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

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

QT18 (Springfeild Gardens-Jamaica-Oakland Gardens) - Another route I have mixed feelings with.I understand the Fact that it's supposed to better serve Merrick and Hillside Blvd's but this route just seems incomplete with its odd terminal at Springfield Blvd. My suggestion is that it'd be split in two, with both ends meeting up near 168th/Merrick. 

Why split them when you can just through route it, increase productivity of the route, reducing the need for layover locations, connecting tons of bus lines in the process?

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

QT67 (Ozone Park-Floral Park) - Combining the Q112 with the Q36 and Q110 seems overkill. It'd be better to split these routes with the Q36/Q110 combo taking on the name QT67 and the Q112 taking on another name (Maybe QT8, QT9, QT21 or QT57). These buses could meet up along Merrick/168th or Jamaica Center. 

Overkill in what sense?

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

QT71 (Springfield Blvd) - This route is way too long and could have a negative Impact on Reliability. This route should at the very least, be split into 2 at LIRR's QUeens Village Station. 

No way, this route is a long time coming. It'll connect all the east-west Queens and Nassau routes, 3 LIRR stations (Lauralton is a quick walk from Springfield), and the only part that gets congested is the commercial area of Bell Blvd.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

QT73 (Francis Lewis Blvd) - Another route that is ridiculously long. When I first looked at this route, I didn't notice that it connected to Main Street Station on the (7). Now that I have, I'm a little more lukewarm to the idea of combining the Q76 and Q77, and Q84 to a lesser extent. What'd make this route more reliable is if it had a base headway of 15 minutes as opposed to 30 in addition to a Limited Zone section. Other than that, this route feel more like a feeder as opposed to connecting neighborhoods.

It only shares a corridor briefly on Northern Blvd, how can it have a Limited Zone Section? Also, the part between the LIE and Hillside is basically limited, so the route will have good speeds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wait so they're going to redo the entire draft again?

No, they are going to do a final draft, and then modifications after the public hearing, the same procedure they are following for The Bronx. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

No, they are going to do a final draft, and then modifications after the public hearing, the same procedure they are following for The Bronx. 

A draft is a draft as far as I’m concerned. The point is it won’t be the same one that currently exists. As far as the Bronx goes, they are indeed releasing another draft because the express bus network won’t be part of this current “final plan”, if at all. This plan overall is a mess, and they need to go back and fix it.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they’re going back to the drawing board, which they should. When I first viewed the plan, I liked that the Utopia Pkwy express bus would serve Lower Manhattan, because that’s where I work (New York County Supreme Civil Court at Foley Square). I also liked that the replacement for the Utopia Q16 had a direct connection to the LIRR at the Broadway station (as opposed to getting off at Auburndale then walking a mile and a half north on Utopia. 

Now the bad news: The frequencies are downright atrocious. The plan called for running only three inbound buses in the morning and only three outbounds in the evening. That’s all. It would have cut the QM20 service down to almost nothing. And Willets Point Blvd would have lost express service entirely. The replacement for the QM2 would have run less frequently on weekdays and Sunday service would be cut entirely (Ironically I’m posting this from a QM2 that got to Utopia and Cross Island Pkwy 10 minutes late, so...). 

And the replacement for the Utopia Q16 would run only during rush hours, though there would be the full Utopia Pkwy bus from Beechurst to Hillside Ave to fall on as a backup during off hours. The problem - it’s not frequent enough. And that’s the problem with a lot of the proposed new routes. They definitely need to fix that.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked their idea of having a new form of bus routes like new limited, local, and select buses. I think it would help a lot throughout the city. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

QT3 (Jamaica-Williamsburg Plaza) - The QT3 in my opinion is nothing but a redundant non-stop version of the Q54. If the (MTA) wants some sort of limited service down Metropolitan Avenue, they could've had the QT54 have a Limited counterpart like most routes do today. I remember a discussion w while back about the fact that most Q54 buses Short turn at Fresh Pond Road, and that the route should be split in 2. I wouldn't mind if this QT3 served one portion of the current Q54 route. Say From Williamsburg to Woodhaven Blvd for example. 

QT4 (Jackson Heights-Downtown Brooklyn) - This is another route that I have mixed feelings on. While Brookyln-Queens Connections are worth improving on, I'm not sure how this'll affect the current B57 serving Red Hook. Also, having it run via 69th Street up to Jackson Heights is kinda iffy me. The current B57 is fine the way it is. If the (MTA) wanted a Queens Route to run along Flushing Avenue into Brooklyn, why not a modified version of a route that currently passes by Maspeth or Ridgewood?

QT6 (Flushing-Ridgewood) - To me, the QT6 is the Q58, but better and More reliable. What'd make it even more reliable is if it was routed via Eliot Avenue instead of Grand.  

QT10 (Jackson Heights-Elmhurst) - This makes no sense to me. The (MTA) talks about how they don't want routes to run on Narrow Streets. Hampton Street is a narrow street. Another piece of criticism I heard about is that this route combines the Q29 and Q33, which is apparently bad because Q33 commuters are looking for service to go to Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue station, which is understandable. I personally like this route and would think it'd be more useful if Woodhaven Blvd Subway station was converted into an Express Stop in addition to ADA Enhancements. One last thing about this route is that I like how no one brought up the fact that this QT10's terminals are actually in Rego Park and Terminal A as opposed to Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. 

QT12 (Horace Harding Expressway) - I like this route. Its simple, direct, has a high frequency (with the exception of weekends), and is overall a good route in my opinion. Though to be honest, the QT12 comes off more as a feeder route to me. A suggestion I'd make to improve it is to deck the LIE where ever possible. 

QT13 (Jamaica-Far Rockaway) - This route is okay to me. Seems like it's the main local route of Guy R Brewer just like the current Q113. Frequencies could be better than 15 minutes though. 

QT15 (College Point-Flushing-QCC) - This route is a little strange to me. From what I can interpret, its a Q27 thats cut back to QCC, but extended to College Point. Kind of weird. Wouldn't route it via Kissena though. In Flushing, I'd suggest that the QT15 goes via Parsons > Roosevelt Avenue > College Point Blvd. 

QT19 (Guy R Brewer Blvd)  - Another redundant route in my opinion. This service can be folded into the QT13 and could be split as if it was a Local/Limited service.  

QT32 (Union Turnpike) - Literally no different from the Q46 (minus the Limited Zone Section). Though, since it bears little to no difference to the Q46, then that defeats the point of renaming it since the Q22, Q24, Q35, Q44+, Q52+, Q54, Q56, Q60 and some other routes are still running along the same major corridors. Overall, Union Turnpike as a corridor 33has a greater potential in my opinion. 

QT44 (Fordham-Jamaica SBS) - This is a route that confuses me. Its cut back to Sutphin/Archer, yet extended to Fordham. Has bad Late Night headways and ends at 9:30PM on weekends. I disagree with this. At least with a 20 minute headway overnight, not as many people would complain. 

QT50 (Pelham-LGA) - From what it seems like, this is an easy way to get Bronx Riders to the Airport. What I don't get is didn't Co-Op City fight tooth and nail to preserve the Q50 in Co-Op City? If so, then how many buses will ACTUALLY go to Co-Op City? 

QT58 (Flushing-Ridgewood via Corona) - The base headways of 30 minutes are bad, but the peak headways are fine. The reroute to Roosevelt Avenue is going to be a boon in my opinion. Other than that, the route souldn't be bad given that Corona Avenue, Grand Avenue and Fresh Pond Road are all given Bus Priority. 

QT60 (Queens Blvd) - I disagree with the headways being between 15-24 minutes. I understand that it runs on the same path as the subway for most of it, but that doesn't justify cutting service. I also have mixed feelings about the Q60 being rerouted to LIC since it does fine with its Manhattan Terminal (sans the morning rush hour). On the plus side, the route terminates near Jamaica Center.  

QT74 (Jackson Heights) - Having a route that connects East Elmhurst to the Elmhurst Hospital would be nice, however the QT74 stops short of a vital connection at Jackson Heights Station. In addition, since some routes already serve East Elmhurst near the QT74's terminal, this makes the route kinda redundant. Better off keeping the Q49. 

QT76 (Astoria-Williamsburg) - Another Brooklyn-Queens Connection. However, this route seems like its multitasking by making a Hook Around Ditmars Blvd. Seems Like (MTA) didn't know where to terminate this bus. For My other thoughts on this route, see QT2. 

QT77 (Long Island City-Elmhurst) - While I agree with splitting the Q38, this is not the way to do it. The Eliot Avenue Portion Seems fine, but the minute the route reaches Fresh Pond Road, it goes via the current Q39 and Q67 routes before making an odd dead end at Queens Bridge. Passengers traveling between these 2 points would likely always opt for the (F) line. The Eliot Avenue portion of this route should run to Ridgewood while the Maspeth/LIC Portion of the Route should continue to terminate near the Q39's current Terminal.

QT78 (Roosevelt Island-Middle Village) - This route is overall a bad one and overall doesn't make sense. It is a random combination of routes and it makes no sense. From Ridgewood to Woodside via 69th Street, the QT78 is fine, but once it reaches Northern Blvd, the route begins to not make sense. The 36th Avenue portion of the route could've been easily kept by the QT66 and the QT63 could've taken Roosevelt Island.

QT79 (Rikers Island-Hunters Point) - Not sure what to say about this route. I personally don't think any bus route should be routed directly beneath the Astoria line given how the street beneath is laid out. I'd expect that this route would do slightly better than the Q100 and way better than the Q102. 

QT80 (Astoria-Ridgewood) - While not as bad as the QT77, It still puts the Q18 at a disadvantage with its low headways and Loss of service at 65th Place. The Lower Portion of this route should be combined with the LIC-Maspeth portion of the QT77. Service along 58th Avenue should either be rerouted to 65th Place or Terminate elsewhere. 

QT81 (Astoria-Whitestone) - A Strange combination of routes that no one asked for. At least the QT81 got rerouted via 108th Street and Roosevelt Avenue, but 20 minute headway's aren't going to provide a sufficient enough service. The QT81 should remain split though.

QT82 (East Elmhurst-Glendale) - Another route that I disagree with. While Splitting the Q38 into 2 separate routes is fine, the Rego Park portion of the Q38 route (Now named QT82) loses all access to Middle Village. It also takes over parts of the current Q23 and Q29 routes. Maybe if this route ran to Middle Village, I'd be more forgiving of it, but alas, I don't like this route. 

QT85 (Flushing-Fort Totten) - No opinion on this route, but I do find it interesting that it terminates outside of Main Street. 

QT87 (73rd Avenue) - It's overall an interesting route. One thing that I'd change though is that I'd rather have it turn on 164th Street as opposed to Main Street, and let it terminate next to Forest Hills Station. It should also run 8 minute headway's during the peak hours.

QT88 (Howard Beach) - This route is ridiculous. A combination of the Southern Portions or the Q11 and Q21 routes is mind boggling and unnecessary. My ony suggestion for this route is to simply have it be a feeder of the current Q11 route to Rockaway Blvd (A) or Crescent Street (J)(Z). The QT83 should take over the Q21 portion of the QT88 route. 

QT3: I don't think the limited-stop version should run a portion of the route while the local version runs the full length (that's the same problem I have with the SIM4X/8X out here on Staten Island). But I do agree with you that they went overkill on the service levels (at the expense of the QT54...the QT3 is the overnight route instead of the QT54? Huh?) I'd just run limited-stop service on the QT54 during rush hour and call it a day (if they want to call it the QT3 they can still do so).

QT4: They are going to determine the Brooklyn stops as part of the Brooklyn Redesign, which likely means they will implement both Queens & Brooklyn at the same time (and so we will see what they have planned for the B57). I think the main purpose of this route actually was to connect Jackson Heights to Brooklyn. The Q58 (QT6/58) runs in that general area, but it only goes as far as the Brooklyn-Queens border. This one will actually connect areas deep into Queens with those deep into Brooklyn. 

QT6: I think the problem with that is you would bypass a significant portion of the ridership if you ran it down Eliot Avenue (also keep in mind the blue routes have a very long distance between stops, so you would still need a local counterpart along Eliot).

QT10: The Q29 currently serves Hampton Street, and there's no other street you could realistically route it on (you could have it run on Broadway to supplement the QT63, but then you're making a left turn from Roosevelt onto Broadway, and sacrificing coverage along Hampton Street). But yes, I agree with you (I originally thought it terminated at the QCM, but it doesn't even have a stop near the QCM)

QT12: The thing with this route is that there wouldn't be a local counterpart in the dash portion towards the subway (also, it would see some turnover along HHE, with the schools along the route).

QT13: The Q113 is limited-stop along Guy R Brewer, not local.

QT15: Agree with your proposed reroute through Flushing.

QT19: Those are the current Q111 short-turns, and if they want to run the QT13/43/45 limited along Guy R Brewer then they need a corresponding local.

QT32: I think they just renamed it to fit the pattern with the other feeder routes (generally speaking, heading clockwise out of Flushing heading south, the QT30s/40s-series routes are the feeders. Obviously, the QT35/37 are exceptions to this rule. Though I suppose they could've started this pattern with the QT48/49/51, renaming them at a lower number, but whatever)

QT44: I hope this is some type of error/typo, because I don't see why they would eliminate weekend overnight service.

QT50: The rush hour buses will (I believe they said 6-9am and 4-7pm)

QT58: That's the night headway (on weekday nights, between 12am and 1am, it runs every 30 minutes). On weekdays, frequencies are every 8 minutes or better for most of the day, and weekend frequencies are 10-12 minutes for most of the day. (The other controversial thing is the lack of overnight service, especially if the QT6 will have the long stop spacing along Grand Avenue during overnight hours).

QT60: I mean, the morning rush hour is pretty important considering that's when most people are rushing to get to work. I think even Jamaica-Midtown is too long, and it's good that they are cutting it back on the western end (plus, I have a coworker who could actually use it, since it would now pass by our office).

QT74: Yeah, I don't get the backtrack on the northern end. In any case, if connectivity to the Jackson Heights subway station is an issue, you can always extend it a few blocks for that connection (plus, it would connect the non-ADA-accessible station at 90th Street with the ADA-accessible station at Jackson Heights/Broadway/Roosevelt). For 35th Avenue, you can create a separate route.

QT76: I think it's because the QT79 doesn't run along 21st Street anymore, so they wanted some coverage around the 21st Street/20th Avenue area.

QT77: This route isn't designed to be rode from end-to-end, so it's a moot point. Me personally, I like the connection to the Queensbridge subway station. That gap along 21st Street between 44th Drive and the Queensboro Bridge has always annoyed me (the Q69 only covers it northbound). I do agree that they should restructure the southern/eastern end, though.

QT80: If you move the service off 58th Street, you've effectively isolated that area around 58th Street & Laurel Hill Blvd. I think one of their goals with that reroute is to provide better connections to Maspeth from the east (you can get there pretty easily from the LIC area and all the subway stations there, but if you are coming from areas like Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, etc, you have to backtrack into LIC for the Q39/67).

QT81: I think the relatively short span of service is also an issue. Running from 6am-10pm weekdays and 6:30am-9:30pm on weekends is a span reduction for Q15/15A riders, and doesn't provide the extended span that is needed on the Astoria Blvd end.

QT82: I like the northern end of the route, but similar to you, I have a problem with the southern end (I think the entire Maspeth/Middle Village area needs to be redone).

QT85: The southern terminal provides local service to the areas bypassed on the QT6 that were formerly served by the Q58. I think it should extend a few blocks south to 59th Avenue, which has an easier turnaround, and also provides a same-direction transfer to the QT6, instead of backtracking to/from Flushing. 

QT87: I think they wanted to separate the QT14 from the QT87 as much as possible (Let the QT14 focus on the short-distance riders heading to/from Forest Hills, and I guess to areas further south along the Q10 route, and have the QT87 focus on areas further out). Though the idea of running the QT87 to Forest Hills with short-turns at 164th would be interesting (that would basically be extending some Q64 trips further east).

I think one of the goals with the QT14 was to provide connections across Flushing Meadows Park (Lefferts Blvd riders now have a connection to the Q44 for instance). Though I agree reliability may be an issue.

QT88: I agree.

11 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The purple routes may be a little bit more full on the outer ends due to the increased headway and Limited nature once they overlap with the high frequency red routes. 

I would say that short(er)-distance passengers would opt for the QT34 and QT36 if they're going to one of the transfer stops. The nature of their service patterns would probably increase ridership. But, If I lived east of Winchester I would not be pleased about the bus being too full to board, and I'd hope the B/O makes people move back (although all-door boarding might help mitigate those issues.

The off-peak headway of 24 mins would probably discourage anyone who doesn't need those routes from waiting though, they'd probably have a solidly seated load to the "first" local stop after the dash (Springfield Blvd). There are 2 stops between 179th St (F) and Springfield Blvd (188th St and Francis Lewis Blvd), can you see a situation that would cause these two stops to make the bus too full to board for passengers going east of Springfield Blvd? Because the argument in this thread (in general) seems to be that no one wants to walk.

Savvy users do know how to take advantage of the system, so they may find that if they get into a situation like that, they can catch the N22 and walk back (or hop out at Little Neck Parkway), or the N24 and walk up.

Actually, I just realized that the base headways on the QT34/36 don't correspond on the weekends (so it's not like the weekday base 24 minute headway where you can offset them 12 minutes apart). This won't work out well....if anything, the QT36 should be more frequent (even intuitively it makes sense, and the stats only back it up further, around 52,238 residents/12,373 jobs along the QT34, compared to 59,581 residents/14,871 jobs along the QT36). 

In any case, if a QT34 shows up before a QT18, then I would think most Hillside Avenue riders would pile onto that (remember that even if people don't want to walk....which I personally don't believe, even if others do...those stops are pretty big stops, and Francis Lewis Blvd & Springfield Blvd are major transfer points). 

One way to "resolve" it would be to have the purple routes run closed-door along that "dash" zone (drop-off only towards the subway and pickup only heading away from the subway). But then you're taking away frequency from the inner portion, and frequency is one of the big things they are advertising in these redesigns (and along Merrick Blvd, you've essentially forced all those people on the inner portion of Merrick to the (F) train if they want to take the subway in Jamaica...obviously the QT7 comes into play in the background, since some (E)(J)(Z) riders may actually prefer the (A) but that only helps people at Linden, not at Baisley, Farmers, or Springfield)

Hacks like taking the N22/24 if your bus is too full to board are nice to have, and riders should know their backup options, but you shouldn't be planning your network on the assumption that people will use backup options. Just do your best at providing adequate service and in a worst-case scenario, some people can use backup options, but they shouldn't be resorting to them on a regular basis. 

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Why split them when you can just through route it, increase productivity of the route, reducing the need for layover locations, connecting tons of bus lines in the process?

I think that argument can apply to many proposed routes: For example the QT15 runs through Flushing and will likely see high turnover there, but at the same time, there is only a limited amount of layover space available, and in any case, through-routing does provide increased transfer opportunities, so some people (depending on their precise destination) have the option to avoid the pedestrian congestion in Downtown Flushing. 

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Overkill in what sense?

I think just in terms of length.

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

It only shares a corridor briefly on Northern Blvd, how can it have a Limited Zone Section? Also, the part between the LIE and Hillside is basically limited, so the route will have good speeds.

Plus remember that the Q27 currently runs between Flushing & Cambria Heights, and is far busier than the proposed QT73 (so delays are more of an issue). And the Q76 as-is is a pretty long route (both the QT73 & Q76 head west from Francis Lewis Blvd towards Flushing/Jamaica respectively, it's just that the QT73 covers areas south of Hillside, while the Q76 covers areas north of Northern). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I might be very late to the game here, but since Regents week is here, I finally have time to Break Down my thoughts on the Queens Bus Redesign. I will only review locla buses since I don't know much about the Express Bus Network.  

  • I understand the reasoning as to why bus stops were eliminated, but some go way overboard. Though, I' not going to go In Depth with this
  • Like the coloring scheme to identify the types of routes. It makes the Network look cleaner. Though, I disagree with HOW the (MTA) chose to color-code their routes. Purple for example, is supposed to signify a subway feeder route. I'd personally save it to distinguish a local service from a limited Service. Same with Dark Blue when it comes to LCL?SBS Routes. 
  • Brooklyn-Queens Connections being given priority for Improvements is a Huge win for everybody.

The going overboard with eliminating stops (county-wide) is what I take issue with... Trying to create fast services is commendable, but at the same time, you need to analyze/consider who you're trying to tailor that service to & how good of a job you're going about doing it..... People are not going to take kindly to buses running in their proverbial backyard (lol) that they can't really, or feasibly benefit from....  This is the real problem I think the so-called express bus hater has with express buses - the fact that they can't/don't benefit from its existence....

Your point regarding the route types & color scheme, I'm not so sure I fully understand... What do you mean "how" they chose to color code their routes? You pick a color to represent a route type & that's it..... It's looking like you simply don't agree with the color choices....

To be honest, I don't think they've done enough in that category (Brooklyn-Queens interborough coverage).... I won't go hardbody on this one though, since we don't know what they have in store for Brooklyn yet.....

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Now onto the Bus Routes themselves:

 

QT1 (Astoria-Downtown Brooklyn) - While I have mixed feelings on this route, at least its better than building the BQX. I'm assuming that it'll run as a limited route throughout Queens and making B62 stops in Brookyn (with the exception of the BQE/Tillary Segment). I think it can do better than 12 minute headway's though. Maybe 8 minutes, and 12 minutes on weekends? 

QT2 (Steinway-Williamsburg Plaza) - Not a fan of this route! While I agree with the sentiments that we need to improve on Brookyln-Queens connections and that taking the Q101 out of Manhattan is a good idea, I disagree with combining it with the B24's BQE Segment. I'd say, send to LIC or something and cut the BQE Portion of the B24 at Queens Blvd/Roosevelt or something.

QT3 (Jamaica-Williamsburg Plaza) - The QT3 in my opinion is nothing but a redundant non-stop version of the Q54. If the (MTA) wants some sort of limited service down Metropolitan Avenue, they could've had the QT54 have a Limited counterpart like most routes do today. I remember a discussion w while back about the fact that most Q54 buses Short turn at Fresh Pond Road, and that the route should be split in 2. I wouldn't mind if this QT3 served one portion of the current Q54 route. Say From Williamsburg to Woodhaven Blvd for example. 

QT4 (Jackson Heights-Downtown Brooklyn) - This is another route that I have mixed feelings on. While Brookyln-Queens Connections are worth improving on, I'm not sure how this'll affect the current B57 serving Red Hook. Also, having it run via 69th Street up to Jackson Heights is kinda iffy me. The current B57 is fine the way it is. If the (MTA) wanted a Queens Route to run along Flushing Avenue into Brooklyn, why not a modified version of a route that currently passes by Maspeth or Ridgewood?

QT5 (Jamaica-Brownsville) - I have nothing to say for this route. Given that the current Q8 serves as an alternative for the (A) in different way, I don't understand why the (MTA) would route the QT5 to Brownsville.

The QT1 only stops at the Astoria projects, 21st/30th, and 21st/Broadway before running straight to the (F), the (E)(M), and the (7).... After that, it's set to run to Downtown Brooklyn (with its Brooklyn stops TBD).... The routing makes sense, but the structure / stop selection (in Queens, since that's all we have to go on so far) leaves much to be desired...

The QT2 to me is the worse of the "blue" routes... If you look closely, this route is meant to be a faster version of that QT76....  Problem is, QT2's are gonna be stuck in that same single-lane standstill traffic that plagues Steinway that QT76's would, regardless if the QT2 makes less stops.... The QT2 to me is a lazy combination of the Q101 & the B24.... Anyone traveling between boroughs in that area will be tempted to take the QT2, but the areas the QT76 serves are more in demand for more people.... Save for getting to the (7) on either end of the route, I don't see this route catching on....

Yeah, the QT3 is a meant to be a faster version of the QT54.... I think more people will gravitate to this route than expected, but I do worry that people are going to be met with a cold hard reality that buses aren't going to perform as good (as swiftly) as they expect.... I personally would have split the Q54, but they've decided to keep the route intact by truncating it to Jamaica Center & basically create a local/LTD (or whatever you wanna call it) dynamic.... Not really knocking that decision, but whatever....

I would still keep the Q53 over what I'm about to mention, but IMO, the QT4 would be more attractive if it took Grand > Broadway to Moore Terminal, over Grand > 69th > Roosevelt, to Broadway.... This route to me, banks too heavily on people xferring off other routes (as opposed to garnering riders directly from how proximate they are to the [few] stops it has in Queens).... Maintaining the route's (QT4's) general structure, at best, I would run something like this along Park, via Throop/Tompkins, along Flushing, along Grand, and stop it dead at QB.... I just don't care for the B57's terminal in Maspeth, so doing away with terminating a bus there I concur with.... As far as stop selection goes, well I wouldn't have it serve the same # of stops that [the B57 does b/w Downtown & Grand av. plus the same number of stops the Q59 does b/w Fresh Pond & QB], but I wouldn't have it serve so few stops that the QT4 does in Queens either....

The QT5's Brooklyn portion IMO isn't much more than a Q8 replacement, for the fact they got those QT7's running to Gateway (re-read that if you have to)..... They're introducing a different part of Brooklyn to connect Jamaica with, like they're introducing a different part of Queens to connect Gateway mall with..... I have to be honest though, the Q8's Brooklyn portion really isn't much more than a B13 supplement, so I don't really blame them for taking the Q8 from Gateway... With the stop selection in Queens (two measly stops along 101st, after serving Euclid (A)(C) - before gunning to Jamaica to serve Sutphin (E)(J)(Z) & Sutphin (F)), this seems like it's more catering to Brooklynites than anything.... With this being the only route along 101st, this route for those folks along/around that strip is an absolute f***in joke.... May as well cue the increase/influx of personal vehicle traffic if that stop selection stays constant along 101st.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brillant93 said:

I liked their idea of having a new form of bus routes like new limited, local, and select buses. I think it would help a lot throughout the city. 

This is a Queens-specific thing. With The Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, the routes in general follow more of a grid. With Staten Island, most are already feeders (and many are timed with the ferry, which ends up playing a role in the scheduling). Queens is unique in its heavy mix of grid and feeder routes.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

This is a Queens-specific thing. With The Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, the routes in general follow more of a grid. With Staten Island, most are already feeders (and many are timed with the ferry, which ends up playing a role in the scheduling). Queens is unique in its heavy mix of grid and feeder routes.

I understand, I thought revamping service like routes would help other boroughs as well. I'm curious how they would handle brooklyn, maybe in the same manner as the bronx? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Brillant93 said:

I understand, I thought revamping service like routes would help other boroughs as well. I'm curious how they would handle brooklyn, maybe in the same manner as the bronx? 

Hopefully they do it Bronx-style, since the routes are already fairly gridded. We don't need another Queens mess.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

@Via Garibaldi 8 1. MTA 0. 

I’ve said this in different posts that the MTA is truly digging a grave for themselves with this re-design plan. We all understand that the grid is a mess, and yes everyone won’t be pleased. But, after the securement of funds from the state than to turn around and cut overall service is atrocious and yes especially for queens start everything from scratch again. Good work @Via Garibaldi 8   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, P3F said:

Hopefully they do it Bronx-style, since the routes are already fairly gridded. We don't need another Queens mess.

From what I gathered was that people were more so upset with the wait times instead of the routes themselves. The only place in queens that I saw that needed a lot of work was the Howard beach and far rockaway side of things such as the Q53 being axed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 3:51 PM, N6 Limited said:

They are using data in their decisions such as accessibility to jobs, density,households without cars, etc, which is available in Remix

Data from where? Because if the data is claiming that Douglaston Shopping Center is a place with an active store where people are being employed, that's a lie.

Making decisions based on bad data is worse than the status quo.

 

21 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Savvy users do know how to take advantage of the system, so they may find that if they get into a situation like that, they can catch the N22 and walk back (or hop out at Little Neck Parkway), or the N24 and walk up.

The N22 doesn't drop people off westbound until the county line, and that's easily a 15 minute walk, which would probably nuke whatever time savings this would actually get you if your destination was LNP. And NICE/LIB drivers have never been particularly helpful for those one or two riders who inevitably get on at 179th thinking they can get off in Queens.

 

On 1/18/2020 at 2:05 PM, BrooklynBus said:

The only good thing I heard about the M15 SBS was that it runs quickly after 7 PM. There were also many complaints from local users claiming severe deterioration in local service forcing some to use the SBS when they preferred the local. From what I have seen on the weekends, I think there is too much service in the route compared to demand. Given the politics of it all, it will be interesting to see if Manhattan bus service is cut as much as Queens service will be cut. 

Personally, now that I live in Seattle, the way they treat their high-frequency buses is better.

Rather than have a local scraping the curb by stopping every two blocks, and a limited that only stops every half mile, they split the difference and have all the buses stop at the Manhattan equivalent of every four blocks, so that general speedup is occurring but also you can take every bus that comes by you.

The elimination of closely spaced stops has not had significant impacts in Seattle even though the topography is extremely hilly; after all, Seattle is one of the only cities in the US where bus ridership is growing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Data from where? Because if the data is claiming that Douglaston Shopping Center is a place with an active store where people are being employed, that's a lie.

Making decisions based on bad data is worse than the status quo.

Don't forget census data is now ten years old.

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, now that I live in Seattle, the way they treat their high-frequency buses is better.

Rather than have a local scraping the curb by stopping every two blocks, and a limited that only stops every half mile, they split the difference and have all the buses stop at the Manhattan equivalent of every four blocks, so that general speedup is occurring but also you can take every bus that comes by you.

The elimination of closely spaced stops has not had significant impacts in Seattle even though the topography is extremely hilly; after all, Seattle is one of the only cities in the US where bus ridership is growing.

But here they are proposing stops every quarter mile, half mile, three quarters of a mile or over a mile apart with 20 to 30 minute headways, not frequent service. Who will want to walk far only to wait long for a bus? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Don't forget census data is now ten years old.

But here they are proposing stops every quarter mile, half mile, three quarters of a mile or over a mile apart with 20 to 30 minute headways, not frequent service. Who will want to walk far only to wait long for a bus? 

To be quite clear, I'm not really endorsing this proposal, it's got so many question marks throughout, particularly regarding around frequency and questionable routing choices.

But four-five blocks is a quarter mile, and it works in a city like Seattle even with all the crazy hills. I can tell you that in this city, as well as all the cities in Europe and Asia that use this standard of stop spacing, that the old and the disabled are not being left to rot by the roadside.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be quite clear, I'm not really endorsing this proposal, it's got so many question marks throughout, particularly regarding around frequency and questionable routing choices.

But four-five blocks is a quarter mile, and it works in a city like Seattle even with all the crazy hills. I can tell you that in this city, as well as all the cities in Europe and Asia that use this standard of stop spacing, that the old and the disabled are not being left to rot by the roadside.

A quarter mile is a reasonable metric to use. However, this proposal actually creates gaps bigger than a quarter mile where it wasn't originally the case just to get to the bus route (such as sections of Middle Village south of Juniper Valley Park). With that taken into account and the increase in stop spacing, walking distance will be much greater than a quarter mile. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be quite clear, I'm not really endorsing this proposal, it's got so many question marks throughout, particularly regarding around frequency and questionable routing choices.

But four-five blocks is a quarter mile, and it works in a city like Seattle even with all the crazy hills. I can tell you that in this city, as well as all the cities in Europe and Asia that use this standard of stop spacing, that the old and the disabled are not being left to rot by the roadside.

It may work in medium density areas. But we have bus stops that are very crowded where reducing their number will overload adjacent stops and increase load times. When you have 50 people trying to get on a bus at the same time, there is a high temptation to avoid the fare and go into the back because you know the bus will fill up and not let you in if you wait in the front.

On the other hand in areas where the bus is lightly used and you have stops 500 to 700 feet apart, most buses are stopping every quarter mile anyway, so nothing is gained by eliminating bus stops other than making riders walk further and possibly miss their bus adding to their travel time.

That's why I said each decision to eliminate a bus stop must be done individually, not by a formula which is the easy way out. 

 

4 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

A quarter mile is a reasonable metric to use. However, this proposal actually creates gaps bigger than a quarter mile where it wasn't originally case just to get to the bus (such as sections of Middle Village south of Juniper Valley Park). With that taken into account and the increase in stop spacing, walking distance will be much greater than a quarter mile. 

But if you are already a quarter mile from the route, adding several blocks to walk puts you over the accepted standard of a quarter mile walk to a bus stop. If bus stops are placed further apart like on some routes, you may have to walk half a mile or three quarters of a mile to a bus route that only operates every half hour or every 20 minutes. People will abandon the buses especially when the weather is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

But here they are proposing stops every quarter mile, half mile, three quarters of a mile or over a mile apart with 20 to 30 minute headways, not frequent service. Who will want to walk far only to wait long for a bus? 

I would Uberpool to the subway at that point.

Long term: If I were in Queens and I lived in an area like that and I really needed public transit to move around, I'd move out quite frankly.

Share this post


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

Wait so they're going to redo the entire draft again?

Upon reading the thread title (before watching the video), that's what I thought also....

All I got from this clip, is that this draft isn't the final one.....

In any case, I have zero optimism that the MTA will do right by its commuters by coming out with a plan that isn't suggestive of f***ing over thousands upon thousands of commuters.... Alright, redo the network - but also have a damn clue while you're doing it...

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The QT52-SBS and QT88 plan is just so stupid and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it.

What were they thinking when they were doing this redesign? Did they even look at a map or look at the alternatives for the Q53-SBS if it were to get eliminated? And the QT88 is just mind boggling. I understand that its suppose to be a feeder route, but they've essentially forced everyone who wants to go Howard Beach or Old Hamilton Beach to transfer three times or use the (A) .

What they should have done is this:

Leave the Q53-SBS as it is, eliminate the Q52-SBS, and have the Q21 run rush hours to Arvene (similar to the old Q21 LTD), or have a Q53-SBS branch run to Arvene during rush hours.

Share this post


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

The QT52-SBS and QT88 plan is just so stupid and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it.

What were they thinking when they were doing this redesign? Did they even look at a map or look at the alternatives for the Q53-SBS if it were to get eliminated? And the QT88 is just mind boggling. I understand that its suppose to be a feeder route, but they've essentially forced everyone who wants to go Howard Beach or Old Hamilton Beach to transfer three times or use the (A) .

What they should have done is this:

Leave the Q53-SBS as it is, eliminate the Q52-SBS, and have the Q21 run rush hours to Arvene (similar to the old Q21 LTD), or have a Q53-SBS branch run to Arvene during rush hours.

That QT88 suggestion is flat out asinine - and have the nerve to have it have branches, on top of it.... I find it funny that they broke up two similarly structured routes like the B24 & the Q38 - to only create the worst possible form of a "double-edged" feeder route with this QT88..... Can't make this stuff up....

As far as your suggestion, I think we all agree that the Q53 should be kept, but a Woodhaven local has no business running to Arverne - especially with it running via Lindenwood (rush hours or not)..... Just get rid of the Q52, tuck your son in bed & tell him goodnight....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

But if you are already a quarter mile from the route, adding several blocks to walk puts you over the accepted standard of a quarter mile walk to a bus stop. If bus stops are placed further apart like on some routes, you may have to walk half a mile or three quarters of a mile to a bus route that only operates every half hour or every 20 minutes. People will abandon the buses especially when the weather is bad.

A quarter mile spacing would be be the most I would consider in terms of spacing (with the exception of bridge/tunnel crossings, etc.). I'm not oppose to spacing below that, as I would be okay with stops approximately three blocks apart too. There are some sections which have stops too close, but like you've mentioned before, they have to be looked at individually to make sure if consolidation is justified. Some examples where it would not be justified to eliminate such close stops are buses crossing Queens Boulevard (and making stops on each side on the cross street). In residential areas, it might be more beneficial to have spacing below a quarter mile because of how spread out the ridership might be (and for easier accessibility). 

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.