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

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

There isn't a bus every block in eastern Queens. Good luck walking the "block" between Union Turnpike and Hillside, or Horace Harding and Northern, or between Little Neck Parkway and Springfield.

The suggestion seems to suggest is not enough "coverage".

Share this post


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

The suggestion seems to suggest is not enough "coverage".

False.

There wasn't any attempt at a "suggestion" being made in that retort to your claim that the MTA's actually balancing coverage vs. ridership in Eastern Queens...

Again, for there to have been an attempt at balancing coverage/ridership in Eastern Queens, there would've had to have actually been an increase in coverage in conjunction with the frequency of service that's being altered.... That is NOT the same thing as suggesting that more coverage be had....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

False.

There wasn't any attempt at a "suggestion" being made in that retort to your claim that the MTA's actually balancing coverage vs. ridership in Eastern Queens...

Again, for there to have been an attempt at balancing coverage/ridership in Eastern Queens, there would've had to have actually been an increase in coverage in conjunction with the frequency of service that's being altered.... That is NOT the same thing as suggesting that more coverage be had....

How do you propose more coverage be added?

They have more direct routes and coverage connections while the heavy ridership areas have more service.

Share this post


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

How do you propose more coverage be added?

They have more direct routes and coverage connections while the heavy ridership areas have more service.

For the last time, I'm not proposing or suggesting coverage be added out in that part of Queens...

I'm not the person that believes coverage/ridership is being balanced in Eastern Queens, that would be you... Trying to make like I'm the person that's advocating, proposing, or suggesting more coverage be had out there, isn't helping your case... Telling me that they have more direct routes & coverage connections, while the heavy ridership areas have more service, is fortifying my original rebuttal to your original claim..... The "ridership" model (which is what you're describing with that last sentence) is being maintained out there...

Let me put it another way... You can't logically hold the position that they are actually balancing coverage vs ridership out there & also resort to telling me (in so many words) that they went with ridership model for that part of Queens....

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

How do you propose more coverage be added?

They have more direct routes and coverage connections while the heavy ridership areas have more service.

Frequencies are lower in most of Eastern Queens and the coverage isn't better.

You couldn't look at a Q46 or Q43 or Q27 schedule today and tell me that frequencies on much of these routes is "higher", and there's also no expanded coverage, so this walks, quacks, and looks like a service cut.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Frequencies are lower in most of Eastern Queens and the coverage isn't better.

You couldn't look at a Q46 or Q43 or Q27 schedule today and tell me that frequencies on much of these routes is "higher", and there's also no expanded coverage, so this walks, quacks, and looks like a service cut.

AFAIC, he's trying his hardest to be mr. optimist here, to the point where it's not logically making sense..... This isn't even about differences of opinion anymore, this is just fact - there isn't any balancing of coverage/ridership in that particular part of Queens...

I know you get this concept, but for others reading, If coverage is more or less the same & frequencies are being altered, all that's being done is an altering of the existing "ridership" model out there...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, there are increases in headway, which to me is logical. 

For example, see Q27s all the time south of Jamaica Ave, they are frequent and LIGHT, except when carrying students north in the morning. So, a service cut on Springfield Blvd isn't particularly surprising nor alarming. In turn, there is a full north-south route which serves all of Springfield Blvd, connects to all eastern Queens routes and serves Bell Blvd. I can live with that, especially with bus time letting me know where the bus is, and it's been on my wish list. 😎

As they've mentioned in the Brooklyn and Queens Existing Conditions Reports, ridership is heaviest during rush hours, drop midday, and after the evening rush. So, their desire to have fuller buses at those times make sense. 

Basically, they want to save money and I can literally see why.

Share this post


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

Well yes, there are increases in headway, which to me is logical. 

For example, see Q27s all the time south of Jamaica Ave, they are frequent and LIGHT, except when carrying students north in the morning. So, a service cut on Springfield Blvd isn't particularly surprising nor alarming. In turn, there is a full north-south route which serves all of Springfield Blvd, connects to all eastern Queens routes and serves Bell Blvd. I can live with that, especially with bus time letting me know where the bus is, and it's been on my wish list. 😎

As they've mentioned in the Brooklyn and Queens Existing Conditions Reports, ridership is heaviest during rush hours, drop midday, and after the evening rush. So, their desire to have fuller buses at those times make sense. 

Basically, they want to save money and I can literally see why.

So much for heavier ridership areas having more service....

It isn't exactly some revelation, or "surprising nor alarming" that ridership is heaviest during rush hours either.... It's a non sequitur to even bring that up, in regards to having buses more full by decreasing service during off peak hours... This plan is supposed to be an improvement for riders; saving money by slashing service when patronage isn't as heavy as that of during peak times, is hardly a recipe for spurring ridership growth, or even maintaining/satisfying current ridership during those times....

You use the Q27 south of Jamaica av. as some sort of poster child for excessive service.... The QT71 being on your so-called wish list, is whatever.... The ultimate point is that it's obvious they want to save money with this plan (which is what most of us commenting on this plan on here have been conveying all along) - The question is, will this exercise in frugality benefit Queens bus riders as a collective..... Nothing you're really saying in any of this suggests that it will - which is what makes your advocacy of this plan puzzling, and quite suspect....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 got a response from Werpin
The Gist is thanks for contacting me, passed to assistant government relations and community service , mentions he is advocating changes to draft and mentioned concerns from constituents
And they sent me a flyer for the 2 workshops in the 2/20 and 2/27

Share this post


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

In regards to the Q23, I can understand wanting to have to separate routes covering its respective service areas south of QB & north of QB.... I can understand wanting to streamline service along 108th.....

Outside of being cheap, what I don't understand is the need to have the western portion of the Q46 (and then some) combined with an 108th st. service all the way up to the current Q23 terminal in E. Elmhurst (their QT11).... Also, having that QT87 a] even serving Jewel & b] running past QB, to cover the general service area of the current Q23 in Forest Hills....

Having as many different routes along QB between 71st subway & Union Tpke. subway is over-complicating matters... They don't know how to effectively cater to these riderbases, which is one reason why they're latching onto the talking points that they are.... Making fewer stops isn't necessary to remedy declining bus ridership... Slow bus speeds, perhaps, but not to the tune that they're trying to get riders to believe that it will.....

One thing I can't agree with though, is Collett's last statement.... That maybe true for the express buses in the area, but this idea that the Q23 makes Forest Hills an attractive place to live, is an overstatement.... The fact that the route's been there since he was little, is irrelevant....

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Outside of being cheap, what I don't understand is the need to have the western portion of the Q46 (and then some) combined with an 108th st. service all the way up to the current Q23 terminal in E. Elmhurst (their QT11).... Also, having that QT87 a] even serving Jewel & b] running past QB, to cover the general service area of the current Q23 in Forest Hills....

I don't even think it's likely to save money since all that running between Kew Gardens and Union Turnpike is going to be a lot of wasted mileage.

If they wanted to mix and match routes, I think the more obvious would've been leaving most of them well enough alone;

  • QT87 serves southern Q23 and Q64 route
  • the part that continues onto Fresh Meadows should terminate in Forest Hills
  • The QT14 should stop at Kew Gardens
  • The QT11 should be split into a Q23 north route and a Q46 local route

Share this post


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

I don't even think it's likely to save money since all that running between Kew Gardens and Union Turnpike is going to be a lot of wasted mileage.

If they wanted to mix and match routes, I think the more obvious would've been leaving most of them well enough alone;

  • QT87 serves southern Q23 and Q64 route
  • the part that continues onto Fresh Meadows should terminate in Forest Hills
  • The QT14 should stop at Kew Gardens
  • The QT11 should be split into a Q23 north route and a Q46 local route

The wasted mileage b/w Kew Gardens & Union Tpke. pales in comparison to the amount of service that they're suggesting for/shortchanging riders with, by having that QT11 run every 8 mins. & having that QT87 running every 18 peak/30 off peak..... The QT11 (as was said) should be two separate routes, each having better headways than every 8.....

Personally, I'd leave the Q64 alone, but in general, your solution/suggestion makes much more sense than what's being proposed with this plan....

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Well yes, there are increases in headway, which to me is logical. 

For example, see Q27s all the time south of Jamaica Ave, they are frequent and LIGHT, except when carrying students north in the morning. So, a service cut on Springfield Blvd isn't particularly surprising nor alarming. In turn, there is a full north-south route which serves all of Springfield Blvd, connects to all eastern Queens routes and serves Bell Blvd. I can live with that, especially with bus time letting me know where the bus is, and it's been on my wish list. 😎

As they've mentioned in the Brooklyn and Queens Existing Conditions Reports, ridership is heaviest during rush hours, drop midday, and after the evening rush. So, their desire to have fuller buses at those times make sense. 

Basically, they want to save money and I can literally see why.

It's this kind of mentality that causes the MTA to cause bus ridership to suffer the death of a thousand cuts. If you make service less convenient people will abandon it, which gives more excuses to cut bus service and so on and so forth.

Of course, shouldn't expect any less for someone whose handle is managed by a penny-wise, pound-foolish transit company and county.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Personally, I'd leave the Q64 alone

amen. i don't understand the mentality behind any attempts to combine lines like the Q64 with other lines. combining the 10 & 64 won't benefit either side of the line, jewel avenue or lefferts blvd. even if it happens, they're going to have to utilize short signs to the 71 avenue/Queens Blvd westbound and kew gardens northbound. that's the only way to adequately service both sides. maybe I'm out of the loop, but is there this overwhelming demand for electchester/pomanok residents to have a one seat ride to lefferts side or to JFK? regardless, the attitude of combining lines like the Bx18, B42, B74 with other lines just so there won't be "short" lines on a map is infuriating. all those lines mentioned, including the Q64, serve a specific purpose that shouldn't be sabotaged for the sake of alleged progress. progress isn't combining 2 lines that arguably need artics into one line to cut runs & consolidate artic run pay to one depot as opposed to 2 (because that's definitely part of the underhanded f***ery they're trying to pull) 

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

amen. i don't understand the mentality behind any attempts to combine lines like the Q64 with other lines. combining the 10 & 64 won't benefit either side of the line, jewel avenue or lefferts blvd. even if it happens, they're going to have to utilize short signs to the 71 avenue/Queens Blvd westbound and kew gardens northbound. that's the only way to adequately service both sides. maybe I'm out of the loop, but is there this overwhelming demand for electchester/pomanok residents to have a one seat ride to lefferts side or to JFK? regardless, the attitude of combining lines like the Bx18, B42, B74 with other lines just so there won't be "short" lines on a map is infuriating. all those lines mentioned, including the Q64, serve a specific purpose that shouldn't be sabotaged for the sake of alleged progress. progress isn't combining 2 lines that arguably need artics into one line to cut runs & consolidate artic run pay to one depot as opposed to 2 (because that's definitely part of the underhanded f***ery they're trying to pull) 

When I saw the Q10 and Q64, I laughed because who in their right mind thought that combining those two routes was a genius plan. Those two routes serve two completely different ridership bases and would make service along both parts more unreliable. I feel like they proposed this because they want to make the Q64 an articulated route and the combination would allow that since the Q10 already has artics. But the result will be disastrous especially during rush hours. I expect to see 3-4 buses bunched followed by a 20 minute gap which would probably be a common sight for the (new designated Q14) or the Q10/Q64 combo. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

When I saw the Q10 and Q64, I laughed because who in their right mind thought that combining those two routes was a genius plan. Those two routes serve two completely different ridership bases and would make service along both parts more unreliable. I feel like they proposed this because they want to make the Q64 an articulated route and the combination would allow that since the Q10 already has artics. But the result will be disastrous especially during rush hours. I expect to see 3-4 buses bunched followed by a 20 minute gap which would probably be a common sight for the (new designated Q14) or the Q10/Q64 combo. 

this is a prime example of "if it ain't broke, don't f***in' fix it". yet, in their mind, it's a golden opportunity to establish a system to fit their narrative, regarding labor costs. this blatant attempt to consolidate run pay under the guise of bringing neighborhoods together is disgusting. and you're absolutely correct. bus bunching & horrid gaps will absolutely plague lefferts blvd & jewel avenue. and neither corridor deserves this alleged "upgrade". these customers ACTUALLY utilize those bus lines, and their reward is to receive mediocre service, compared to recent memory? i don't agree with several portions of this plan, but i really can't expound upon certain aspects this early on, however the arrogant nature management/plannershave as if they're tapped in to the pulse of the city or have their ears to the streets, is disrespectful. it offends my senses that they've gone as far as to say "we're doing this for you, customers... because we care". erroneous & shenanigans. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

this is a prime example of "if it ain't broke, don't f***in' fix it". yet, in their mind, it's a golden opportunity to establish a system to fit their narrative, regarding labor costs. this blatant attempt to consolidate run pay under the guise of bringing neighborhoods together is disgusting. and you're absolutely correct. bus bunching & horrid gaps will absolutely plague lefferts blvd & jewel avenue. and neither corridor deserves this alleged "upgrade". these customers ACTUALLY utilize those bus lines, and their reward is to receive mediocre service, compared to recent memory? i don't agree with several portions of this plan, but i really can't expound upon certain aspects this early on, however the arrogant nature management/plannershave as if they're tapped in to the pulse of the city or have their ears to the streets, is disrespectful. it offends my senses that they've gone as far as to say "we're doing this for you, customers... because we care". erroneous & shenanigans. 

The running theme is that having (less) buses make less stops, will make buses faster.... Although ideal, you simply can't place bus lanes along every corridor (enforcement is a whole 'nother issue, but I won't even get into that).... For the corridors that won't have bus lanes or whatever, you're going to be left with routes making less stops along the same congested ass corridors.... To state that bus stop removal is necessary to quell the ongoing declination of bus ridership is fallacious (and quite despotic)..... I know what problems I'm having with buses in this city !

See, over the course of life, I find that people are generally lazy & like things to be spoonfed to them - the thought of thinking for themselves (or, thinking outside of the box) is a scary concept.... I'm the opposite; you're not going to tell me shit & have me take it at face value - especially if your rhetoric/narrative/scheme/apparent end goal is blatantly contradictory to the crap you're trying to push.... Yes, there is a certain arrogance that's being exuded, but on top of it, consumer (or, rider) naivete is what the MTA is banking on....

Case in point - "connecting neighborhoods", on the surface, sounds noble..... However, it means squat if there's no rhyme or reason to it, and/or if enough riders won't benefit from it....  Connecting Astoria & Downtown Brooklyn with a route is one thing, connecting Richmond Hill & South Ozone Park with Corona & East Elmhurst is another... The general mindset is why I would get annoyed whenever you would have people on the forums making proposals that'd have buses racking up mad mileage & (trying to) justify it by suggesting it run LTD....

I'm not of the belief that bus routes should be unnecessarily long, because more connections can be had on that one route.... Something else that's being overlooked is, combining two heavily utilized bus routes won't necessarily result in cumulative usage.... They won't put it into words, but most riders have (more) solace in knowing that the route they're waiting for, isn't emanating from some far out terminal.... Shit like that matters.

10 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

When I saw the Q10 and Q64, I laughed because who in their right mind thought that combining those two routes was a genius plan. Those two routes serve two completely different ridership bases and would make service along both parts more unreliable. I feel like they proposed this because they want to make the Q64 an articulated route and the combination would allow that since the Q10 already has artics. But the result will be disastrous especially during rush hours. I expect to see 3-4 buses bunched followed by a 20 minute gap which would probably be a common sight for the (new designated Q14) or the Q10/Q64 combo. 

I just SMH when I initially saw that shit.....

Combining those two routes is only a quote-unquote genius plan if you're aiming to trim a budget.... Just because both of those routes have a mutual major xfer point, does not necessarily mean they should be merged..... I would say it's a case-by-case basis, but apparently, the planners drummed this up from scratch.... They can hide behind it, but this isn't about benefiting the riders.....

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that some routes which are proposed to be merged are currently interlined?

On 2/11/2020 at 12:48 PM, B35 via Church said:

One thing I can't agree with though, is Collett's last statement.... That maybe true for the express buses in the area, but this idea that the Q23 makes Forest Hills an attractive place to live, is an overstatement.... The fact that the route's been there since he was little, is irrelevant....

Like the in video I posted from one of the Remix conferences (I suggest you all at least listen to it if you can) :

"If we want to plan good transit we have to plan it around the data"

"Human beings love anecdotes much more than they love data"

"One anecdote will beat all the data you can pump out of your GIS system"

 

Share this post


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

"If we want to plan good transit we have to plan it around the data"

Yes, origin/destination data and existing schedules are vital when planning so as not to screw people over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Interesting news coming out of the Rockaways. 
 

https://www.rockawave.com/articles/hope-for-the-q53/

I knew it would only be an amount of time before we started hearing complaints about the proposed elimination of the Q53. It just didn’t make sense being that the Rockaway Park side sees more ridership than the Arverne side. In the summer time those Q53 buses are crushed with all those beach goers. They even have to add extra service because of that so once again whoever was proposing these changes must have been on crack or something because it just doesn’t make sense.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I knew it would only be an amount of time before we started hearing complaints about the proposed elimination of the Q53. It just didn’t make sense being that the Rockaway Park side sees more ridership than the Arverne side. In the summer time those Q53 buses are crushed with all those beach goers. They even have to add extra service because of that so once again whoever was proposing these changes must have been on crack or something because it just doesn’t make sense.

"Resembling the Q53 in the end". That concerns me. Because in the draft plan, under the QT52, it was said that "some type of summer variant to Rockaway Park would be done". I really hope he dosent mean just a summer variant of the Q53, it needs to be the Q53.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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