to the Q53 & not a complement to it (which is fine)....
Me? The problem I have with the Q52 stems past anything service level related....

I've been against the creation of the Q52 from jump street, because the whole premise of the route was to cater to the (then) new built-up community of Arverne..... It wasn't drastic, but still, service was taken away from the Q53 to facilitate the Q52.... Now I look at this plan & they're completely sacrificing the Q53 to keep the Q52? At that point I'm like, get ALL the way the f*** out of here..... This is stubbornness at it's finest; we feel that it's justified to keep the Q52 over the Q53 because, blahzay blahzay blah....

Basically, what I think should happen with service along Woodhaven/Cross Bay Blvd's is having the:

• Q53 being the sole SBS route via current routing, running on slightly higher than combined Q52/Q53 headways, but lower than current Q53 headways...
• Q11 being the sole local service, running on significantly lower than combined Q11/Q21 headways.... Still branched, but instead to run:
  • via the length of Cross Bay, down to 165th (I would seriously look into creating some sort of bus loop along 165th; similar to the loop that the B82/BM5 uses along Seaview in Starrett City)
  • via Lindenwood, via 157th, to terminate in Old Howard Beach (165th/99th)... Most service along this branch would end at 157th/Cross Bay...

 

3 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Perhaps that's an underhanded move to justify not running any subway shuttles 👀

Lol....

MTA doesn't mess around with their subway shuttles though... I'll give them that much (although I personally still refuse to use them)....

[Brillant93]

So 

• Green means traditional local service that its main focus isn't to connect to a subway but to other neighborhoods.
• Red means local service that will run mostly along green or blue routes with greater spaces between stops for rapid service to a subway or hub
• Purple means a newer form of an LTD service where it runs local on its latter end but runs limited once it gets to a point to a subway
• Blue means a standard or newer form of an SBS route where stops are limited through its entire run and it runs through prioritized corridors 

Judging from the map it looks like the areas such as Jamaica Queens and other parts that are eastern will have more of the green and purple routes where they will help get people to other parts of queens and those who need to get to the subway. 

The western and northern part of Queens look like it will have more so the red, green and blue routes. Since it seems that those parts have better access to subway connections, local service is much more effective there, but there is also high corridors there which means the red and blue routes will be along there. The blue routes on this side of the map will be mostly routes from areas such as Flushing, Astoria, and the airport to Brooklyn or to a transit hub.  

From my analysis it looks like they're treating Queens in two different parts. One half such as the eastern will be local and limited routes which will get people around those areas to other parts and or to the subway which some what reflect the function of the old private bus routes. The other half which is the western will serve as to get people to Brooklyn, the airport, and various train stations. Since the former half only has a handful of train lines and or stops it makes sense to have the purple and green routes. The latter half will have a mixture of all since its very accessible to trains and other ways to get around other parts of the city. 

Looking at the color codes it makes the map much clearer to follow. 

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

@B35 via Church That would be a highly successful route. Western Bronx riders no longer have to take the or the to 125th and then take the M60 to get to Queens. This also opens up a one seat ride between Fordham & Queens. 

Only issue is that you would overlap the Bx12 and the Bx12SBS, unless you do the super limited (let's call it Super +Select) section in the Bronx.

Other than Fordham Plaza itself, I'd only have it stop at White Plains rd. along that stretch of the route....

Another option is to have it simply act as a supplement to the Q44, paralleling it to E. Tremont av, to then continue along Tremont to get to Third, then run up Third to Fordham Plaza....

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

I tried using the Q48 once, the crawl made me regret it.

So this is also what we need to examine. Why is the Q70 a success, over the Q33 to LGA? I'd say because it's faster and "direct", so why are these new "faster" and direct routes getting ripped on?

1] Should be obvious.... The Q70 is a point to point service from the airport to rail-based transportation.... The Q33 to LGA was a fixed route service that served the airport....

2] JMO, but the Q70's target riderbase from the subway is very specific & well defined..... The target riderbase of everyone else trying to get home after coming off some subway is far more broad.... Can't compare the two.

The MTA's attempting to form (what I like to call) commuter locals out of these urban fixed-route locals with some of these routes.... Alright, fine - but again, consider the target riderbase (as in, from those emanating from various places of residences).... The problem isn't that they're trying to make service faster & direct with these routes, the problem is in the manner that they're doing it (and for what reasons)... Concurrent with decreased service levels, having more people system-wide walk further distances from their residences to catch the bus, is inconvenient & doesn't set all that great a precedent....

Edited January 3, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Lennyj17]

7 hours ago, paulrivera said:

Selfishly I would love it if the Q50 followed the Bx12 to Fordham after Pelham Bay. 😆

The Q44 I feel would make more of an impact with more riders tho. The Q50 to Fordham would just be a half-hearted Bx12 reliever without properly fixing the Bx12 itself, and they’d probably still take one of the Bx12 local intervals away to make it all cost neutral.

If the Q50 was routed to Fordham, since its meant to be super-limited (or whatever the new dark blue lined routes mean).... its stops would probably be only PBP, WPR, and Fordham, Then from PBP, non-stop to Tremont, non-stop to Lafayette, Non-Stop to 20th, Non-Stop to R&M, Non-Stop to Northern, All Stops in LGA. 

It probably would be pretty popular and need more service, and moved to either CS or LGA for Artics  

Edited January 4, 2020 by Lennyj17

[FamousNYLover]

I don't agree with QT44 SBS heading to Fordham since Wildlife Conservation Society employees will loose direct bus ride to Bronx Zoo.

I don't support QT72 ending at Ditmars Blvd.

 

[danielhg121]

55 minutes ago, FamousNYLover said:

I don't agree with QT44 SBS heading to Fordham since Wildlife Conservation Society employees will loose direct bus ride to Bronx Zoo.

I don't support QT72 ending at Ditmars Blvd.

 

That should be the least of your worries. I barely see any Wildlife Conservation Society workers riding the thing anyways, and as far as I’m concerned, they might as well shift a stop so it’s right outside East gate especially now that it doesn’t have to terminate at Bronx Zoo.  They’ll still have their one seat ride, it just won’t be the terminus. As for extending it to Fordham, while it will have more connectivity to another route, it just might add onto the gaps and bunching the 44 faces. The 44 frequently has gaps already heading up to the Bronx Zoo, extending the thing to Fordham might just make it more severe. During the Pm rush, they frequently deadhead to Parkchester or elsewhere down the line to make up service. 

[aemoreira81]

RE: post 186, I mean shorten the Q53---clicked Post too soon.

I intend to speak out on the Q53 issue as well. I can't see that cut remaining in the final plan, although I could see it cut back to Victor Moore terminal.  If anything, there should be short-turns only operating Queens Center to 163 Avenue, with run-ons and run-offs to and from JFK at that point (the existing Q52 SBS operation is inefficient, with run-ons and run-offs around 30 minutes long). A lot of people from south of Queens Center rely on the Q53 to reach Elmhurst Hospital.

As for the Q52, I would have only every other bus go to Arverne. The trunk between Queens Center Mall and Howard Beach needs the most service.  (Remember that the Q52 was a compromise for eliminating the Q21 to the Rockaways.)

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

I don't support QT72 ending at Ditmars Blvd.

According to what @BM5 via Woodhaven posted not too long ago, apparently, they're already setting up for this one....

Starting this Monday, every other Q72 during peak hours won't run inside the airport....

2 minutes ago, aemoreira81 said:

RE: post 186, I mean shorten the Q53---clicked Post too soon.

I intend to speak out on the Q53 issue as well. I can't see that cut remaining in the final plan, although I could see it cut back to Victor Moore terminal.  If anything, there should be short-turns only operating Queens Center to 163 Avenue, with run-ons and run-offs to and from JFK at that point (the existing Q52 SBS operation is inefficient, with run-ons and run-offs around 30 minutes long). A lot of people from south of Queens Center rely on the Q53 to reach Elmhurst Hospital.

As for the Q52, I would have only every other bus go to Arverne. The trunk between Queens Center Mall and Howard Beach needs the most service.  (Remember that the Q52 was a compromise for eliminating the Q21 to the Rockaways.)

 I would love to see the list of stipulations these planners had to work around/work against.... Anyway, I don't see a real need for the Q52... The Q53 suffices both down in the Rockaways & along Woodhaven/Cross Bay....

I'm not so sure that Moore terminal will even be a thing anymore in the upcoming years.... They don't have anything as terminating there; the only thing that comes close is that QT4....

Edited January 4, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Around the Horn]

22 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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. 

Now that you mention it, I wonder how they'll handle the M100 with the OMNY roll out. Manhattan starts in March but it's a Bronx division route so do they equip a certain number of buses for the M100 or just wait until the Bronx gets it?

[paulrivera]

10 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Perhaps that's an underhanded move to justify not running any subway shuttles 👀

Underhanded would be running the  every 20 minutes all day long like the GO’s on the Lex lines in the Bronx.

 

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

So this is also what we need to examine. Why is the Q70 a success, over the Q33 to LGA? I'd say because it's faster and "direct", so why are these new "faster" and direct routes getting ripped on?

Cuomo waiving fares on the Q70 every other week helps a bit too, just sayin’...

[Lawrence St]

4 hours ago, paulrivera said:

Underhanded would be running the  every 20 minutes all day long like the GO’s on the Lex lines in the Bronx.

 

Cuomo waiving fares on the Q70 every other week helps a bit too, just sayin’...

When is the Q70 actually ever fare free, when 99.9% of customers are transferring from the subway...

[N6 Limited]

Have the buses farebox recovery ratio dropped since free transfers were instituted?  Before Metrocard Gold, most of Queens was a two fare zone, so the MTA got a fare for the Bus and the Subway, which is why many walked, got dropped off, or took a dollar cab to the subway.

Even though free transfers significantly boosted bus ridership, did the farebox recovery drop drastically because of the free transfers?

This also brings up the bus-bus transfers. Bus transfers were 25 cents, so many riders preferred a one seat ride to save money, now it's not as much of a concern.

With Unlimited cards, how do they determine which mode or entity gets revenue? (ie, Subway, Bus, Nice, Beeline)

With PPR cards, do they simply split revenue when a transfer is made? (ie. $1.37 each for NYCTBus and Subway?)

[paulrivera]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

When is the Q70 actually ever fare free, when 99.9% of customers are transferring from the subway...

You are right, but it does affect the psychology of some riders...

 

[N6 Limited]

45 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

You are right, but it does affect the psychology of some riders...

 

Was it because it was "free"? Or because it's peak travel season?

I like how the bus is branded. Makes it nice in clear that the bus is going to Laguardia ,and which subway lines and railroad it connects to.