Jump to content

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread


Lawrence St

Recommended Posts

The whole Q10/Q64 combo is not a great idea by far. However as a rider of the Q64 from the first stop, I like that nonstop portion from Main St to the subway. Not too big of a fan of the increase in headway, but its better then being stuck with the QT87 west of Main St every 18 minutes during the rush. Then again, riders near Main St will have the QT86 (former Q20) which also goes to Forest Hills, albeit via Kew Gardens, every 22 minutes during the rush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

things I actually like from this mess.

 

Breaking up the QM 24, 25 and 34 so that Eliot Avenue gets their own buses and Ridgewood and Glendale riders have a shorter, more direct trip. 

the QT3, which is effectively the Q54 Limited.

extending the Q55. 

A one seat ride to Citi Field from Ridgewood on the QT58. (my mother used to work there and is thinking about going back, this would give her a backup option)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even getting into the routes, let's just note how dumb it is to #1) rename routes that have had their current numbers for decades and decades and #2) release the entire report with the useless and confusing "QT" nomenclature that they've explicitly stated will not be used in the final. If you're not going to use the T, don't put in the T. This isn't rocket science. I don't know why they had the reinvent the wheel on the naming, and the Manhattan-centric numbering system sort of misses the point with how Queens works. Queens isn't a tourist borough – at least not most of it, where these buses are ridden. Nobody's thinking route 1-2-3 working Eastward from the city. These numbers have been there for decades, mostly coming from original streetcar and bus lines. Don't fix what isn't broken. That could've been the very simplest part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

These numbers have been there for decades, mostly coming from original streetcar and bus lines. Don't fix what isn't broken. That could've been the very simplest part.

Happened in the Bronx in 1984. And in Staten Island i remember the S7 now the S53. People adapt they always do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

hell, SI used to use R for Richmond.

I remember. There does seem to be sometime type of method to the madness with the re numbering. most of the Qns-Bklyn routes kept there numbers. Q24,44,50,54,55,56,58,59 and afew other local routes. That's a conscious decision so there thinking about it at some level.

Edited by RailRunRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QT40 (Q4) will go to Elmont Rd (which is good because it connects to the N1) but where will it turn?

42 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Not even getting into the routes, let's just note how dumb it is to #1) rename routes that have had their current numbers for decades and decades and #2) release the entire report with the useless and confusing "QT" nomenclature that they've explicitly stated will not be used in the final. If you're not going to use the T, don't put in the T.

I believe its to discern which route someone is talking about when making comments or suggestions. If you say "QT44" they know you're referencing the route from the redesign whether you comment on the interactive map, or mta.info, twitter, etc, and NOT the existing Q44.

Edited by N6 Limited
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infamous85 said:

I wonder if we’ll see any route swaps among the depots, and I’m especially curious to know which depots will operate these combined NYCT+MTA Bus routes.

this point is exactly what I will be paying close attention to. there will absolutely be route/runs swapped. this whole redesign is the solution for management to cut & trim runs, and completely wipe the board for which lines "belong" to certain depots. combining lines like the B62 & the q100... will the "QT1" run out of La Guardia Depot? that's what I'm really waiting for. it'd be a sight to see La Guardia laying over on Tillary Street 🙄

i knew this would be an absolute mess. i must refrain from commenting any further. i haven't even made it all the way thru this quagmire. the "QT88a/b"?! oh lord... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I believe its to discern which route someone is talking about when making comments or suggestions. If you say "QT44" they know you're referencing the route from the redesign whether you comment on the interactive map, or mta.info, twitter, etc, and NOT the existing Q44.

Right that's what came to mind when I was reading it as well. That makes sense Especially when shifting thru this amount of routes and data plus the feedback channels. Have to collect and organize all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so it was the X64 that was going up to Dutch Broadway and Elmont Road. In that case, wouldn't Hempstead Turnpike make more sense? Dutch and Elmont is Broadway Bontiface, those church people won't like it that their lot is used for a park and ride. It's a dangerous intersection because of all the speeding along Elmont Road and car crashes cause motorists can't wait. Elmont Road has a Layover Spot by Hempstead Tpke, those people don't even know when the next n1 is coming. They just walk to the Turnpike to catch the n6. 

I'm guessing they don't want to compete with whatever NICE still has planned for their express bus service. 

Edited by NY1635
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a huge mistake for them to just switch to QT. They didn't do that with the Bx and the SIM. People are getting too confused. Most people now think these routes will be QT. Although I understand using QT vs Q when talking about new proposals.

 

Now my biggest problem is with these frequencies. I do not know much about lines outside of Western Queens, so I can't talk about them much. But the Western Qeens frequencies are maybe a little less frequent than what I see today.

 

 

The Steinway lines (QT2 and QT76 to Williamsburg). Okay, so they're hoping these two provide more overall service than today's Q101 (QT76 at 20 minutes/better and QT2 every 15 vs. Q101 11-13 in rush hours)???...I don't think so.

QT63 Broadway (Q104+Q53). Every 10 minutes in the rush. The Jackson Heights part of Broadway needs more than that.

QT69 21st Street. Every 8 minutes peak vs 6 minutes peak (Q69); then weekends 15 mins vs 10 today's Q69. And that's not including the now-dead Q100. What now?

QT74 (Q49). Running every 12 minutes in peak or better vs. today's Q49 10-15 minutes in AM and 5 minutes PM. QT74 better run 5 minutes.

QT75 (Q32+Q39+Q66+Q104). 20 minutes or better in peak vs...... what all those lines do now.... 

QT79 31st Street-LIC, every 20 min or better......I kind of see it...

QT80 (Q18+Q39) Astoria-Ridgewood. It better run at every 10 minutes in peak.

That QT81 (Q19) should be running more frequent as of today. 

 

Edited by GojiMet86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they wanted to do shorter routes, but yet they went ahead and merged the Q10 with the Q64 and merged the Q50 and Q48 and made both routes longer.

The Q10/Q64 combo is MTA Bus/MTA Bus, but the Q50/Q48 combo is MTA Bus/NYCT. Aren’t there gonna be legal hurdles for the latter case?

Edited by paulrivera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NY1635 said:

QT43 is just Q5. Again, it's more obvious that Byford is writing the codes with Canadian Engineers and Brits. 

Sometimes, when you make these responses, I wonder what is actually wrong with you.....

Byford is NOT at the helm of the Queens Redesign, Mark Holmes is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

It was a huge mistake for them to just switch to QT

they didn't. the "T" stands for temporary... as in, the route numbers provided in this plan are temporary. as it states in the document, the finalized plan will utilize the original "Q" prefix for all redesigned lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

So they wanted to do shorter routes, but yet they went ahead and merged the Q10 with the Q64 and merged the Q50 and Q48 and made both routes longer.

The Q10/Q64 combo is MTA Bus/MTA Bus, but the Q50/Q48 combo is MTA Bus/NYCT. Aren’t there gonna be legal hurdles for the latter case?

the 10/64 combo will possibly cause issues between management (DOB) & TWU Local 100 (Baisley/Q64) or ATU 1179 (JFK/Q10) ultimately the routes & runs belong to management/DOB. wherever they decide to send those runs will be the bigger issue as to who will ultimately loose out on runs/RDO's. same thing applies to NYCTA/Bus Company combos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

they didn't. the "T" stands for temporary... as in, the route numbers provided in this plan are temporary. as it states in the document, the finalized plan will utilize the original "Q" prefix for all redesigned lines. 

I know it is Temporary.

But I don't recall them doing this for the SI and Bronx redesigns. So, if that is the right recollection, then my point is that it was a mistake to just start using Temporary now for Queens only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna comment on the express bus routes, because they're important to cover and discuss as well:

General Stuff:

No Sunday Service, Weekday Off Peak Reductions - This has been touched on, but this is definitely not going to fly by. Unbelievable how this being considered given how much of Queens is far away from subway access (especially Midtown subway access). These new limited-stop service proposed in the local bus section aren't cutting it. (0/10)

Saturday Service - I'm worried on how Saturday service would look like, since only weekday service is being shown, and who knows what they'll try to pull off. (0/10)

 

Routes:

QM100/QM101 (existing QM25): Lol at using Metropolitan Avenue. LOL at using Williamsburg Bridge, Delancey Street, and the Bowery. Traffic suicide. Plus, this makes the travel time longer for people who use the bus between 69th Street and 85th Street, where most of the ridership is. Also, 85th Street is being eliminated (bad idea), and the 3:30 PM trip is being eliminated, which sees about 20 people (usually more). Also, the QM25 does not need to be split. People are not going to rely on hourly service (for the QM101). Also, Church street is no longer served. City Hall is a well used stop. Terrible idea all around. 

QM102 (existing QM11): I can deal with the routing change (basically no LeFrak, extension to Main Street from Ascan Avenue). Not a fan of the Downtown routing. 

QM103: Bay Terrace to Downtown is long overdue, I think more or less it's an okay route. The schedule though is terrible, 3 trips inbound, 3 trips outbound, 30 minutes apart.

QM104 (existing AM QM8 SX): While I can agree with expanding the AM QM8 SX routing to both directions in both peaks, I'm not sure that east of 188th Street warrants that much of a cut in service (to every 30 minutes throughout). 

QM105 (QM7): Fresh Meadows riders lose outbound service before 4 PM ( roughly 2 hour cut), and then service between 4 PM and 5 PM is hourly? Not good.

QM106: I wouldn't have even bothered with this routing, the route itself and the service levels look like they were conceived just to make it look like they expanded service somewhere. Belmont Park to Springfield Boulevard to head on the Clearview, then the LIE onto Downtown I don't see getting many people. If anything, it's Nassau residents that might see some benefit. 

QM107: IDK how this route would perform. I don't see it doing well either though, tbh.

QM112 (QM10/QM12): Great way to reduce a good percentage of ridership (even for the combined QM10/QM12). Also, there's no need to eliminate any stops on 34th Street, and having no stop at 6th Avenue is backwards. Also, there's a reduction in service levels and span. 

QM115: This route could end up working, or could end up flopping. I don't see people waiting 30 minutes for a 34th Street bus in the AM, but it might be useful in the PM hours.  Also, same critique with the QM112 regarding no 6th Ave stop. 

QM116: I don't see much ridership from Cambria Heights going to Hudson Yards, nor do I see getting rid of most of the Midtown loop as a benefit. The Midtown loop can be streamlined (similar to the existing QM21) in the AM. 

QM117 (X68 via 34th Street): This could stay afloat, or it could flop. I do not expect current X68 riders to be happy with this proposal, since it basically retains a shortened version of the existing 34th Street trips, with nothing going towards 23rd Street. 

QM130 (QM34 Eliot): I can live with this, only because the meat of the QM24/QM25/QM34 ridership is on Eliot Avenue, specifically the section east of 69th Street. The service reductions though I'm not on board with. That 7:00 PM outbound trip should have been retained, and the buses should still be operating at least every 15 minutes between 7-8 AM, and every 20 minutes from 8-9 AM. 

QM131 (QM34 Glendale): So this leg of the QM34 (where most people are off the bus, if not everyone by the time it turns onto FP Road) retains the 7 PM outbound trip but the other (much busier Eliot Ave leg) doesn't? 

QM132 (QM40/QM42): I'm amazed at how the 3rd Avenue branches of the QM10/QM12 retain their combined levels of service, however this is considering the 6th Avenue leg is gone. I don't believe though, that this would capture most of the 6th Avenue riders. The should be a 4:30 PM outbound bus, hourly headways during rush hour should not be a thing. 

QM133 (QM32): The QM32 route should be left alone. You can eliminate those reverse peak buses to Bay Terrace, but otherwise, leave it alone. 

QM134 (QM35): Going from 8-10 minute headways to every 30 minute headways is drastic, even if the route is going express east of 188th Street (as opposed to Main Street). Also, the span should not be reduced in the AM.

QM135 (QM31): So 10-15 minute headways is what's being given when the QM36 (which would be outright eliminated) and the QM35 (which would no longer stop) are removed from Union Turnpike? That spells crowding issues. With only one route on the overlap, there should be a 12 minute headway at least between 7 AM to 8 AM. 

QM155 (BM5): I don't get why it was relabeled to a QM route, but whatever. As far as the reduction in off-peak service, I guess I can live with it. 

QM156 (QM21/X63 Combo): That PM schedule is a very big cut. The X63 alone operates up to 3 times as frequent when compared to this route at certain timeslots, and now you also are going to have QM21 riders as well? No way are three X63 loads a a QM21 load gonna fit all on one bus. They're gonna have to add more service between 4-5 PM for sure. 

QM157 (X68 Midtown): While I wouldn't want to reduce service for riders, Those last two Midtown loop trips on the X68 never really did too hot. For the last one in particular (9:00 AM inbound), I never saw more than half a load. They should have kept the 8:30 AM though, it did better. They should still retain the 7:30 PM bus.

QM160/QM161 (QM24): QM160 (Eliot) Routing I don't have a problem with. Eliminating that 4:30 PM trip is a mistake, that will not fly by. Also I noticed that for that first hour inbound, the existing 30 minute headway is being split between the two routes, as if both legs (Eliot & FP/Myrtle Ave) have similar ridership levels, which they do not. Ridership on PM buses is almost non-existent by the time the bus turns onto Fresh Pond Road. The most that was needed was maybe a super express for the Glendale portion during the 5-6 PM hour in order to potentially entice people to use the bus. I don't think the QM161 can be a standalone route like that though. 

QM162 (QM4): I figured QM4 off peak service would have been eliminated, but I would have had the existing off peak QM5 via Jewel, the QM6 take Union Turnpike on their existing headways as minimum. 

QM163 (QM20): Disagree with the amount of off-peak service reduced. Given this, this route shouldn't be replacing the QM2 in Powells Cove. 

QM164 (QM2): Unfortunately off-peak service ridership (primarily midday) isn't what it once was, but no way does it justify making these types of cuts. This should remain serving Powells Cove, and outbound service at the very least should operate from 11 AM to 11 PM, with inbound service operating up to 9 PM. 

QM165/QM166/QM167 Fiasco (QM5/QM1/QM6): Making the QM5 essentially a peak route only serving east of 188th Street indicates how out of touch these planners are and how they use only numbers to make their decisions. If they actually rode these buses, a lot of the off-peak ridership comes from EAST of 188th Street (same can be said for the QM6). No way is Glen Oaks, NST, and Oakland Gardens gonna stay silent on this one. 

QM168 (QM15): Disagree with cutting inbound service between 2 PM and 6 PM. I guess the 30 minute evening headway is a compromise for the elimination of BM5 service. Disagree with the outbound span, should be 12:00 PM to 10:30 PM at the very least. Also, seriously with eliminating the Alderton/61st Road stop (last pick-up/first drop-off). That stop gets usage, including during off-peak hours. 

QM169/QM170 (QM16/QM17): Indifferent about the elimination of stops in Howard Beach. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

I know it is Temporary.

But I don't recall them doing this for the SI and Bronx redesigns. So, if that is the right recollection, then my point is that it was a mistake to just start using Temporary now for Queens only.

SI was relatively small in scope and the Bronx redesign didn’t really have wholesale changes.

At least when you put a “QT” on the map there will be more clarity on what you’re looking at.

I’m still lost on some aspects, but at least with the QTs I’ll know that this is the future map and not the present one.

edit: Speaking of, where’s the old QM18 in all this?

Edited by paulrivera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QT81 is a terrible route. How many people from Whitestone would actually benefit from a bus connecting to Astoria? Chances are, most people are getting off or on at Flushing to go in one direction (either to/from Astoria, or to/from Whitestone). The worst part is, once there is traffic on one end of the route an entirely different group of people will suffer from it, going against what they set out to do...

Not to mention the new routes in Bayside are going to screw certain people over, with the lack of weekend and off-peak service. I don't understand what function the QT71 serves, as it connects to no subway stops at all. 

Generally, from how I see it, the way they re-did Northeast Queens was quite sloppy, connecting corridors that might not have much to relate to each other. I really think the number one thing should have been connecting people with the subway at all times, and with these new purple routes that are peak hours only, I think it might make things worse for a lot of people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

I know it is Temporary.

But I don't recall them doing this for the SI and Bronx redesigns. So, if that is the right recollection, then my point is that it was a mistake to just start using Temporary now for Queens only.

im assuming the reason why they're using this as opposed to the Staten or Bx redesigns is because those were completely different scenarios. this is a very invasive, clusterf**k of a situation, and being that there are a vast amount of different components to this redesign, Temporary was somewhat necessary... they better know that people will not be receptive to any of this, so by saying Temporary, they leave themselves a public relations out, so to speak. it's nit-picking, but nonetheless, reading maps doesn't come easy to most, so if they tried to simplify this process while keeping people from revolting in the streets, then who am i to judge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QT24.......just throw the entire route away at this rate. I'm already miffed at the QT5 being removed from 165 and over to SUTPHIN AND HILLSIDE.....as if that's gonna be any good, that's two of my options gone.

QT14, at least they used their brains by terminating it at Lefferts Blvd Air Train Station....I would've agreed with a Forest Hills extension, but to Electchester!?

QT67.....I can kind of see what they're trying to do with it, but Liberty Avenue will be the real factor on how that route will actually perform.

The QT68.....I have to laugh my ass off for that one. Okay, a little backstory as to why the Jamaica Hospital portion of the route is like that and why I'm laughing.....

For those that may or may not know, the J Shuttle buses used to terminate just across the street from the hospital, and would them loop around 89th Avenue and then 134th Street to get back to Jamaica Avenue. However, that was changed to terminate at the Service Road & Jamaica Avenue, why? Because the hospitals had numerous complaints about the buses blocking ambulances and such, especially when they would turn too wide. Now, I am interested in seeing how they'll make that right turn onto 91st....since it's a tight street. If the MTA never got those complaints, they could've used 89th Avenue without a problem.......

QT55, personally like it. It also makes for a good alternative to the QT54, which has become even more abysmal.....

QT3, it's okay, I guess.

The QT7 being the Linden Blvd route is an interesting one, but it's gonna be one very obscure route seeing as it's going to Gateway, especially with what will be the most minimal of connections.


 

 

58 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

I know it is Temporary.

But I don't recall them doing this for the SI and Bronx redesigns. So, if that is the right recollection, then my point is that it was a mistake to just start using Temporary now for Queens only.

Bronx wasn't much of a redesign and SI was primarily for Express. Queens was said to be a clean slate approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NICEbus... :lol::lol:

Hell, the n26 got some competition now, thanks to that QT34 & QT36... A Q43 extension to LIJ IMO was long overdue....

 

1 hour ago, GojiMet86 said:

Now my biggest problem is with these frequencies. I do not know much about lines outside of Western Queens, so I can't talk about them much. But the Western Queens frequencies are maybe a little less frequent than what I see today.

 

The Steinway lines (QT2 and QT76 to Williamsburg). Okay, so they're hoping these two provide more overall service than today's Q101 (QT76 at 20 minutes/better and QT2 every 15 vs. Q101 11-13 in rush hours)???...I don't think so.

QT63 Broadway (Q104+Q53). Every 10 minutes in the rush. The Jackson Heights part of Broadway needs more than that.

QT69 21st Street. Every 8 minutes peak vs 6 minutes peak (Q69); then weekends 15 mins vs 10 today's Q69.

QT74 (Q49). Running every 12 minutes in peak or better vs. today's Q49 10-15 minutes in AM and 5 minutes PM. QT74 better run 5 minutes.

QT75 (Q32+Q39+Q66+Q104). 20 minutes or better in peak vs...... what all those lines do now.... 

QT79 31st Street-LIC, every 20 min or better......I kind of see it...

QT80 (Q18+Q39) Astoria-Ridgewood. It better run at every 10 minutes in peak.

That QT81 (Q19) should be running more frequent as of today.

- Both of those routes (QT2, QT76) are basically a split B24 that has (way) more coverage in Queens.... AFAIC, that QT2 has no business even running to Brooklyn.... Funny thing is that they want to take the Q101 from Manhattan, to run in to Brooklyn instead..... They should just halt that route at QB for the (7) & call it a day... Beats the hell out of having to deal with the shitshow that has the current Q101 heading to QBP for the (7).... As for the QT76, I'm not too sure why that even has to run down to WBP - something like that would be good enough at Greenpoint (G).... Steinway st. is slow enough as it is & it shouldn't have to deal with Bedford/Driggs on top of that.... Collectively, this part of the plan is clearly a service cut along Steinway....

- One reason why I never vied for a Broadway route was for that very reason... You would have to grossly overserve B'way north of Northern Blvd to supply B'way south of Northern blvd. with adequate service..... I don't understand terminating that QT63 in the middle of nothing in-particular along QB, though....

- I've always thought the Q69 was overserved during the weekdays (esp. with the Q100 serving as a complement along 21st).... How many people are really going to gun for the ferry, when it still connects to 23rd (E)(M) anyway? (rhetorical).....

- I hate what they've done to the Q49... One of the most reliable routes in the city, essentially going to pot..... I'd say 35th needs the coverage (to the subway) more, than having the thing extended down to backtrack to the hospital....

- The more I look at this QT75, the more I think it's crazy enough to work.... There's a sizable amt. of people taking Q104's b/w QB & the 48th st mall & the Q32 is relatively popular in Sunnyside... Instead of having people trek up to QB, they're bringing this route more proximate to people's residences.... 20 min peak headways is not going to cut it though.....

- Not really sure what to make of that QT79.... The Q100 gets a fair share of its riders at Queens Plaza, but there's a lot of people that come off the (F) to take that route also..... If I'm going to Rikers, I may as well stay on the (N) (or (W)) to the last stop, to catch said QT79 at Ditmars Blvd..... If this is the route you want to have run to the ferry, whatever - but IMO, the Rikers route should remain along 21st.....

- QT80 I wouldn't run to Ridgewood period, let alone the terminal.... I'd either end this where the current B57 does or where the current Q18 does (if the latter, have it going 69th > Jay > 65th > Grand, up 58th, to continue the rest of the route.... Current Q18 is far more useful IMO than this route would ever be....

- Lastly, that QT81 is another example of being cheap for the sake of being cheap.... Get rid of the Q48 to run the Q50 over it & run the Q19 over the Q15a route, to end 1 block north of the old Q14 terminal (awaiting another mini-protest from our good friends up in the quiet community of Whitestone).... Q15/a is just as underserved as the Q19 - go figure....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
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.