Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Lawrence St]

4 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

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....

Did the Q21 LTD not skip Lindenwood and make limited stops along Woodhaven Blvd?

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

17 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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. 

This route needs more stops. Ridership is not concentrated at major stops like they believe it is, especially east of Flushing Meadows Park. It's really only during rush hours where you see the concentration of people at stops like Utopia Parkway, Main Street, and Kissena Blvd (due to Queens College and all the public schools nearby). Like I've mentioned, I would have it serve 73rd Avenue between 188th Street and Springfield so that people in that area and in Oakland Gardens still have direct access to those public schools, and to destinations west of Flushing Meadows Park. Keeping it straight on Horace Harding is a disservice. 

As for which route would be kicked off of 73rd Avenue to replace the QT12 along that portion, I don't which one it would be. Rerouting the QT33 would preserve Jamaica access for those folks, and would keep the 188th Street portion of the existing Q17 intact, but having the QT87 straight on 73rd Avenue from Springfield Boulevard to Main Street will guarantee those buses carrying air in that section for most of the day, because it's virtually going through all residential areas. It misses the shopping center at 188th Street & Horace Harding, and I believe that having the QT87 run on HHE between 188th and Springfield would make it more useful for riders. Ideally I would want the QT87 running along that section, but I would also want to preserve Jamaica access. 

[B35 via Church]

26 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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). 

People are abandoning the buses now as it is - Have this plan be carried out as is, it won't do squat to stop the bleeding - it'll hemorrhage it.

22 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Did the Q21 LTD not skip Lindenwood and make limited stops along Woodhaven Blvd?

It did, but I wasn't exactly sure what you meant when you said similar to the old Q21 LTD...... Alright, so you mean to tell me that you'd get rid of the Q52, to run the Q52 during rush hours, to leave Lindenwood with just the Q41 during rush hours?

17 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

QT83 (Woodhaven Blvd) - This route is an odd one because it just ends at 157th Street. It doesn't branch out or anything like that. On the bright side, Woodhaven Blvd now only has 2 main services.

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 or Crescent Street . The QT83 should take over the Q21 portion of the QT88 route.

I get the logic behind the QT83, but I still think it should run via Lindenwood to end at 157th/Cross Bay... I would not run a bus along 84th st in Howard Beach like the QT88 does.... I don't see those folks using it, no more than their use of the Q21/41 (which is quite abominable in its own right).....

Edited January 19, 2020 by B35 via Church

[BrooklynBus]

Hope you all signed the petition and are spreading the word. We now have over 700 signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops

[LGA Link N Train]

14 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Overkill in what sense?

If the 's goal is to make routes reliable without making them too long, then doesn't the QT67 go in the oppisite direction of this goal? 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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)

I think you misunderstood what I said earlier. I'm saying that these 2 routes could be split. The QT54 could handle the section between Jamaica Center and Fresh Pond Road while the QT3 can handle the section between Williamsburg Plaza and Woodhaven Blvd. Its a lot easier doing this instead of running a Local/Limited type service along Metropolitan Avenue. 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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. 

I understand the purpose of this route, but I'm not so sure if anyone along 69th Street is trying to get to Flushing Avenue, given that this would be a fast route along 69th Street, this route shouldn't be bad. 

 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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).

If the QT77 is the local route on Eliot, then increasing the headway's, splitting that route at Fresh Pond/Eliot and having those branches run into Ridgewood shouldn't be too bad if the  were to route the QT6 via Eliot, right?

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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)

Does Ithaca Street not count as a potential Eastbound route for the QT10? Also, the QT10 (if you look a little closer) goes into the QCM at the end of 92nd Street, it does however, Terminate in Rego Park near the Rego Center mall.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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

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.

Good to know.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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).

If the Q60 is too long, then I don't understand why it doesn't have a Limited portion? Though I do have to admit, that its new Terminal at LIC/Hunters Point does provide a one seat ride for me if I ever choose to visit my cousin. 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

I view that as backtracking. 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

I understand that this route isn't meant to be ridden from end to end, but the turn from Eliot Avenue to Fresh Pond Road annoys me for some reason. The LIC Portion of this route in my opinion is better off preserving the current Q39 route in my opinion. The Eliot Avenue portion of this route could run to Ridgewood. Maybe make a turn on Gates Avenue and terminate near Wycoff Hospital. 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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).

The southern end of this route seems to bother me a lot for some reason. Maybe cause I sometimes benefit from a Rego-Park Middle Village connection, IDK.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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. 

Makes sense now. 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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....

That is good to know. Also, I don't see whats wrong with Express buses. 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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....

I don't enitrely agree with what colors the chose to signify routes. If it were up to me, I'd color code bus routes based on the following:

Dark Blue to represent ONLY SBS Routes

Purple to Represent Limited and Limited Zone routes

Red to Represent Crosstown routes (whether it'd be North-South or East-West)

Light Green could continue being Neighborhood Connectors

I'd probably use Yellow or Orange to signify subway feeder routes. 

Then, the service on the map can be thick or thin based on frequency. Thicker routes would run more BPH while thinner routes would run less. 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The QT1 only stops at the Astoria projects, 21st/30th, and 21st/Broadway before running straight to the , the , and the .... 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...

Whats wrong with the Queens Section of this route? Does it not make enough stops for it to be a valuable enough service? 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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 on either end of the route, I don't see this route catching on....

For a minute, I thought you brought up the issue with congestion on the Kosciusko Bridge, but I misread that. Other than that, couldn't agree with you more on that. 

 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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....

Not gonna lie, I like this alternative better, but I'm still feeling mixed about the QT4. 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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 - before gunning to Jamaica to serve Sutphin & Sutphin ), 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.....

Good to know. 

[N6 Limited]

13 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If the 's goal is to make routes reliable without making them too long, then doesn't the QT67 go in the oppisite direction of this goal? 

Not necessarily. It provides a direct connection to the  from the east side of Queens and has bus lane access once it gets to downtown Jamaica, It has one left turn to make throughout the whole route and doesn't dead end in Jamaica.  Since it's a thru route and additionally serves the LIRR/Airtrain, it should pick up more passengers than the Q112 currently does.

The Sutphin Blvd routes will be moved off of Jamaica Ave to Hillside Ave, so It will be the only route making a left turn onto Sutphin from Jamaica Ave, with one stop at Sutphin & Archer, it can get down to Liberty Ave without too much hassle. Especially if the MTA lets it use 146th street to make the right onto Liberty.

 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

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.

Yes, eastbound trips don't drop off until the county line, that is why I said "or Jump off at Little Neck Parkway" , I have witnessed passengers board a NICE buses numerous times with the intention to and hop out the front door at busy stops so that they can have a quicker trip. They know the driver won't respond to the stop request, so they are prepare to jump out when someone is ready to board.

A 15 min walk is better time spent than standing at a bus stop for 24 mins.

 

[jaf0519]

While I am probably one of the few people who likes almost all of the changes in my neighborhood, one thing that I am really glad the MTA did is differentiate the route numbers for local and limited service. Currently routes like the Q65 that have both local and limited service always have people at local stops waving at the limited bus that drives by, thinking its supposed to stop at their stop. Now the number is completely different. People won’t be getting on the QT3 looking for a local stop on Metropolitan because they didn’t notice the word LIMITED flash by after the destination.

[B35 via Church]

33 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Whats wrong with the Queens Section of this route? Does it not make enough stops for it to be a valuable enough service? 

IDK, the more I think about this route, the more I wouldn't have something like this diverting to terminate at the projects specifically (I'd have it serve more of Astoria, well north of 30th).... But my point is that the stop selection doesn't do much to attract near as many riders on the Queens end north of the to have this route flourish.....

Basically, I think they're underestimating how many Astorians would use this route.

Quote

For a minute, I thought you brought up the issue with congestion on the Kosciusko Bridge, but I misread that. Other than that, couldn't agree with you more on that. 

Kosciuszko bridge traffic would bolster my point....

Quote

Not gonna lie, I like this alternative better, but I'm still feeling mixed about the QT4.

That's fine, but there's simply more of an opportunity for more patronage along Broadway, compared to 69th....

Edited January 19, 2020 by B35 via Church

[N6 Limited]

With these proposed headways, why does one assume that someone would be waiting at a bus stop for the full duration of the headway as if no one has a mobile phone with apps that track the bus and know to meet up with the bus at the right time?

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

4 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

With these proposed headways, why does one assume that someone would be waiting at a bus stop for the full duration of the headway as if no one has a mobile phone with apps that track the bus and know to meet up with the bus at the right time?

That works only if the buses are running on time, and if the timed connections are convenient. All you need is the first bus you're taking to be late, or the second bus to be early, and all the scheduling you plan ahead of time goes out the window. Also, it's way too time consuming, and virtually impossible to get everything timed to each other, with a network the size of Queens. There's bound to be connections where it's just not going to work out, and any attempts to fix that would mean either running more buses, or altering other connections (and then having a domino effect), both which may not be warranted. 

[Hound]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

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.

You mean N22 doesn't drop off eastbound.

[bobtehpanda]

28 minutes ago, Hound said:

You mean N22 doesn't drop off eastbound.

I'm mixin up my lefts and my rights today 😅

[7LineFan]

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

This route needs more stops. Ridership is not concentrated at major stops like they believe it is, especially east of Flushing Meadows Park. It's really only during rush hours where you see the concentration of people at stops like Utopia Parkway, Main Street, and Kissena Blvd (due to Queens College and all the public schools nearby).

Thank you for saying this. I live near the Q88 and if they go through with the QT12 the nearest bus stop to me would be around 10 minutes away and that's at a somewhat brisk pace. Add in inclement weather and you can forget it.

In general I don't think there should be any red or blue routes without a corresponding green route on the same corridor, or close by going the same general direction. The QT12 is the worst example of this, as there would be no east-west local service on the HHE anymore.

[BrooklynBus]

57 minutes ago, 7LineFan said:

Thank you for saying this. I live near the Q88 and if they go through with the QT12 the nearest bus stop to me would be around 10 minutes away and that's at a somewhat brisk pace. Add in inclement weather and you can forget it.

In general I don't think there should be any red or blue routes without a corresponding green route on the same corridor, or close by going the same general direction. The QT12 is the worst example of this, as there would be no east-west local service on the HHE anymore.

That’s why you all need to sign the petition if you haven’t already.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops

 

[N6 Limited]

Looks like the QT12 would be nice and fast.  @7LineFan You should leave a comment on the Route Profile page that there should be stops by the pedestrian crossings.

https://new.mta.info/system_modernization/bus_network/queensbusredesign/routes/qt12

[7LineFan]

44 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Looks like the QT12 would be nice and fast.  @7LineFan You should leave a comment on the Route Profile page that there should be stops by the pedestrian crossings.

https://new.mta.info/system_modernization/bus_network/queensbusredesign/routes/qt12

I've been leaving comments using the general feedback page and will be attending the Flushing workshop on Wednesday evening. Hopefully it will be well attended because there are bigger problems than the QT12 (i.e. Main Street corridor).

[Eric B]

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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).

I just came off of the 58 awhile ago, and it was nearly packed (even on Sun. night), and most of the people were already on before Grand Ave. (I got on at Queens Blvd. where Grand Ave begins), and nearly all went into Ridgewood. So I was thinking all the more, if those people were coming from Flushing, an Eliot Routing would be better for them, and it would divide those people from the ones going to and from Grand.

(Also, a LOT of people then got on around 69th. If they were coming from the 18, that definitely needs to be extended (QT4 & 78))

[checkmatechamp13]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

People are abandoning the buses now as it is - Have this plan be carried out as is, it won't do squat to stop the bleeding - it'll hemorrhage it.

It did, but I wasn't exactly sure what you meant when you said similar to the old Q21 LTD...... Alright, so you mean to tell me that you'd get rid of the Q52, to run the Q52 during rush hours, to leave Lindenwood with just the Q41 during rush hours?

I get the logic behind the QT83, but I still think it should run via Lindenwood to end at 157th/Cross Bay... I would not run a bus along 84th st in Howard Beach like the QT88 does.... I don't see those folks using it, no more than their use of the Q21/41 (which is quite abominable in its own right).....

I think it's more for the sake of coverage. It's a 10-15 minute walk from the western edge of the neighborhood, just to get to Cross Bay Blvd, let alone get to an actual stop. 

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I think you misunderstood what I said earlier. I'm saying that these 2 routes could be split. The QT54 could handle the section between Jamaica Center and Fresh Pond Road while the QT3 can handle the section between Williamsburg Plaza and Woodhaven Blvd. Its a lot easier doing this instead of running a Local/Limited type service along Metropolitan Avenue. 

I don't know enough about the current Q54 ridership patterns to give an opinion on this. Is the Woodhaven Blvd-Fresh Pond Road portion noticeably busier than the outer ends of the route?

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I understand the purpose of this route, but I'm not so sure if anyone along 69th Street is trying to get to Flushing Avenue, given that this would be a fast route along 69th Street, this route shouldn't be bad. 

There's only two stops on 69th Street itself (it stops at Broadway/Roosevelt, then 69th Street/Queens Blvd, then 69th Street/Grand Avenue). So it's more of a side benefit to those living along 69th Street. 

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If the QT77 is the local route on Eliot, then increasing the headway's, splitting that route at Fresh Pond/Eliot and having those branches run into Ridgewood shouldn't be too bad if the  were to route the QT6 via Eliot, right?

I think that could work.

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Does Ithaca Street not count as a potential Eastbound route for the QT10? Also, the QT10 (if you look a little closer) goes into the QCM at the end of 92nd Street, it does however, Terminate in Rego Park near the Rego Center mall.

The problem is Ithaca Street is pretty narrow itself, and in any case, the bus still has to get to Hampton Street at some point to cross the LIRR tracks.

The QT10 passes through the QCM, but it stops at 53rd Avenue, not 57th Avenue or 59th Avenue, which would better-serve the mall (and also the connecting buses there, like the QT12, but also the QT52/83 for Woodhaven Blvd nearby, and of course the subway)

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If the Q60 is too long, then I don't understand why it doesn't have a Limited portion? Though I do have to admit, that its new Terminal at LIC/Hunters Point does provide a one seat ride for me if I ever choose to visit my cousin. 

The way they see it, if you want limited-stop service, you'll just take the subway. So the Q60 has to compete with the subway by offering convenience, rather than speed.

I was referring more to the reliability aspect of having such a long route (and with the frequencies not being too great, you can't really split the frequencies between a local and limited)

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I view that as backtracking. 

It is a backtrack, but given how the other routes are structured in that area, I can't see how they can realistically preserve coverage on that end of 20th Avenue with any other route. The QT69 heads east along Ditmars, and the QT79 heads east from 31st (unless you just leave people walking to/from those two routes).

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I understand that this route isn't meant to be ridden from end to end, but the turn from Eliot Avenue to Fresh Pond Road annoys me for some reason. The LIC Portion of this route in my opinion is better off preserving the current Q39 route in my opinion. The Eliot Avenue portion of this route could run to Ridgewood. Maybe make a turn on Gates Avenue and terminate near Wycoff Hospital. 

Yeah, I'm not wild about how they went about covering 48th Avenue (I would've personally had an LIC-Sunnyside/Woodside shuttle, instead of sending that route into Manhattan).

But in any case, I don't think it's worth having buses to Maspeth run along the Q39 route through LIC (down 48th) vs. the Q67 route (down Borden). It's longer distance-wise/time-wise (plus, the areas along Borden are more isolated than those along 48th). 

I agree the Eliot Avenue portion should run into Ridgewood. I'd have the service pattern in Maspeth run as follows:

QT77: Runs as proposed up until Fresh Pond/Eliot, but then continues down Fresh Pond to Metropolitan, takes Metropolitan to 69th Street to Juniper Blvd South to 80th Street to Penelope Avenue to 63rd Drive (and end where the current Q38 ends, since there's a lot of apartment buildings north of Queens Blvd).

QT80: Takes 58th Street to Borden Avenue to terminate at 69th Street.

A new route (say, QT89) from Hoffman Drive (basically, Queens Center Mall, Woodhaven/Queens Blvd, etc) to Ridgewood (I like your idea of running it via Gates. I'm sure the B13 route will be looked at during the Brooklyn redesign) via Eliot Avenue.

Keep the Q29 as-is south of Queens Center Mall (call it QT90 for now, QCM-Myrtle/81st)

Restructure the Q47 (call it QT91 for now) and run it from Atlas Park Mall to Woodside via 80th Street-Grand Avenue-79th Street-Calamus Avenue/Maurice Avenue-65th Place-Woodside Avenue.

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

IDK, the more I think about this route, the more I wouldn't have something like this diverting to terminate at the projects specifically (I'd have it serve more of Astoria, well north of 30th).... But my point is that the stop selection doesn't do much to attract near as many riders on the Queens end north of the to have this route flourish.....

Basically, I think they're underestimating how many Astorians would use this route.

I think that diversion to the Astoria Houses is to cover Q103 riders seeking the  . But yes, I do agree that they need to add 36th Avenue (for the Ravenswood Houses and QT78 connection). Honestly, though, with all of their focus on bringing people to the subway, I'm surprised they even came out with this route (in terms of travel time, I don't see how it would be much faster than taking the QT69 over to the ). It will be interesting to see what they have planned for the Brooklyn end (will they actually have a local complement for the B62 riders?)

Honestly, I think the money used for this route could've been better-used towards fixing some of the span/frequency issues they created in other portions of the network.

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

With these proposed headways, why does one assume that someone would be waiting at a bus stop for the full duration of the headway as if no one has a mobile phone with apps that track the bus and know to meet up with the bus at the right time?

Traditionally, planners would assume the average passenger waits half the headway (the passengers who "barely make" the bus balance out those who "barely miss" the bus, with "barely make" being some wait time shorter than half the headway, and "barely miss" being some wait time longer than half the headway). But yes, real-time information does come into play to an extent. The thing is, though, that you can only plan so far. If your commute involved making a transfer, and you miss your intended bus, you may be able to take a different one (whether at that stop, or staying on the bus/train to a different stop) and walk further, but it is still adding some time to your trip.

1 hour ago, Eric B said:

I just came off of the 58 awhile ago, and it was nearly packed (even on Sun. night), and most of the people were already on before Grand Ave. (I got on at Queens Blvd. where Grand Ave begins), and nearly all went into Ridgewood. So I was thinking all the more, if those people were coming from Flushing, an Eliot Routing would be better for them, and it would divide those people from the ones going to and from Grand.

(Also, a LOT of people then got on around 69th. If they were coming from the 18, that definitely needs to be extended (QT4 & 78))

Interesting. I suppose if it were combined with @B35 via Church's suggestion of sending the QT4 via Broadway, it could work out (of course, the QT78 would need a service boost. I don't even think it has enough service proposed now, even with the QT4 helping it out on 69th Street). Then you still have a blue route along Grand, and you make the Ridgewood-Flushing route even quicker.

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think it's more for the sake of coverage. It's a 10-15 minute walk from the western edge of the neighborhood, just to get to Cross Bay Blvd, let alone get to an actual stop. 

I'm quite sure it is.

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't know enough about the current Q54 ridership patterns to give an opinion on this. Is the Woodhaven Blvd-Fresh Pond Road portion noticeably busier than the outer ends of the route?

By itself? Not in the slightest....

The Q54 needs to be split, but I wouldn't have both splits have that much overlap.... While Brooklyn riders tend to not use it past Woodhaven, you could get away with the Brooklyn split running no further east than having it connect with the .... Combining the Brooklyn portion with the Rego Park leg of the Q38 would also suffice......

IDK, Ideally, something going from WBP via Met > FP > Myrtle, to Woodhaven I would favor, over having each split of the Q54 overlap b/w Woodhaven & Fresh Pond.... There is a sizable amt. of Middle Village riders that take Q54's to the & I'm quite sure Glendale riders would appreciate a] a quicker trek to/from the & 2] quite frankly, more service / some HELP..... The Q55 is a good route, but my god, it is not uncommon to have bunches of threes (or even fours) - and then nothing for like a half hour plus.....

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Yeah, I'm not wild about how they went about covering 48th Avenue (I would've personally had an LIC-Sunnyside/Woodside shuttle, instead of sending that route into Manhattan).

But in any case, I don't think it's worth having buses to Maspeth run along the Q39 route through LIC (down 48th) vs. the Q67 route (down Borden). It's longer distance-wise/time-wise (plus, the areas along Borden are more isolated than those along 48th). 

I agree the Eliot Avenue portion should run into Ridgewood. I'd have the service pattern in Maspeth run as follows:

QT77: Runs as proposed up until Fresh Pond/Eliot, but then continues down Fresh Pond to Metropolitan, takes Metropolitan to 69th Street to Juniper Blvd South to 80th Street to Penelope Avenue to 63rd Drive (and end where the current Q38 ends, since there's a lot of apartment buildings north of Queens Blvd).

QT80: Takes 58th Street to Borden Avenue to terminate at 69th Street.

I don't care for the the fact they opted to have a 58th st route over a 48th st route in industrial Maspeth.... The QT77 (as Cait Sith would say) needs to be thrown away.... Combining the western portion of the Q67 with the Q39 portion b/w Rust & Eliot, to run it along the Eliot leg of the Q38 to QB, is just plain stupid to me......

Being that they created a 69th st route, I would've still kept the Q18 around (with the exception that it would operate along 65th pl. <> Hamilton pl. between Woodside & Grand, en route to its current terminal in Maspeth), over shifting it to run down 58th, en route to Ridgewood.... Worst case scenario, I would have the QT80 (as proposed) run down to Laurel Hill & then turn off Laurel Hill to end over at 60th st.... Buses would turnaround at 61st to access the other side of Laurel Hill that's divided by the BQE...

The QT75 I don't necessarily have a problem with (I would have it cover a little bit more of Northern though, as to attract more residents to it)... But on top of it, I still think it would be dope/useful to have a 48th st route (from Northern / from the mall) serve Sunnyside & industrial Maspeth, before having it connect to the ....

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Honestly, I think the money used for this route [QT1] could've been better-used towards fixing some of the span/frequency issues they created in other portions of the network.

That's just it - I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but I'm pretty positive this route was concocted with the mindset of getting a jump/headstart on the market that that BQX aims to cater to... If I had it like that, I'd throw money at a bus route transporting folks between Astoria/LIC & Downtown Brooklyn too....

[NY1635]

I am struggling to understand how they managed to forget that North Shore Towers, Redfern and Wavecrest, Rochdale Village, and Lefrak City, and Breezy Point exists. 

[N6 Limited]

Maybe they should just connect the  to the Astoria El. It's a straight shot after Ct Square.

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church 61st Street is a pedestrian bridge. Do you mean they would turn around on Hamilton Place? (And would this be in case the Q18 couldn't be maintained on 65th Place, or in addition to it?)

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

I am struggling to understand how they managed to forget that North Shore Towers, Redfern and Wavecrest, Rochdale Village, and Lefrak City, and Breezy Point exists. 

 

Don't count on North Shore Towers management ever allowing local buses onto its property.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

I am struggling to understand how they managed to forget that North Shore Towers, Redfern and Wavecrest, Rochdale Village, and Lefrak City, and Breezy Point exists. 

Because the people there totally want big, noisy buses on their property...