Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Lawrence St

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

$0 of congestion pricing revenues will go to the operating budget.

I thought I had heard something like that. I think in passing someone replied to the tune of "Yeah, we're going to have a nice, modern, well maintained system but we're not going to have anybody to operate the equipment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

You're just going along with whatever the MTA proposal, figuring that they know what they're doing, and that they're justified in everything they're doing. You're using every MTA talking point and anything that sticks to defend the proposal and the agencies intentions as a good thing....

51 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

You're just coming off as a shill by defending the plans from head to toe without seeing any kind of faults whatsoever.....

I've came to the same conclusion.... There's concurring with the plan, and then there's a blatant blind defense & rationalization for everything....

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The redesigns are “cost neutral” so far (save Staten Island) because the (MTA) currently has not been given any more funding for them. HOWEVER, part of that is because lawmakers worked to create the lockbox, which will “lock funding” that can only be used for transportation for the (MTA). Between that and the monies that they will receive from congestion pricing, estimated to be in the BILLIONS every year, the thinking is that they will have ongoing, substantial funding sources that will allow them to run more service over time.

When you have to keep bringing up that the plan was cost neutral, chances are that it isn't.... These redesigns aren't much more than ploys to facilitate service cuts.... Given the history when it comes to supplying bus service, I'm not convinced that there's going to be this sudden act of benevolence with whatever funds they end up accruing...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I mentioned the (J) because that's the most used of the interborough options , but I never said it was the only option. 

Downtown Jamaica is very walkable in the sense the places are close by to each other (and the bus routes). If people were really walking once the routes hit Jamaica, a lot more routes would be terminating near 165th Street, Jamaica Center, or Sutphin Boulevard, and there would be nothing traveling on Jamaica Avenue & Hillside Avenues. 

Huh? So you're going from 'They don't need the service' to 'It is

not a service cut'. How do you explain the loss of overnight service on the Q2 and Q4 then? 

A service cut is a service cut. Those people east of Springfield will see a service cut. There's a loss in network coverage. Doesn't matter if you split it into five routes. 

You're the one bringing up making a fuss about how people do all this walking to the bus and then use driving distance to make an argument about service being so close to each other, which again, comes off as disingenuous, and also says a lot.  Okay, so 10 minutes is not 2 minutes, and that's not even considering people who live further away from Francis Lewis Boulevard (which like you yourself mentioned, is the majority of people)

If the buses all go to Jamaica, what's the point of going to Francis Lewis Boulevard to catch the QT73 and waiting for a service passing every 20 minutes, just to go 2 minutes at max? Like, at least make a rational argument with this. Most of them will be forced to walk up to the avenue of the nearest bus, then walk to the bus stop on that avenue (because of the increased stop spacing).

It doesn't matter if it was valid, because they wouldn't have saved them under that justification. Again, you're looking at this through your own lens and you're refusing to look at the bigger picture. A lot of these changes are service cuts, and certain areas are hit pretty bad. The MTA doesn't care for a second about subway GOs, because subway shuttles cost less to operate during the year compared to a 24/7 bus line.

You're just going along with whatever the MTA proposal, figuring that they know what they're doing, and that they're justified in everything they're doing. You're using every MTA talking point and anything that sticks to defend the proposal and the agencies intentions as a good thing. That's definently not the case overall, and I'm not the only one who's expressing those statements. 

My Reply got lost, so I'm doing a quick reply this time.

You're mixing up things we were talking about.

We were talking about Hillside Ave. It's going to have 3 routes. 2 run all night one doesn't. The one that doesn't barely has (if at all) any ridership after it's scheduled to end, so they're going to run the other two routes at 30 and 60 min headway. 

I was using an example that if you're on the QT71, then every two mins there's a transfer to a route that takes you to Jamaica if you really wanted to go there.

I know that these are cuts in some instances, but if the routes have extremely low usage late nite then it doesn't really affect anything. Like if a route literally showed NO ridership after 10PM people would still complain on the behalf of others.

If for example,  NYC wanted to turn off highway lights after midnight to save on energy costs, people would come out of the woodworks to complain on the behalf of others, while they're usually in bed, or don't even drive.  Where in reality it wouldn't matter much because cars have headlights, and majority of highways nation wide have no lighting, including those in the metro area.

 

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I've came to the same conclusion.... There's concurring with the plan, and then there's a blatant blind defense & rationalization for everything....

 

I see the rationale behind the route designs, and see the usefulness of a few routes (eastern Queens) that would have been useful for trips I've taken and would be useful for future trips, not a fan of "the entire plan has to be stopped" view.

Also, playing devils advocate to see if things are really as apocalyptic as some are making it out to be? 

Some random examples

  • Bus lanes are going to destroy Woodhaven Blvd!
  • Don't merge the (V) and (M) , Maspeth users are going to lose a one seat ride to Broad St and 2nd Ave is going to lose service, it's a service cut!
  • No 14th St Bus way, it's going to increase traffic!
  • (non transit) Please postpone the digital broadcast switch over, there are some people with old TVs! 
  • etc etc.

I bet the (L) shutdown wouldn't have even been that bad. 

Edited by N6 Limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

Everyone doesn't have money for the LIRR. People WILL go to the (A) train if was quick and convenient way to do so people DO want to go to Brooklyn, and not necessarily via the (J) train.

The topic was "who's trying to get to the (A) train." There is latent demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RR503 said:

$0 of congestion pricing revenues will go to the operating budget. It's being bonded to pay for the shiny new objects in the 50 billion dollar capital plan. The operating budget remains in tatters. 

As for the lockbox, the bill as written merely prevents funding from being removed from the MTA, it doesn't guarantee any adds. The long-term utility of just more money is questionable at any rate; MTA's operating costs on a per service-hour basis as well as in aggregate have been escalating wildly ahead of inflation over the past decade or so. Without adequate cost controls and resource prioritization, adding more would just amount to kicking the can down the road. 

Well I have been trying to figure out how they could receive monies that could be allocated specifically to their operating budget? Sure monies were definitely needed for that capital plan, but what exactly would that $50 million go for from the Outer borough Transit fund if not towards more service? That’s what it is supposed to be for... I just found out that they found $2 million dollars for the Bronx local bus plan, so where did they find that money from? Previously, they claimed the plan would be cost neutral....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Also, playing devils advocate to see are things really as apocalyptic as some are making it out to be? 

Some random examples

  • Bus lanes are going to destroy Woodhaven Blvd!
  • Don't merge the (V) and (M) , Maspeth users are going to lose a one seat ride to Broad St and 2nd Ave is going to lose service, it's a service cut!
  • No 14th St Bus way, it's going to increase traffic!
  • (non transit) Please postpone the digital broadcast switch over, there are some people with old TVs! 
  • etc etc.

I bet the (L) shutdown wouldn't have even been that bad. 

1. Literally only one person on this forum complains/complained about bus lanes on Woodhaven the most.
2. The only ones (on this forum) who complained about the M/V merge were rail buffs that preferred the V staying over the M.
3. I'm not sure who was against the busway on this forum. The only group of people who were vocal about it were people on the West Side.

Edited by Cait Sith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

The topic was "who's trying to get to the (A) train." There is latent demand.

If that were true, we'd see far more people talking about Rockaway Boulevard. The fact that it hasn't been brought up says a lot.

This "latent demand" that you're just now spouting (from your ass to save your ass, as far as I'm concerned) has middling support, at best.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I see the rationale behind the route designs, and see the usefulness of a few routes (eastern Queens) that would have been useful for trips I've taken and would be useful for future trips, not a fan of "the entire plan has to be stopped" view.

Also, playing devils advocate to see if things are really as apocalyptic as some are making it out to be? 

Some random examples

  • Bus lanes are going to destroy Woodhaven Blvd!
  • Don't merge the (V) and (M) , Maspeth users are going to lose a one seat ride to Broad St and 2nd Ave is going to lose service, it's a service cut!
  • No 14th St Bus way, it's going to increase traffic!
  • (non transit) Please postpone the digital broadcast switch over, there are some people with old TVs! 
  • etc etc.

I bet the (L) shutdown wouldn't have even been that bad. 

30 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

1. Literally only one person on this forum complains/complained about bus lanes on Woodhaven the most.
2. The only ones (on this forum) who complained about the M/V merge were rail buffs that preferred the V staying over the M.
3. I'm not sure who was against the busway on this forum. The only group of people who were vocal about it were people on the West Side.

None of those random examples has anything to do with this draft plan for this redesign anyway....

The implication being made is that people are complaining for the sake of complaining, which is straight up baseless & disingenuous....

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lex said:

If that were true, we'd see far more people talking about Rockaway Boulevard. The fact that it hasn't been brought up says a lot.

This "latent demand" that you're just now spouting (from your ass to save your ass, as far as I'm concerned) has middling support, at best.

Rockaway Blvd Station? or the Rockaway Blvd bus Rt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, N6 Limited said:

Rockaway Blvd Station? or the Rockaway Blvd bus Rt?

The street.

Of course I'm talking about the damn station.

  • LMAO! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lex said:

The street.

Of course I'm talking about the damn station.

And there's valid reason why it's not being brought up.

For instance, you'll find more people taking the current day Q7 or Q41 at Rockaway over the Q112. There's more passengers boarding in-between Rockaway and Lefferts than at the Rockaway Blvd Station itself. The only time the Q112 will even look packed at Rockaway Blvd is mostly when school is dismissed or starting for the day. Outside of those hours/days, you can clearly, and easily see which routes the majority of those riders will choose.

With the Q41 no longer existing under this plan, they'll all be forced to take the abomination known as the QT67. The only (good?) thing about this QT67 is that Liberty Avenue is getting 24/7 service by way of 60 minute headways(which means only two buses will be on the line), something that literally no one has asked for.

(I clearly dragged this on for too long, lets move on to something else lol).

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

The Mayor today stated that he will not contribute one more penny until the MTA receives a complete audit. That is what I call "chutzpah!"

The MTA is already the most audited agency in the whole state, so demanding another audit is a bit disingenuous.  Plus, the politicians who loudly demand audits never discuss one key finding: how much the MTA has to spend on audits.

 

 

6 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

That would be nice if they could do that before enacting more and more taxes, fees and toll hikes

State law actually requires fare and toll increases every two years. It was part of the 2010 "bailout" passed by the same state legislators who now complain that the MTA is actually complying with their law.

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

They wanted to minimize redundant routes so breaking it off Hillside ASAP is probably the result of that, also the Shopping Center is a source of jobs, the Remix app has that information.  By going past the shopping center and to the Hospital it increases the value of the network.

I get minimizing redundancy but there comes a point where you're just shooting yourself in the foot. 24 minute off-peak headways on a densely populated corridor doesn't make sense. It was the MTA themselves who seemed to prefer frequency over coverage and this is the opposite. (Either way, you can route the QT34 to the hospital, that's fine and will be a benefit)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

What about the elimination of the Little Neck Parkway extension of the Q36?

It's a moot point. People would rather travel east on the n22 or 24 to catch the n25 at New Hyde Park Road for LIJ and North Shore University Hospital, and Northern Blvd, or use the same n24 on Jericho Turnpike for Jamaica travel. The n24 always gets crowded whenever the Q36 doesn't show up.

As for the Q36, it's now in an awkward position where Floral Park wants to oust that route off 257th so they can eliminate some stops along Jericho. 

In short, more people around the 257th-268th Street area would rather take the n22 and n24 into Queens for a faster commute than wait for the Q36 and Q43 to go into service. 

 

 

Edited by NY1635

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

And there's valid reason why it's not being brought up.

For instance, you'll find more people taking the current day Q7 or Q41 at Rockaway over the Q112. There's more passengers boarding in-between Rockaway and Lefferts than at the Rockaway Blvd Station itself. The only time the Q112 will even look packed at Rockaway Blvd is mostly when school is dismissed or starting for the day. Outside of those hours/days, you can clearly, and easily see which routes the majority of those riders will choose.

With the Q41 no longer existing under this plan, they'll all be forced to take the abomination known as the QT67. The only (good?) thing about this QT67 is that Liberty Avenue is getting 24/7 service by way of 60 minute headways(which means only two buses will be on the line), something that literally no one has asked for.

(I clearly dragged this on for too long, lets move on to something else lol).

The QT67 is just the Q112 taken off South Road and put on Liberty Avenue. 

The Redesign would rather have the Q111, Q113/114, what I think is the Q85 traveling on Guy Brewer and branching off at Baisley, Farmers and 147th Avenue to balance the loads.

IIRC, Q111, 113/114 get usage at Hillside-Parsons, Jamaica Center, York College, Rochdale Village (Guy Brewer Side), 147th Avenue, Five Towns Shopping Center, and Far Rockaway at Mott Avenue and Seagirt.

The Q85 gets usage around the Beddell Street side of Rochdale Village with neither covering 137th Avenue or Baisley Blvd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

It's a moot point. People would rather travel east on the n22 or 24 to catch the n25 at New Hyde Park Road for LIJ and North Shore University Hospital, and Northern Blvd, or use the same n24 on Jericho Turnpike for Jamaica travel. The n24 always gets crowded whenever the Q36 doesn't show up.

As for the Q36, it's now in an awkward position where Floral Park wants to oust that route off 257th so they can eliminate some stops along Jericho. 

In short, more people around the 257th-268th Street area would rather take the n22 and n24 into Queens for a faster commute than wait for the Q36 and Q43 to go into service.

The guy's asking about coverage along Little Neck Pkwy. & you're making a point out of riders using NICE bus routes over the MTA routes for east-west travel.....

Service along LNP may be debatable, but your point here is f***ing irrelevant.....

11 hours ago, Cain said:

Dumb question(s):

  • What does the Runtime metric on the Remix map of the redesign mean? Is that the entire round trip plus the layover time?
  • Layover I assume means how long a bus would wait at the terminus before leaving?
  • How is the Speed metric calculated? It seems really slow to be honest, even during rush hour - for some of the lines.

tVfFaq.jpg

* The runtime stat is indicative of that of a roundtrip.... Layover time doesn't factor into it....
There's an ellipsis button on the right-most edge of each row... You click that & it states "Type   Roundtrip"....

* Yeah, layover time is the amount of (non-revenue) time elapsed between a bus' arrival at one terminal & its departure from that same terminal....

* They're using math to derive by the speed metric.....

  • The route distance they state is 17.63 miles.... Let's use the 5am-9am slot at the example - The runtime metric listed for that slot is 155.2 mins (2.58 hrs).... To calculate distance, you divide the distance by the runtime.....
    • 17.63 miles / 2.58 hrs = 6.83 mph thumbup.png

========================================================================================

side note: Looking at the map for the Q54, it's HIGHLY questionable how buses are getting between Rodney/Grand & Williamsburg Bridge Plaza..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fallout continues:

82781136_2553912901522174_18331392865730

 

The (MTA) is supposedly already planning an announcement TODAY down at 2 Broadway regarding the Queens redesign. :lol:

  • Thanks 2
  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

The QT67 is just the Q112 taken off South Road and put on Liberty Avenue. 

The Redesign would rather have the Q111, Q113/114, what I think is the Q85 traveling on Guy Brewer and branching off at Baisley, Farmers and 147th Avenue to balance the loads.

IIRC, Q111, 113/114 get usage at Hillside-Parsons, Jamaica Center, York College, Rochdale Village (Guy Brewer Side), 147th Avenue, Five Towns Shopping Center, and Far Rockaway at Mott Avenue and Seagirt.

The Q85 gets usage around the Beddell Street side of Rochdale Village with neither covering 137th Avenue or Baisley Blvd.

Something is seriously off about you..... Service along Brewer has shit to do with the service changes that would directly affect @Cait Sith

I swear, you're like the kid in the class that'd bring up Kirby's Adventure when all the other boys were competitively bantering over who's better: Ryu or Ken... You strike me as the kid that got picked on in school & deservedly so, with the stupid shit you say on here..... Highly irritating....

If you have nothing relevant to add to a discussion, then STFU.....

  • Thanks 2
  • LMAO! 4
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And Winchester Blvd is so much higher-density and higher ridership?

MTA's excuse is probably something pithy about runtimes and how a few minutes is gonna push it over the limit require one extra bus and driver.

Quite frankly, I think the area around Little Neck in the redesign has too much service as it is; why is the new Q12 running down Marathon to LNP? Why is the QT87 going out of its way to serve LNP?

12 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

also the Shopping Center is a source of jobs, the Remix app has that information.

LNP is small even for a local shopping center. Starbucks, Panera, Chipotle and Petco are not pulling in even hundreds of workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NY1635 said:

It's a moot point. People would rather travel east on the n22 or 24 to catch the n25 at New Hyde Park Road for LIJ and North Shore University Hospital, and Northern Blvd, or use the same n24 on Jericho Turnpike for Jamaica travel. The n24 always gets crowded whenever the Q36 doesn't show up.

As for the Q36, it's now in an awkward position where Floral Park wants to oust that route off 257th so they can eliminate some stops along Jericho. 

In short, more people around the 257th-268th Street area would rather take the n22 and n24 into Queens for a faster commute than wait for the Q36 and Q43 to go into service. 

 

 

1. That only really makes sense at the county line, where the walking time to the Nassau bus stop is 1-2 minutes. No one is dragging their ass from LNP to the county line just to take a Nassau bus.

2. Nassau runs shitty frequencies, it's not as if Nassau is going to increase service due to MTA service cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The fallout continues:

82781136_2553912901522174_18331392865730

 

The (MTA) is supposedly already planning an announcement TODAY down at 2 Broadway regarding the Queens redesign. :lol:

The (MTA) right now is doing a disservice to themselves right now. A lot of credit goes to you @Via Garibaldi 8 and the people who are holding the (MTA) accountable for their actions. There should be no reason to cut on bus service. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Future ENY OP said:

The (MTA) right now is doing a disservice to themselves right now. A lot of credit goes to you @Via Garibaldi 8 and the people who are holding the (MTA) accountable for their actions. There should be no reason to cut on bus service. 
 

There's a part of me that wonders if the (MTA) purposely botched these plans to cause so much outrage that they could then rescind the service cuts and get more money. lol

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The fallout continues:

82781136_2553912901522174_18331392865730

 

The (MTA) is supposedly already planning an announcement TODAY down at 2 Broadway regarding the Queens redesign. :lol:

Emergency announcement..... LMFAO ! 

Queens has to keep that backlash coming....

Yeah man, that section of Queens south of QB between Woodhaven Blvd & the western edge of Sunnyside would get hosed with this plan.... I'm sorry, but 65th place south of QB is more deserving of a through-route than 58th st.... And to take away the Q47 along & around Calamus (IMO, because you can't nicely fit it into a grid) is completely unjustified.... Too many older folks down in that portion of Queens.... I keep saying it & I'm going to keep saying it - this is just further evidence that the MTA does not know its own riderbase....

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B35 via Church said:

Emergency announcement..... LMFAO ! 

Queens has to keep that backlash coming....

Yeah man, that section of Queens south of QB between Woodhaven Blvd & the western edge of Sunnyside would get hosed with this plan.... I'm sorry, but 65th place south of QB is more deserving of a through-route than 58th st.... And to take away the Q47 along & around Calamus (IMO, because you can't nicely fit it into a grid) is completely unjustified.... Too many older folks down in that portion of Queens.... I keep saying it & I'm going to keep saying it - this is just further evidence that the MTA does not know its own riderbase....

It's really sad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.