Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Gotham Bus Co.]

13 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Because they run everything else so well? 

Because the City will seek a convenient way to get out of paying for it.

[JAzumah]

27 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Because the City will seek a convenient way to get out of paying for it.

NYC Ferry is a real estate project sweetener. They will only kill it as a last resort. It was designed to raise property values, not transport people. In that respect, it is working.

[Trainmaster5]

8 hours ago, JAzumah said:

NYC Ferry is a real estate project sweetener. They will only kill it as a last resort. It was designed to raise property values, not transport people. In that respect, it is working.

Finally a knowledgeable person who can see behind the curtain. This simple fact should be drummed into the heads of every pom pom waving rah rah  believing posters out there. My opinion. Carry on.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

9 hours ago, JAzumah said:

NYC Ferry is a real estate project sweetener. They will only kill it as a last resort. It was designed to raise property values, not transport people. In that respect, it is working.

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Finally a knowledgeable person who can see behind the curtain. This simple fact should be drummed into the heads of every pom pom waving rah rah  believing posters out there. My opinion. Carry on.

 

I wasn't "waving pom poms" — I was merely noting that, instead of "kililng" the ferry system, the City will probably try to shift all the costs to the . But y'all already knew that.

[limitednyc]

If that's the case why does the dot still operate the si ferry?

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, limitednyc said:

If that's the case why does the dot still operate the si ferry?

Because that ferry is fare free and Staten Island will never let the city give it up.

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I wasn't "waving pom poms" — I was merely noting that, instead of "kililng" the ferry system, the City will probably try to shift all the costs to the . But y'all already knew that.

I really didn't mean to equate you with a pom pom waver. I was actually focusing on those posters who act as if everything the  flacks put out in the press is the Holy Gospel. It's frustrating for some of us oldtimers to see some posters gobble up the B.S.. You've been around long enough that I'd never make the mistake of putting you in that category. Sorry if I offended you. Carry on. 

[Ex696]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:13 AM, B35 via Church said:

But just what is LIC the 2nd biggest CBD in this city in? As in, in terms of what? Square-footage? Number of jobs? Number of employers?

Second-largest in terms of job count.

But on the other hand, why'd they cut the Q66 from serving the Hunters Point Ferry?

 

[Ex696]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:03 AM, JAzumah said:

NYC Ferry is a real estate project sweetener. They will only kill it as a last resort. It was designed to raise property values, not transport people. In that respect, it is working.

Then what does the MTA gain from extending bus routes to the HP Ferry?

[JAzumah]

2 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Then what does the MTA gain from extending bus routes to the HP Ferry?

Connectivity. There are still physical ferry boats to connect to and it is worth a shot to tap demand that would be more than just rush hour in nature.

[B35 via Church]

On 1/31/2024 at 7:55 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) I have to check the Trip Planner (which seems to give a preview of what the proposed schedule they would run on the route), but from what it sounds like, pretty much all of the current Q11/21 service would end up running down through Lindenwood, and then splitting between Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach. I don't think the planners calculated that they would be overserving the southern end of the route.

2) Hmm....essentially trading the B47 for the B46 SBS at Woodhull...I wonder how that would look from a budget perspective and if they'd be looking to consolidate like that (it's a longer distance from where the B47 turns onto Broadway, but the B46 SBS is more frequent). 

3) In the original draft, they had the Q12 (numbered QT17) running down Marathon Parkway and ending at the present-day Q30 terminal. Would you have it use Marathon, or run down Little Neck Parkway? (Not sure how the turnaround scenario would look in that case)

4) The idea behind my revision of their QT34 would be to connect Little Neck Parkway to Jamaica via a more direct route (rather than having it backtrack all the way to Jamaica Avenue and head back up, or having a Q79-type shuttle).

5) In the original proposal, the QT77 ran like that, but the issue is the people in the vicinity of Laurel Hill Blvd & 58th Street complained about the lack of a connection to LIC...to have the Q39 bypass that area and have nothing (rather than at least the 58th Street route they had in that proposal...I think it was called QT80 IIRC) might generate enough opposition to scare them off from doing so.

6) The Q22A seemed to be more focused on getting Far Rockaway residents (and those connecting at Far Rockaway) over to Bayswater during school hours, rather than being focused on getting Bayswater residents to other areas. Other than maybe a straight out Q22 extension (or having the Q22 run through there while the Q52 serves the southern end of Far Rockaway), I'm not sure how else to feasibly serve it.

1) That would be tone deaf then, considering they're also/still having the Q41 run through Lindenwood.... The current issue is that riders south of Rockaway Blvd are unsatisfied with local service (with good reason)...  I'm not sure if this is their way of maybe addressing that, but if so, they've gone too far with it (the overserving)....

2) I'd say they'd make cuts to the B46 local/SBS elsewhere (like, running more of those Eastern Pkwy short turns on the B46 locals, and/or simply ending some of SBS' at Dekalb still) to retain the B47 - given that there's less demand for it (less BPH needed to run it), compared to the B46.... That difference in distance isn't nearly as stark, compared to how frequent the B46 is....

3) I'd have it take LNP.... The Flushing bound Q12's would serve both *sides* of HHE, before running back up LNP to get to Northern...

4) I know it seems like I talked through the LNP part of your suggestion, but that much I got from jump (it being the point of your version of that QT34)... I was just furthering the conversation (given you'd still have it end where the proposed QT34 did) by adding that I would much rather have that mileage (a Jamaica - NSUH route) be spent on a Q30 extension, compared to just how lowly patronized I see your QT34 in question being.... I'm about right over the threshold of not even wanting to bother running anything along as much of LNP; there's simply not enough "there", there anymore.... Once the old Q79 got the axe, folks basically gave up as far as local service goes (if not public transit overall).... The Q36 on paper is a compromise, but compared to the old Q79, Q36 patronage along LNP doesn't remotely come close to it (which is saying quite a bit)...

5) I get the larger point of those folks in that pocket east of 58th/Laurel Hill getting shafted, but for the sake of clarity, what I'm saying is that I would've liked to have seen the Q39 run that course in question, to go on to continue doing the current Q39 north & west of Laurel Hill (as in, along 48th av).... That QT77 after 48th/Laurel Hill continued westward on Borden (a la the current Q67)... But yeah, that was that QT80 that ran up 58th; that Q18/Q39 combination...

6) At best, I think we may be saying the same thing in different ways here - How should Bayswater be served vs. What is it exactly that they want (assuming there's even a latent demand for public bus service)....

Edited February 3 by B35 via Church
split post

[B35 via Church]

13 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Second-largest in terms of job count...

There had to have been a seismic amount of layoffs in the financial center/sector & quite the boom of the # of jobs in LIC to now have LIC being only 2nd to Midtown Manhattan.... While LIC is growing, I'm rather skeptical that it surpassed Lower Manhattan..... Where did you hear/read LIC being the 2nd largest CBD in that category from?

13 hours ago, Ex696 said:

But on the other hand, why'd they cut the Q66 from serving the Hunters Point Ferry?

They scaled back the Q66 from the previous draft to essentially have a branch of the impending Q66 run the current Q66 

------------------------

To put it another way, they rescinded on having it run to the Hunters Point Ferry to retain service along 35th av & along 21st st..... Instead of having all Q66's run b/w Flushing & Hunters Point Ferry like in the previous draft, they divvied up Northern Blvd service where it would run b/w Flushing & Queens Plaza:

• via a scaled back rendition of the Q66 in the previous draft
• via the current Q66 (which they've renumbered the Q63)

10 hours ago, JAzumah said:

Connectivity. There are still physical ferry boats to connect to and it is worth a shot to tap demand that would be more than just rush hour in nature.

In other words, they want a piece of the pie by trying to cater to these transplants - the same transplants responsible for these increased rent prices & property values that the NYC ferry was designed to aid in doing.

Funny how that works out.

Edited February 3 by B35 via Church

[NewFlyer 230]

Would it be worth extending the MTA’s proposed Q38 route to Myrtle Ave & Fresh Pond Rd from its proposed southern and to Flushing on the north side? 

I believe the current proposed routing for the Q38 is weak and I think it will eventually allow the MTA to cut away service. An extended Q38 can provide an alternative to the Q58 and attract new riders.  

[Q43LTD]

While I do want the 38 to Fresh Pond (M), I don't think it would be feasible. There's the proposed 98. 

[Ex696]

Also, is there a good turnaround location near Myrtle/Fresh Pond?

[NewFlyer 230]

16 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Also, is there a good turnaround location near Myrtle/Fresh Pond?

My idea was to have the proposed Q38 bus make a left on Myrtle, another left on Central Ave, then right on 64th street, then another right on Myrtle and right on Fresh Pond Rd. 
 
 

[Robert Spire]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:03 AM, JAzumah said:

NYC Ferry is a real estate project sweetener. They will only kill it as a last resort. It was designed to raise property values, not transport people. In that respect, it is working.

It's run by NYCEDC. NYCEDC gave up the SIM23 and SIM24 so that they aren't considered a transit agency so that they can run ferries. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

50 minutes ago, Robert Spire said:

NYCEDC gave up the SIM23 and SIM24 so that they aren't considered a transit agency so that they can run ferries. 

Yet MBTA runs ferries.

[B35 via Church]

On 2/6/2024 at 11:05 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Would it be worth extending the MTA’s proposed Q38 route to Myrtle Ave & Fresh Pond Rd from its proposed southern and to Flushing on the north side? 

I believe the current proposed routing for the Q38 is weak and I think it will eventually allow the MTA to cut away service. An extended Q38 can provide an alternative to the Q58 and attract new riders.  

I would not extend the proposed Q38 down Fresh Pond before doing so with the proposed Q14.... Proximate to Metropolitan av, the former already has the connection to the , while the latter does not.....

I also would not extend the proposed Q38 to Flushing, because quite frankly, I believe the demand for it along/around Juniper Valley <> Penelope hardly exists... Not to mention having (an extension of) the proposed Q38 and the proposed Q58/98 running Ridgewood - Flushing, I find to be excessive.... Furthermore, the thing with having the Q38 be an alternative to the Q58 is that, how much of an alternative would the Q38 even be (in terms of service/frequency)? You wouldn't get too many people commuting b/w Ridgewood & Flushing passing up a bunch of Q58's (to avoid dealing with Grand av & Corona av) for said Q38's.... I mean, with the proposed Q98 taking away from (current) Q58 service, they'd still have proposed Q58's operating considerably more frequent than these proposed Q38's.... You'd more or less have to lessen Q58/Q98 service, or increase service on those Q38's for it to be much of/more of a viable alternative.... I suppose there's a discussion to be had, regarding how much time would be saved b/w an extended Q38 of sorts between Ridgewood & Flushing, compared to the Q58.... You'd still have to keep in mind, all the stops being canned for the proposed Q58, compared to the current Q58 local.... My thing is, even if it's more than worth it time-wise, you can't go too crazy increasing Q38 service to have it be an alternative to the Q58, as that would be tantamount to overserving the proposed Q38.

All that said, while I agree the proposed Q38 leaves much to be desired, I get why they basically have it ending at Fresh Pond/Met....

On 2/7/2024 at 4:42 PM, Ex696 said:

Also, is there a good turnaround location near Myrtle/Fresh Pond?

The short answer is no.

On 2/8/2024 at 8:51 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

My idea was to have the proposed Q38 bus make a left on Myrtle, another left on Central Ave, then right on 64th street, then another right on Myrtle and right on Fresh Pond Rd.

This sounds like you'd have SB buses stop dead on that NW corner of Myrtle/Fresh Pond.... I'd seriously refrain from that, as there's far too much traffic turning at that intersection.... I'd much rather have buses layover on that NW corner of Central/Myrtle (alongside that wall).... So, SB buses would do Fresh Pond - Cypress Hills - Central, to stand at Myrtle.... Central/Myrtle would be the last SB dropoff stop... After going on layover, NB buses would hang a right onto Myrtle & another right onto Fresh Pond... The first NB stop would be the current NB stop of the B13/B20 at Myrtle/Fresh Pond...

On 2/6/2024 at 11:22 AM, Q43LTD said:

While I do want the 38 to Fresh Pond , I don't think it would be feasible. There's the proposed 98. 

Why single out the Q98 in this instance? The proposed Q58 would also serve Fresh Pond subway....

Edited February 10 by B35 via Church

[Q43LTD]

On 2/10/2024 at 10:29 AM, B35 via Church said:

Why single out the Q98 in this instance? The proposed Q58 would also serve Fresh Pond subway....

I wasn't singling out the 98 per se. I felt it was overkill with the 38, 58 and 98 ending in Flushing. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 2/6/2024 at 11:05 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Would it be worth extending the MTA’s proposed Q38 route to Myrtle Ave & Fresh Pond Rd from its proposed southern and to Flushing on the north side? 

I believe the current proposed routing for the Q38 is weak and I think it will eventually allow the MTA to cut away service. An extended Q38 can provide an alternative to the Q58 and attract new riders.  

2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I wasn't singling out the 98 per se. I felt it was overkill with the 38, 58 and 98 ending in Flushing. 

 

Maybe ditch the Q98 in favor of extending Q38 at both ends (to Ridgewood Terminal and Main Street Station).

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 2/6/2024 at 11:05 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Would it be worth extending the MTA’s proposed Q38 route to Myrtle Ave & Fresh Pond Rd from its proposed southern and to Flushing on the north side? 

I believe the current proposed routing for the Q38 is weak and I think it will eventually allow the MTA to cut away service. An extended Q38 can provide an alternative to the Q58 and attract new riders.  

 

10 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Maybe ditch the Q98 in favor of extending Q38 at both ends (to Ridgewood Terminal and Main Street Station).

 

Hard no with ditching the Q98 to extend the Q38. That's a Q38 problem and should be addressed on its own merits. The Q98 should not have to be sacrificed due to the shortcomings of another route. 

The problems I have with many of these types of proposals when they come up (whether it's via 63rd Drive/Penelope, via Eliot Ave or whatnot) are that they tend to significantly underestimate Grand Avenue ridership/ridership patterns, and overestimate Flushing-Ridgewood ridership. Sure the Flushing-Ridgewood ridership may be more interchangeable, issue is that it is not an overwhelming majority (let alone majority) of riders on the existing Q58 route. Grand Avenue is a major corridor and the different rider bases (Ridgewood, subway feeder, Corona , Flushing) all collectively make up a large chunk of Q58 ridership. That is followed by the usage in Corona. Seems like misplaced priorities to focus on what to do with a relatively minor group of riders (who would already see an improvement with the Q98). 

Plus with the way the Q38 goes through Middle Village, I don't think you would be saving that much time honestly. All you need is one parked car, delivery truck or whatnot and then any time savings goes out the window. The Q98 is an okay route in terms of making trips faster and providing necessary levels where demand is located. Penelope or Eliot Ave just don't come close to those levels, with Penelope being the lowest of the three.

The real question is what other areas are residents in Middle Village and Rego Park seeking along the proposed Q38 route? For starters north/east of Queens Blvd I would not keep as part of the Q38, easily the weakest part of the route. Much of nobody is seeking the area west of Queens Blvd given its primarily residential. I think the 62nd Drive/63rd Road segment should be part of the Q59 since it would connect it to more commercial areas of interest / ridership generators in Queens. Having the Q38 running between Queens Blvd & Fresh Pond Road though would make it lightly used given that it's acting as a subway feeder for the most part. We've had discussions on what to do with the route, I think B35's proposal to send the thing to Williamsburg isn't a bad one honestly, I could also see potentially sending it through Bushwick potentially working as well (ultimately depends on the route). However I wouldn't bring the Q98 into this one. 

 

[B35 via Church]

On 2/11/2024 at 2:01 PM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Maybe ditch the Q98 in favor of extending Q38 at both ends (to Ridgewood Terminal and Main Street Station).

Lol... Folks would just bombard the Q58 like they do now.

On 2/12/2024 at 2:31 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Hard no with ditching the Q98 to extend the Q38. That's a Q38 problem and should be addressed on its own merits. The Q98 should not have to be sacrificed due to the shortcomings of another route. 

The problems I have with many of these types of proposals when they come up (whether it's via 63rd Drive/Penelope, via Eliot Ave or whatnot) are that they tend to significantly underestimate Grand Avenue ridership/ridership patterns, and overestimate Flushing-Ridgewood ridership. Sure the Flushing-Ridgewood ridership may be more interchangeable, issue is that it is not an overwhelming majority (let alone majority) of riders on the existing Q58 route. Grand Avenue is a major corridor and the different rider bases (Ridgewood, subway feeder, Corona , Flushing) all collectively make up a large chunk of Q58 ridership. That is followed by the usage in Corona. Seems like misplaced priorities to focus on what to do with a relatively minor group of riders (who would already see an improvement with the Q98). 

Plus with the way the Q38 goes through Middle Village, I don't think you would be saving that much time honestly. All you need is one parked car, delivery truck or whatnot and then any time savings goes out the window. The Q98 is an okay route in terms of making trips faster and providing necessary levels where demand is located. Penelope or Eliot Ave just don't come close to those levels, with Penelope being the lowest of the three.

The real question is what other areas are residents in Middle Village and Rego Park seeking along the proposed Q38 route? For starters north/east of Queens Blvd I would not keep as part of the Q38, easily the weakest part of the route. Much of nobody is seeking the area west of Queens Blvd given its primarily residential. I think the 62nd Drive/63rd Road segment should be part of the Q59 since it would connect it to more commercial areas of interest / ridership generators in Queens. Having the Q38 running between Queens Blvd & Fresh Pond Road though would make it lightly used given that it's acting as a subway feeder for the most part. We've had discussions on what to do with the route, I think B35's proposal to send the thing to Williamsburg isn't a bad one honestly, I could also see potentially sending it through Bushwick potentially working as well (ultimately depends on the route). However I wouldn't bring the Q98 into this one.

1. Oh, I'd say it's worse.... It's not even an underestimation of Grand Av., it's purposely ignoring rider habits along Grand av. in an attempt to bolster the Q38.... I've long came to that conclusion in regards to these/similar Q38 proposals over the years....

2. Before this discussion, I've never gave it any thought.... But I do concur with the sentiment though.... How much time would you say it would save? Or do you have it as being more or less a wash?

3. Yeah, that's why I say I get why they have the final proposed Q38 basically ending at Fresh Pond... Like you mentioned with that proposal I posed a couple weeks or so ago, I'd much rather use it as a supplement to the (western portion of the) Q54, over running it down Fresh Pond... The other viable option to attempt to remedy the Q54 is to split it.... The Q58 (which runs like wildfire) doesn't have the problems with unreliability the Q54 does....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

21 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol... Folks would just bombard the Q58 like they do now.

1. Oh, I'd say it's worse.... It's not even an underestimation of Grand Av., it's purposely ignoring rider habits along Grand av. in an attempt to bolster the Q38.... I've long came to that conclusion in regards to these/similar Q38 proposals over the years....

2. Before this discussion, I've never gave it any thought.... But I do concur with the sentiment though.... How much time would you say it would save? Or do you have it as being more or less a wash?

3. Yeah, that's why I say I get why they have the final proposed Q38 basically ending at Fresh Pond... Like you mentioned with that proposal I posed a couple weeks or so ago, I'd much rather use it as a supplement to the (western portion of the) Q54, over running it down Fresh Pond... The other viable option to attempt to remedy the Q54 is to split it.... The Q58 (which runs like wildfire) doesn't have the problems with unreliability the Q54 does....

1. Yeah, sounds about right honestly. I was looking for something to describe those proposals because they always came up so lopsided against Grand Ave service but wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.

2. I think it ends up being more or less a wash. The difference in existing Q58 LTD and Q38 runtimes between Fresh Pond/Metropolitan and 108th Street (HHE on the Q58, 63rd Road on the Q38) are not very large, plus both run behind schedule by about a similar margin. For the Q98, even though Queens Blvd can lags the service roads on Horace Harding tend to move well even during rush hours. So that helps bring it closer to about the same.

Outside of maneuvering through those narrow streets in Middle Village, Metropolitan Avenue and 63rd Drive slow the Q38 slow down. Metropolitan isn't too bad outside of rush hours but 63rd Drive north of the LIRR tracks tends to be slow during the day. Too much traffic (double parking, trucks and whatnot) plus the amount of lights and dwell times in that area run the time up. 

Edited February 14 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[IAlam]

23 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol... Folks would just bombard the Q58 like they do now.

1. Oh, I'd say it's worse.... It's not even an underestimation of Grand Av., it's purposely ignoring rider habits along Grand av. in an attempt to bolster the Q38.... I've long came to that conclusion in regards to these/similar Q38 proposals over the years....

2. Before this discussion, I've never gave it any thought.... But I do concur with the sentiment though.... How much time would you say it would save? Or do you have it as being more or less a wash?

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

1. Yeah, sounds about right honestly. I was looking for something to describe those proposals because they always came up so lopsided against Grand Ave service but wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.

2. I think it ends up being more or less a wash. The difference in existing Q58 LTD and Q38 runtimes between Fresh Pond/Metropolitan and 108th Street (HHE on the Q58, 63rd Road on the Q38) are not very large, plus both run behind schedule by about a similar margin. For the Q98, even though Queens Blvd can lags the service roads on Horace Harding tend to move well even during rush hours. So that helps bring it closer to about the same.

1) If it was up to me I'd throw the Q98 back to HHE after hitting Woodhaven/QCM that way Ridgewood to Queens Blvd riders have a faster route and reduce the service and use those resources to boost the existing Q58. That way at least for the busiest portions of the line there's frequent service West of QB is busy but I've been on enough buses through Corona Ave to see how quickly they fill up. Also, the Q98 going via HHE both east and west of QB would probably be more popular with Rideway riders who don't want to go all the way through Grand Ave just to get to the QB line.

2) I gotta agree to route via Elliot Ave doesn't do much to help the line with time savings or ridership.