Jump to content

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread


Lawrence St

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I would say that's by design; they don't want to invest in the bus system to the tune they're investing in the subway system (and I'm not necessarily talking monetarily).... But yeah, something else this agency is lacking (among other things) is a public figure that is as remotely personable as Byford was.... You'll have those that say that MTA is making so much strides in the PR department, but I'm not really seeing it from a human standpoint..... Digitally, yeah, MTA twitter is one avenue, but being frank, sometimes you want to put a face to a name too.....

As to the e-mail correspondence you're referencing, you would think it'd be the other way around (Byford, knowing he's about to resign, wanting much of nothing to do with anything MTA related, and Holmes defending himself to no end)..... I understand not going above your superiors, but let me tell you something, you see how vociferous I am on these forums.... My siblings would say I'm actually worse in person - I say that to say, if I'm the person responsible for drumming up (the specifics of) a redesign, you're going to see me all over the place (kind of like Byford was).... I have no problem weighing the good with the bad....

Ever since I started hearing about him, it's something about this Holmes guy that's not quite sitting right with me....

IDC if we're in the age of the dinosaurs or the information age.... The simple deduction to make from this, is that so many people can't be wrong.... I'm going to continue to parrot this notion - The fact that this much of Queens is this vocal regarding public transportation matters, to me, speaks volumes.....

Mister Ed's.

The proposed B71 by Brad Lander and echoed by myself in my plan is a perfect example of the MTA not wanting to invest in the bus system. The MTA has been silent on his proposal for about three years because they are afraid that it would be too successful and they would have to use too many buses to meet demand.

They figured people would just divert from overcrowded subways and they didn't want that. When the MTA first proposed the B71 be extended via the Battery Tunnel when Bloomberg forced them to come up with bus routes because of his congestion pricing plan, they only proposed a bus every 30 minutes so the route would fail.  If it would if it indicate that 30 minutes were insufficient, they were afraid they would have to provide more service which they weren't willing to do. 

Now that we are really getting congestion pricing, they haven't proposed any new bus services into Manhattan. If they wanted to invest in the system, that route (the one they suggested themselves) would have been proposed again, the day after Congestion Pricing was approved. 

Someone I know spoke to Holmes privately and used to work in Planning and got the impression he now knows the plan is bad. If true, the question is what is he willing to do about it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2020 at 9:22 AM, Q43LTD said:

I don't mean to go off topic, but since the redesign brought back the Q14, 74, 75 and 89 to a degree, I see the Brooklyn one possibly bringing back vestiges of the B5, 18, 23, 40, 78, 75 and others

Yeah, I don't doubt some routes would end up getting split....

As it pertains to my area specifically, I'm waiting for the suggestion of the B35 to JFK, some attempt to try to combine the B12 & B14, the eradication of the B46 local, some cockamamie split of the B8, and some other route{s} that'll be a poor attempt at phasing out the B44 local in a cumulative fashion....

The Brooklyn equivalent of a Q53 foolish-route-discontinuation-suggestion-equivalent will likely be the B103...

5 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

I tried stop request on Q72 bus after 10:30pm, but b/o refused.

Request-a-stop doesn't mean you get to get off wherever along the route you want & the b/o has to abide by it....

Probably futile, but I'll ask anyway... Where exactly did you try to get off & what were the circumstances surrounding it?

5 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

Also QT10 going up and down 82nd Street and 92nd St doesn't make any sense since it's one way southbound. Is they trying to cause accident for sending buses in oncoming traffic.

Even Yuki's calling the MTA out... haha !

I'm glad you pointed that out though.... Even in an outline, the lack of attention to detail with some of the routings in the route breakdown (of that 400 something odd page PDF of the draft plan) is also something I took a mental note of....

37 minutes ago, transatlanticsubway said:

The MTA really should not renumber the bus routes (i.e. Q52 to QT52).  Its only asking for trouble and frustration.  

If you're solely referring to the prefix, the 'T' is for temporary; the final route prefixes are not going to be "QT".

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I would say that's by design; they don't want to invest in the bus system to the tune they're investing in the subway system (and I'm not necessarily talking monetarily).... But yeah, something else this agency is lacking (among other things) is a public figure that is as remotely personable as Byford was.... You'll have those that say that MTA is making so much strides in the PR department, but I'm not really seeing it from a human standpoint..... Digitally, yeah, MTA twitter is one avenue, but being frank, sometimes you want to put a face to a name too.....

As to the e-mail correspondence you're referencing, you would think it'd be the other way around (Byford, knowing he's about to resign, wanting much of nothing to do with anything MTA related, and Holmes defending himself to no end)..... I understand not going above your superiors, but let me tell you something, you see how vociferous I am on these forums.... My siblings would say I'm actually worse in person - I say that to say, if I'm the person responsible for drumming up (the specifics of) a redesign, you're going to see me all over the place (kind of like Byford was).... I have no problem weighing the good with the bad....

Ever since I started hearing about him, it's something about this Holmes guy that's not quite sitting right with me....

IDC if we're in the age of the dinosaurs or the information age.... The simple deduction to make from this, is that so many people can't be wrong.... I'm going to continue to parrot this notion - The fact that this much of Queens is this vocal regarding public transportation matters, to me, speaks volumes.....

Mister Ed's.

smh then the "poignant" rebuttal to the clearly intentional dismissal of several communities located in what's already perceived as a transit "desert", where these changes could potentially affect adversly is "oh, well they have access to buses that take them to Flushing and/or Jamaica, so what's the big deal?" 

the "big deal" is that transit should be willing to subject themselves to praise and or criticism in the communities they intend to KY jelly lube up for and penetrate. it's that kind of attitude that firmly entrenches the general public's negative opinion of this organization... their willingness to cut corners. ask any employee (myself included) how they attempted to (and successfully) cut corners on the handling of this last contract negotiation(s) including the givebacks they achieved all in the name of "efficiency" (another story for another thread) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

The proposed B71 by Brad Lander and echoed by myself in my plan is a perfect example of the MTA not wanting to invest in the bus system. The MTA has been silent on his proposal for about three years because they are afraid that it would be too successful and they would have to use too many buses to meet demand.

They figured people would just divert from overcrowded subways and they didn't want that. When the MTA first proposed the B71 be extended via the Battery Tunnel when Bloomberg forced them to come up with bus routes because of his congestion pricing plan, they only proposed a bus every 30 minutes so the route would fail.  If it would if it indicate that 30 minutes were insufficient, they were afraid they would have to provide more service which they weren't willing to do. 

Now that we are really getting congestion pricing, they haven't proposed any new bus services into Manhattan. If they wanted to invest in the system, that route (the one they suggested themselves) would have been proposed again, the day after Congestion Pricing was approved. 

Someone I know spoke to Holmes privately and used to work in Planning and got the impression he now knows the plan is bad. If true, the question is what is he willing to do about it? 

There's actually a word for that, believe it or not; achieveaphobia/achievemephobia, something to that effect.... I'll personally never understand a fear of success; not saying it's right, but I have always been a bad winner (and I have my reasons for that).... With the MTA though, I'm not so sure if it's a fear of success, moreso than it is (for lack of a better term) being f***ing cheap.... That B71+ or whatever should've been implemented like yesterday.... Although I will say that I do think there'll be elements of that particular proposal suggested in the Brooklyn redesign (kind of like how that QT1 is (IMO) an attempt at replicating the BQX).... Which elements of that B71+ that'll be, remains to be seen....

The irony to how you began your post, in regards to how you ended it, is bitter sweet.... I like that.... Yeah, let's see if this Holmes character actually has a fear of failure (and how/if he goes about rectifying anything), or if he has a disposition of indifference & opt to let whatever chips fall where they may....

58 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

smh then the "poignant" rebuttal to the clearly intentional dismissal of several communities located in what's already perceived as a transit "desert", where these changes could potentially affect adversly is "oh, well they have access to buses that take them to Flushing and/or Jamaica, so what's the big deal?" 

the "big deal" is that transit should be willing to subject themselves to praise and or criticism in the communities they intend to KY jelly lube up for and penetrate. it's that kind of attitude that firmly entrenches the general public's negative opinion of this organization... their willingness to cut corners. ask any employee (myself included) how they attempted to (and successfully) cut corners on the handling of this last contract negotiation(s) including the givebacks they achieved all in the name of "efficiency" (another story for another thread) 

Taaaalk to 'em !

Again, being that subway coverage happens to be stunted east of those 2 areas, going about marring the existing, respective feeder network (where it applies) is just unwise....

To your larger point though, the grievances that front line employees are putting to the forefront, to me, only fortifies how much of an incompetent, disorganized, iniquitous, clusterf*** of an agency we both (y'all workers & us commuters) are dealing with.... I refuse to believe that the actual end game of these redesigns are for the benefit of the masses.... Nope.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Interested Rider said:

Pardon me for repeating myself, I posted on a thread here a couple of weeks ago that the mayor wants a complete audit of the MTA before he will release any more money to the agency.  This sent the penny pinchers into a panic which resulted in the blob that is called the Queens redesign. In my readings here and in oter places, I see that many of my colleagues have picked  up on this fact.  It is my opinion that the purpose of releasing the changes now was to provide cover for the local politicians who would garner press coverage and yet do nothing to claim after this garbage is implemented and they are re-elected to say that they tried but yet in reality did absolutedly nothing to help the MTA.

For those who are hoping that Republicans will come to the rescue, it reminds me of the announcement made by Chaim Deutsch that he was running for congress this past week. He is asking that republicans and Independents should register (or re-register) as members of the Democratic Party to help defeat the radicals. Most of the Republicans in this city are leaving or dying off and it is the same thing in other parts of the state. As the numbers decrease, it becomes harder and harder to get elected as not only it is the money issue, it is the support of  our media being the unabashed cheer leaders for the Democratic Party,  The problem is that the ones that vote in primaries  are the ones commited to these policies that got us into trouble in the first  place.. When 75 -80% or more of the registered party members do not vote in the primary, the candidates chosen will not reflect the views of the majority, unless the number of voters in a Democratic primary starts reaching a reasonable figure of 50-60% 

 

Here's my take: The State and the City are too cheap to indicate which road is for the state and which is for the County. They were supposed to do this under Federal Law!

Q85: State Road NY-27, County Road Springfield and Baisley Blvd

Q111: County Roads 147th Avenue and Guy R Brewer Blvd

Q5: State Road NY-27A (Merrick Blvd between Hook Creek and Archer Ave)

Q3: County Road Farmers Blvd between JFK and Jamaica 179th Street.

B-15: State Road 27 (Conduit Avenue between Lefferts and Linden Blvd)

*North/South Conduit and Sunrise are officially State Roads

*Merrick is a State Road.

*There's no marker on either Roads in NYC to designate their status as State Roads.

Edited by NY1635
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I feel like that may be "Accomplished" by the B44 local being merged into an extension of the B36 and rerouted B49.

BrooklynBus' B44 to KCC isn't looking so bad right about now....

Anyway, regardless of any stop removals, anyone proposing the B36 run to WBP should be hung, drawn, and quartered....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Again, being that subway coverage happens to be stunted east of those 2 areas, going about marring the existing, respective feeder network (where it applies) is just unwise....

Some lines go to the subway, some connect other areas of Queens. 

3 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

I hear about the plan being cost neutral, look at the increases in late night service, then wonder if that's where the extra daytime frequency went.

That doesn't matter apparently, even though midday usage is low there should be extremely light buses rolling around, no increase in headway, no reallocation of service.

NICE made some service cuts, but the N4 runs all night, every 30 mins until 1:30am, 60 mins after. The N6 runs at 30 min headway all night. 

 Most of the red routes in this plan are at 30 min headway all night. Then you get "Yeah that's nice, but what about that one person that lives 0.5 miles+ from a 24 hr bus route?"

It costs $300+ an hour to run a bus right? Does it make sense to run owl service ($1500+) on some routes for $2.75 to $13.75 total fare?

There's 2 million people in Queens, can't please everyone. 

1 hour ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

smh then the "poignant" rebuttal to the clearly intentional dismissal of several communities located in what's already perceived as a transit "desert", where these changes could potentially affect adversly is "oh, well they have access to buses that take them to Flushing and/or Jamaica, so what's the big deal?" 

the "big deal" is that transit should be willing to subject themselves to praise and or criticism in the communities they intend to KY jelly lube up for and penetrate. it's that kind of attitude that firmly entrenches the general public's negative opinion of this organization... their willingness to cut corners.

All "transit desert" bus riders have access if the meetings are in Jamaica or Flushing, ALL.  Many pass through those very areas on a daily basis. Logistically ,If ridership is lower on the outer ends,  do you want a 2 hour workshop with 4 people showing up?

 

1 hour ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

the "big deal" is that transit should be willing to subject themselves to praise and or criticism in the communities they intend to KY jelly lube up for and penetrate. it's that kind of attitude that firmly entrenches the general public's negative opinion of this organization... their willingness to cut corners. ask any employee (myself included) how they attempted to (and successfully) cut corners on the handling of this last contract negotiation(s) including the givebacks they achieved all in the name of "efficiency" (another story for another thread) 

That would be interesting to hear about. I know there are "perks" but some things are unsustainable. 

 

Edited by N6 Limited
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

BrooklynBus' B44 to KCC isn't looking so bad right about now....

Anyway, regardless of any stop removals, anyone proposing the B36 run to WBP should be hung, drawn, and quartered....

What I am afraid of is that they will undo my B49 1978 change to reroute the B49 to Sheepshead Bay Station to replace the very old B1 and go back to the old routing straight along Ocean Avenue. I can already see their justification. "The B49 loses too much time traveling on congested streets to reach the Sheepshead Bay Station. We propose it go straight along Ocean Avenue to provide quicker trips. Manhattan Beach riders can already reach the Brighton station with the B1 so the B49 to Sheepshead Bay Station is unnecessary duplication."

If that were the case, I never would have proposed the change in the first place. While there is traffic congestion that I won't deny, it is only for a few hours a day and also varies from day to day. Congested streets is not a valid reason to discontinue bus routes.

Sheepshead Bay is also a heavily used shopping district. I already suggested in lieu of my B44 Kingsborough connection, an alternative would be to operate a few B49 buses between 3 and 4 PM along the old route and shuttles to the subway to save time. But as I said, the only planning they are willing to do is planning based on formulas not according to specific situations. 

With all the talk against bus stop removals and how I am against them in general, it is interesting to note that the first thing I did as Director of Planning was to have a B49 bus stop removed that was 200 feet from another one because I knew it was an accident of history and was unneeded. I didn't consult with anyone and we didn't receive one single complaint about its removal. That proves that when you know what you are doing, there won't be complaints, and I am sure many were thankful for the six extra parking spaces created. 

Edited by BrooklynBus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, transatlanticsubway said:

The MTA really should not renumber the bus routes (i.e. Q52 to QT52).  Its only asking for trouble and frustration.  

The T isn’t going to be there, however if you are referring to things like the Q25 becoming the new Q16 I agree. If a route is still covering a majority of its old route it should retain its current number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

I tried stop request on Q72 bus after 10:30pm, but b/o refused.

 

Also QT10 going up and down 82nd Street and 92nd St doesn't make any sense since it's one way southbound. Is they trying to cause accident for sending buses in oncoming traffic.

They just did that for simplicity on the map. On the Remix site it shows the QT10 on 82 St and 92 St, as well as 83 St and 90 St in the opposite directions. Simplicity is also why on the full Queens local map the QT10 is shown to end at the Queens Center Mall/Woodhaven Blvd area with the QT12, when 1) it doesn’t even stop there, 2) it ends in Rego Park by the QT72

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FamousNYLover said:

I wonder why some QT routes that going to Brooklyn have to wait for Brooklyn Bus Redesign?

To retroactively inject those interborough routes into whatever master plan they have to f*** up Brooklyn's bus network.

3 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

What I am afraid of is that they will undo my B49 1978 change to reroute the B49 to Sheepshead Bay Station to replace the very old B1 and go back to the old routing straight along Ocean Avenue. I can already see their justification. "The B49 loses too much time traveling on congested streets to reach the Sheepshead Bay Station. We propose it go straight along Ocean Avenue to provide quicker trips. Manhattan Beach riders can already reach the Brighton station with the B1 so the B49 to Sheepshead Bay Station is unnecessary duplication."

If that were the case, I never would have proposed the change in the first place. While there is traffic congestion that I won't deny, it is only for a few hours a day and also varies from day to day. Congested streets is not a valid reason to discontinue bus routes.

Sheepshead Bay is also a heavily used shopping district. I already suggested in lieu of my B44 Kingsborough connection, an alternative would be to operate a few B49 buses between 3 and 4 PM along the old route and shuttles to the subway to save time. But as I said, the only planning they are willing to do is planning based on formulas not according to specific situations. 

With all the talk against bus stop removals and how I am against them in general, it is interesting to note that the first thing I did as Director of Planning was to have a B49 bus stop removed that was 200 feet from another one because I knew it was an accident of history and was unneeded. I didn't consult with anyone and we didn't receive one single complaint about its removal. That proves that when you know what you are doing, there won't be complaints, and I am sure many were thankful for the six extra parking spaces created. 

Well, you have their verbiage down pat... Lol.

For your area, I think they may (stupidly) try to bring back some variation of the B74SS, extended to KCC... That, coupled with turning the B68 in the opposite direction down there (as in, towards KCC).... Good chance they're going to look to dissolve the meandrousness of both the B1 & the B49 & try to force xfers all over the place.... Even though I'm further up, I think they're going to (try to) do a serious number on you guys down in Southern Brooklyn....

Furthermore, If the Brooklyn redesign is anything resembling what Alon Levy conjured up some time ago, there is going to be far more backlash than what the MTA's receiving with this Queens redesign right now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NY1635 said:

Here's my take: The State and the City are too cheap to indicate which road is for the state and which is for the County. They were supposed to do this under Federal Law!

Q85: State Road NY-27, County Road Springfield and Baisley Blvd

Q111: County Roads 147th Avenue and Guy R Brewer Blvd

Q5: State Road NY-27A (Merrick Blvd between Hook Creek and Archer Ave)

Q3: County Road Farmers Blvd between JFK and Jamaica 179th Street.

B-15: State Road 27 (Conduit Avenue between Lefferts and Linden Blvd)

*North/South Conduit and Sunrise are officially State Roads

*Merrick is a State Road.

*There's no marker on either Roads in NYC to designate their status as State Roads.

How does this have any impact on the bus redesign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

How does this have any impact on the bus redesign?

Too much interstate competition for funding.

It's literally the MTA vs. School Moms and School Boards over funding from the State and Federal over funding.

School Moms are beating the MTA six ways to Sunday with the help of Nurses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Pardon me for repeating myself, I posted on a thread here a couple of weeks ago that the mayor wants a complete audit of the MTA before he will release any more money to the agency.  This sent the penny pinchers into a panic which resulted in the blob that is called the Queens redesign. In my readings here and in oter places, I see that many of my colleagues have picked  up on this fact.  It is my opinion that the purpose of releasing the changes now was to provide cover for the local politicians who would garner press coverage and yet do nothing to claim after this garbage is implemented and they are re-elected to say that they tried but yet in reality did absolutedly nothing to help the MTA.

 

Lots of politicians demand "thorough audits" or "forensic audits" of the MTA, to the point where the MTA is the most audited agency in the whole state. Yet those same politicians don't focus on the results. Why? Because all those audits expose just how much money the MTA is forced to spend on audits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Lots of politicians demand "thorough audits" or "forensic audits" of the MTA, to the point where the MTA is the most audited agency in the whole state. Yet those same politicians don't focus on the results. Why? Because all those audits expose just how much money the MTA is forced to spend on audits.

Upstate is nothing but Deers, Trees and Turkeys. 

They are wondering why the MTA isn't letting a 4 year old drive the buses.

Upstate People will let their Infant Son Drive as long as he brings the car back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

To retroactively inject those interborough routes into whatever master plan they have to f*** up Brooklyn's bus network.

Well, you have their verbiage down pat... Lol.

For your area, I think they may (stupidly) try to bring back some variation of the B74SS, extended to KCC... That, coupled with turning the B68 in the opposite direction down there (as in, towards KCC).... Good chance they're going to look to dissolve the meandrousness of both the B1 & the B49 & try to force xfers all over the place.... Even though I'm further up, I think they're going to (try to) do a serious number on you guys down in Southern Brooklyn....

Furthermore, If the Brooklyn redesign is anything resembling what Alon Levy conjured up some time ago, there is going to be far more backlash than what the MTA's receiving with this Queens redesign right now....

DOT proposed something like the B74SS (which actually was needed at that time because there wasn't a single supermarket in Coney Island when Mermaid Avenue was all burnt down and before Pathmark opened on Cropsey) about ten years ago but with a stupid routing. It was to go from Coney Island along Mermaid, then up to Neptune and across straight to KCC either along Shore Blvd or Oriental missing the Brighton Station. They presented it first to CB 15 before going to the MTA, trying to get their support first, but they quickly shot it down and it died.

I heard the MTA has not viewed Levy's proposal favorably, which is good news. He actually thinks he can plan Brooklyn routes from Paris. By the way, I am friendly with his partner on that project who is a real nice guy and welcomes criticism. He invited me to attend the talk he gave before the Manhattan Institute where he could explain Levy's plan and I could explain my opposition to it. 

By bringing up the B74SS, you reminded me a few of the small things I was able to accomplish in the six months I was Director of Planning. I designed the paper signs for that route where the second S doubled as the S in the words Shoppers and Special.  About 70 percent of the buses back then had broken roll signs and only paper signs in the windows because the MTA allowed them to deteriorate by assigning only six people to maintain all the roll signs in the city so they could more easily sell the idea of the digital signs which were really inferior to the roll signs back then and costed $3,000 each as compared to a couple hundred dollars for a roll sign. 

They claimed how flexible the digital signs would be which wasn't at all true, because every time a change was needed, someone had to manually remove and replace the chip in each bus in the city to keep the readings consistent. With the roll signs only the signs within one depot had to be changed when there was a route change so it actually was more labor intensive. Typical MTA truth distortion.

I also had final say on what every electronic sign would display. I added many possible short turns in Brooklyn like Empire Blvd for the B41 and B49 and changed B49 Bedford Ocean to Mackenzie/Oriental to B49 Bedford Ocean to Kingsboro Coll Manhattan Bch (with abbreviations because we were limited to 15 characters). 

Right after I left, someone changed it back to Mackenzie/Oriental and three years later Norm Silverman changed it to Manhattan Beach/ Kingsboro standardizing all the neighborhoods first. 

The roll signs had all theses obscure places like B9 to Dorman Sq or B68 to Bartel Pritchard Sq which wasn't on any map back then. When I was a kid I had know idea where it was. They also favored unknown streets like they were trying to keep the destinations a secret like using B6 to Harway instead of Cropsey which was more widely known and B8 to Bay 7 instead of 14 Ave. B5 and B7 to Ryder instead of Flatbush are other examples. It was like they didn't want you to know where the buses went so you wouldn't ride them or they were just plain stupid. 

I also changed the run on and off on the B49 from Avenue U to Farragut Rd which was the same distance from the depot but provided 11 extra trips home from the beach at a lower cost because the Avenue U trips ran nearly empty. The Farragut trips were full. 

I think they also got rid of that after I left. 

 

Edited by BrooklynBus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You are trying to get him to be on board with this plan & nothing more... Stating that "he would have to walk after all", is a flippant response to the increased amount of walking & backtracking he'd have to put up with... Also, this notion that the (E), on average, is actually a 10 min. commute between those 2 points is a bit disingenuous.... Don't know how many times on here alone, where someone is making a point out of how much of a drag the QB express is & has been..... Again, if the guy prioritizes the (7), I'm not going to try to convince him that switching to another subway line would suit him better - even if it'll (supposedly) save him that much time....

 

Not only that, but it takes the (E) about 7 minutes to go between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Avenue alone (and as mentioned, if everything goes smooth). Also, a bus ride from Atlas Park Mall to Queens Boulevard & 71st Avenue will definitely be beyond 10 minutes (Woodhaven & Cooper to 71st Avenue might be more in line with a 10 minute bus ride). All of this, obviously not accounting for any extra walking that would need to be done. So not only is it disingenuous, it's just factually incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Do you think they'll realign the B83 to go straight down Pennsylvania Ave?

If they are going to do that, then the B20 would have to be altered as well. What I could see happening is that the B20 goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and takes over the B83 to Gateway Center’s bus terminal that opened in 2014. The B83 would continue on Van Siclen south of Vandalia Avenue and along Seaview Avenue to the Starret City bus loop used by the B82. 

Linden Blvd service would be served by a new route going across Southern Brooklyn to JFK Airport Terminal 5. The Brooklyn terminal is to be determined. 

As for Worthman Avenue, a potential variant of the Pennsylvania Avenue routes would operate along Wortman Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue. An eastern terminal is to be determined.

Thats how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2020 at 9:22 AM, Q43LTD said:

I don't mean to go off topic, but since the redesign brought back the Q14, 74, 75 and 89 to a degree, I see the Brooklyn one possibly bringing back vestiges of the B5, 18, 23, 40, 78, 75 and others

Everything is fine. Govenor Retard forced the state to release prisoners on New Years and they've been causing problems in the city.

It's Highly Implied that Ex-Gang Members that used to operate out of Baisley, Queensbridge, Redfern, and all other NYHA Projects are running amok.

The Mayor forget that NORE, Capone, and 50 Cent used to operate out those areas.

Edited by NY1635
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the B60 and B42 be combined?

13 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If they are going to do that, then the B20 would have to be altered as well. What I could see happening is that the B20 goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and takes over the B83 to Gateway Center’s bus terminal that opened in 2014. The B83 would continue on Van Siclen south of Vandalia Avenue and along Seaview Avenue to the Starret City bus loop used by the B82. 

Linden Blvd service would be served by a new route going across Southern Brooklyn to JFK Airport Terminal 5. The Brooklyn terminal is to be determined. 

As for Worthman Avenue, a potential variant of the Pennsylvania Avenue routes would operate along Wortman Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue. An eastern terminal is to be determined.

Thats how I see it.

Van Siclen Ave is like the boondocks of the development, do you think that would work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You are trying to get him to be on board with this plan & nothing more... Stating that "he would have to walk after all", is a flippant response to the increased amount of walking & backtracking he'd have to put up with... Also, this notion that the (E), on average, is actually a 10 min. commute between those 2 points is a bit disingenuous.... Don't know how many times on here alone, where someone is making a point out of how much of a drag the QB express is & has been..... Again, if the guy prioritizes the (7), I'm not going to try to convince him that switching to another subway line would suit him better - even if it'll (supposedly) save him that much time....

 

 

i have mobility issues so the less the walking is better overall for me.  I have done the walk from the E train along Queens Blvd many times and it is a good walk but it can be horrible during bad weather like snow storms and rain.

The only thing i hate about the E train is the annoying train traffic delays because it shares tracks with the F train. If there is a problem on the F train, it could also affect the E train too.

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.