Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Q43LTD]

Don't forget the wacky Q10/64 merger among others. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 4/30/2020 at 11:23 PM, bobtehpanda said:

By destination is fairly simple. At least in Queens most buses could be grouped into the following

• LIC/Queens Plaza
• Rego Park
• Jackson Heights
• Jamaica
• Flushing
• Jamaica & Flushing
• Outer boroughs
• and other

 

 

I might refine your list slightly and maybe use it for route numbers rather than color scheme...

• LIC/Queens Plaza
• Rego Park
• Jackson Heights
• Jamaica 
• Flushing
• Multiple commercial hubs

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Don't forget the wacky Q10/64 merger among others. 

That’s one merger that I’ll never understand. What was the rationale behind it?

[jaf0519]

9 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That’s one merger that I’ll never understand. What was the rationale behind it?

If I had to guess, it fits several of their important categories:

• Both routes are high ridership, and they seem tho rather combine high ridership routes with high ridership, than having a low ridership segment on a high ridership route, similar to how the combined the lower ridership part of the Q23 into the lower ridership 73 Ave corridor
• In perfect traffic conditions, it will be very fast, with only 8 stops between Jewel Ave/164 St and Lefferts Blvd/Jamaica Ave. A trip via this route today using the Q64, Q60, and Q10 local would be over 30 stops.
• Need for less buses at any give time. On the Remix map, it shows that the QT14 would need 22 buses at the peak 7 min headway. I’m not sure exactly how many the current Q64/Q10/Q10LTD need, but with the Q64 being every 4 min or less during the rush and the Q10 local being every 6 between Rockaway Blvd and Union Tpke and the Q10LTD being every 15 min according to the service guide, I would figure it is more than 22 buses at a time.
• This rationale is the same reason why the combined the Q11 branches with the Q21/41 Howard Beach section. It would be a low ridership route and the Woodhaven Blvd corridor with the QT52 and QT83 would be the higher ridership corridor. It gets rid of the current set up with the Woodhaven Blvd corridor having a high ridership core and 2 lower ridership branches. 

The Q64 today is my home route and for my first job, I took the Q10 to work so I know how they are. While this plan would most likely make them less reliable than they currently are, and I would probably only take the QT14 to the subway  since i would be getting a seat at the first stop, and would rather get a seat on an emptier QT87 and walk home from 73 Ave, even if frequency is much worse. Unless the MTA gets a decent bailout from the feds because of coronavirus, I would they would need to cut service somewhere. If they use the Queens bus redesign to do so, I would rather them combine these routes if it saves them a decent chunk of money, than to continue spending extra money operating them separate.

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

...I agree that we should show every turn onto a new street, but we probably shouldn't show that, say, Merrick turns 15 degrees ever so slightly but you still stay on Merrick.

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Here's a new map that hopefully shows the frequency stuff better. 

I'm not sure if I want to change this to be more Vignelli style (one route one line) rather than just the branching.

This type of map would be easier to make post-redesign, since a lot of the routings are "simplified".

The more I read your posts in this discussion, the more it's as if you want more of a hybrid map (bus/subway), than a bus map that secondarily illustrates the subway lines.... Any bus map resembling something like this grossly overemphasizes the subway (and to be honest, bastardizes the bus routes)....

With the MTA maps, I don't mind the detail (as in, using the street atlas as a template), I think they have too much information being displayed on the thing.... It's as if they're going too far to try to idiot-proof the thing.... No matter how much detail & information the map has, it's never going to appeal to/appease everyone..... On the flipside of that, I think what you seem to be advocating for, goes too far in the opposite direction (especially with respect to detail)....

Edited May 3, 2020 by B35 via Church

[NewFlyer 230]

42 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

If I had to guess, it fits several of their important categories:

• Both routes are high ridership, and they seem tho rather combine high ridership routes with high ridership, than having a low ridership segment on a high ridership route, similar to how the combined the lower ridership part of the Q23 into the lower ridership 73 Ave corridor
• In perfect traffic conditions, it will be very fast, with only 8 stops between Jewel Ave/164 St and Lefferts Blvd/Jamaica Ave. A trip via this route today using the Q64, Q60, and Q10 local would be over 30 stops.
• Need for less buses at any give time. On the Remix map, it shows that the QT14 would need 22 buses at the peak 7 min headway. I’m not sure exactly how many the current Q64/Q10/Q10LTD need, but with the Q64 being every 4 min or less during the rush and the Q10 local being every 6 between Rockaway Blvd and Union Tpke and the Q10LTD being every 15 min according to the service guide, I would figure it is more than 22 buses at a time.
• This rationale is the same reason why the combined the Q11 branches with the Q21/41 Howard Beach section. It would be a low ridership route and the Woodhaven Blvd corridor with the QT52 and QT83 would be the higher ridership corridor. It gets rid of the current set up with the Woodhaven Blvd corridor having a high ridership core and 2 lower ridership branches. 

The Q64 today is my home route and for my first job, I took the Q10 to work so I know how they are. While this plan would most likely make them less reliable than they currently are, and I would probably only take the QT14 to the subway  since i would be getting a seat at the first stop, and would rather get a seat on an emptier QT87 and walk home from 73 Ave, even if frequency is much worse. Unless the MTA gets a decent bailout from the feds because of coronavirus, I would they would need to cut service somewhere. If they use the Queens bus redesign to do so, I would rather them combine these routes if it saves them a decent chunk of money, than to continue spending extra money operating them separate.

As someone who also takes the Q64 to go to school, work, etc, I rather them put artic buses on the route rather than combine it with another route. During rush hours the Q64 definitely has the ridership for it and it could allow them to save some money not having to deadhead buses from one terminal to the other. They could possible get rid of buses starting at Jewel Ave and Parsons Blvd during the AM rush as artic’s allow a higher volume of passengers. 
I’ve also used the Q10 and a lot of those buses leave the first stop (Kew Gardens) packed. However my biggest gripe I have with the introduction of artics on the Q10 is that service of course is less frequent and I feel like reliability decreased on that line since you no longer have tons of buses operating on line at every 3-5 minutes. I noticed that it’s easy to wait 15 minutes during the early afternoon time for example and have suddenly two locals and a limited bus show up. I feel another route that will suffer on the reliability side of things with artics is the Q58 if they ever put them on that route. 
 

Now where I see a Q10/Q64 combo having some potential is if this was a night time network thing where from the hours of 12-5am the regular Q10 and Q64 stop running and this combo route takes over as a way to improve connections between areas at night. Currently the system can be a rather pain to travel through at night especially in Queens with that lack of subway routes and then routes not properly connecting to one another or having high headway’s. 

[B35 via Church]

I can run off a bunch of negatives about this plan, but what do you all consider to be the better routing suggestions ?

[jaf0519]

13 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

As someone who also takes the Q64 to go to school, work, etc, I rather them put artic buses on the route rather than combine it with another route. During rush hours the Q64 definitely has the ridership for it and it could allow them to save some money not having to deadhead buses from one terminal to the other. They could possible get rid of buses starting at Jewel Ave and Parsons Blvd during the AM rush as artic’s allow a higher volume of passengers. 
I’ve also used the Q10 and a lot of those buses leave the first stop (Kew Gardens) packed. However my biggest gripe I have with the introduction of artics on the Q10 is that service of course is less frequent and I feel like reliability decreased on that line since you no longer have tons of buses operating on line at every 3-5 minutes. I noticed that it’s easy to wait 15 minutes during the early afternoon time for example and have suddenly two locals and a limited bus show up. I feel another route that will suffer on the reliability side of things with artics is the Q58 if they ever put them on that route. 
 

Now where I see a Q10/Q64 combo having some potential is if this was a night time network thing where from the hours of 12-5am the regular Q10 and Q64 stop running and this combo route takes over as a way to improve connections between areas at night. Currently the system can be a rather pain to travel through at night especially in Queens with that lack of subway routes and then routes not properly connecting to one another or having high headway’s. 

I feel that another reason why the MTA combine it would be that that they intend on the QT14 being a fully articulated route. The current Q64 has some issues though. It currently has stops too frequently, almost every single block. The MTA eliminating all stops between Forest Hills and 164 St except for Main St and Kissena Blvd was definitely too many stops removed though. For what it is, basically a subway shuttle, it definitely needs to be more reliable. I remember in the mornings heading to school, whether I got off at Main St for the Q20 or Queens Blvd for the  , the bus definitely slows down between 150 St and 136 St. 

The night combo would definitely be good. The other is issue that comes up is the trade offs. Both corridors lose service overall with this combination, but there are less stops and the bus wouldn’t be stuck in any delays at the airport since it ends at the Lefferts Blvd Airtrain station. If the MTA is going to force this through, there needs to be a way to improve reliability specifically on Jewel between 150 St and 136 St, as well as the narrower part of Lefferts, north of Jamaica Ave. 

[Q43LTD]

2 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

In perfect traffic conditions, it will be very fast, with only 8 stops between Jewel Ave/164 St and Lefferts Blvd/Jamaica Ave. A trip via this route today using the Q64, Q60, and Q10 local would be over 30 stops.

Wouldn't it just be the Q65 to the Air Train? 

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

I can run off a bunch of negatives about this plan, but what do you all consider to be the better routing suggestions ?

One of the better ideas is the combination of the Q29 and the Q33, therefore restoring Q33 service to LGA Airport.

[Q43LTD]

Some of them are direct replacements, others are really odd combinations and some have brought back routes from the dead. 

[LGA Link N Train]

25 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

One of the better ideas is the combination of the Q29 and the Q33, therefore restoring Q33 service to LGA Airport.

I agree with you on this and I personally think the QT10 is a smart idea, the main problem with how it’s currently proposed is the fact that if doesn’t make enough stops, especially at QCM which is a mall (or shopping district so to speak). 

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

I can run off a bunch of negatives about this plan, but what do you all consider to be the better routing suggestions ?

I have a handful that I can list:

• QT82 - It’d be better off if it went to Metropolitan Avenue  like the current Q38 does. The main difference is that I wouldn’t have buses turn onto Dry Harbor Road from Penelope Avenue. I’ve passed that intersection a couple of times and it’s way too narrow for a bus to turn between the former and latter. Going Southbound, I think it should continue down 77th Place and turn on Juniper Valley Road instead of Furmanville given the tight turn. Going northbound, the QT82 would be better off turning at 78th Street from Juniper Valley. 
• The QT80 should preserve the Q39’s terminal to avoid worsening congestion at Ridgewood Terminal. 
• The QT66 would be better off going to LIC-Hunters Point to at least cover the entirety of Northern Blvd. 
• Someone here mentioned that the QT78 should go down 65th Place. I would add onto that and say that it should go to Astoria with the QT80.
• The QT61 should go on 82nd/83rd. A Queens-Bronx connector route was a huge missed opportunity in the draft plan IMO. 

 

[jaf0519]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

I can run off a bunch of negatives about this plan, but what do you all consider to be the better routing suggestions ?

To me, aside from the frequency problems, there are not a lot of negatives, just not a lot of outright great ideas. A lot of the changes are okay. The ones that are negative though are very bad.

Not going to mention frequency because that could change in the final plan.

Close to perfect:

• QT16
• QT17
• QT19
• QT31
• QT32 (Ignoring stop placement)
• QT33
• QT45
• QT46
• QT47 (Ignoring hours)
• QT48 (Ignoring hours)
• QT51 (Ignoring hours)
• QT52 (Not including the lack of a QT53)
• QT54
• QT55
• QT56
• QT58
• QT70
• QT71
• QT72 (Ignoring stop placement)
• QT79
• QT85
• QT86
• QT87

Decent Routing Suggestions:

• QT1/2/4/5/7 These four routes do a decent job of combining both the Brooklyn and Queens networks. Just because they are separate counties doesn’t mean service should end right after crossing over and serving a small part (ie. B57 ending in the middle of Maspeth)
• QT6 is definitely an improvement for people traveling for long distances on the Q58
• QT10 Better connections for 81 St area to Elmhurst
• QT12 HHE definitely needed a one shot ride between Elmhurst and Springfield Blvd. Better than the Q88/Q30 combo one would need today.
• QT20 Don’t know how much I like that it continues all the way to the Lefferts Blvd Airtrain Station
• QT34 Douglaston definitely needed some bus service south of HHE. Wonder if this and the QT36 will cause the elimination of the N26 since both hospitals are major ridership points for it.
• QT36/40 Extensions to LIJ/Elmont Rd respectively are good. County line should not be the terminal if a better connection or trip generator is nearby.
• QT42/43 No need to have the Rosedale LIRR branch if there will not be late night service on the QT42. QT43 ending is Rosedale makes everyone take the QT42 to Green Acres.
• QT44 Fordham extension is pretty good. Plus it won’t get stuck in too much traffic in Jamaica now that it only serves Jamaica Center. Should get rid of Bx9 east of Fordham Plz once they extend the QT44. No need for two routes between the Bronx Zoo and Fordham Plz.
• QT64 Should terminate at 165 St not 164 St/Hillside like they have on the remix map
• QT65 Should serve Addisleigh Park a little better. On the northern end it should take Francis Lewis up to 154 St and follow the Q15 to Beechurst instead of cutting down 160 St north of Willets Point Blvd
• QT66 Too much of the portion they cut off was wasted mileage 
• QT78 Roosevelt Island should be fully served by the RIOC Shuttle and not need an MTA bus to cover both ends
• QT80 should detour to serve Woodside LIRR/61 St  via Roosevelt/61 St/39 Ave
• QT82 Better routing than the Q38 in LeFrak and Q23 in Corona
• QT88 Best use of resources for the area. Otherwise split it into a QT88 between Rockaway Blvd  and Howard Beach (Q21/41) and a QT89 that goes to Old Howard/Hamilton Beaches (Q11)

Okay Suggestions:

• QT13 Removes the diversion the Q113 makes to serve B. 9 St. Something should still have covered that section, even if rush hours only for coverage. Maybe a bus that followed the Q113 routing for B. 20 St to the Mott Ave  and then did the old Q22A route. 
• QT14/15 Both routes have portions combined. I have said my views on the QT14 in previous posts. I feel that the QT15 could be unreliable due to the College Point routing of the Q65 it follows. It’s why I wanted the Q65 either removed from Flushing or split at Flushing before they released the draft.
• QT18 The terminal at Union Tpke seems kind of strange. Like they didn’t know where to end it once it got back to Springfield Blvd. The only other place that would make sense would be Queens Village LIRR, but that’s to much of a deviation south from Hillside IMO
• QT30 Catchment area is kind of narrow.
• QT35 Rockaway only needs one route west of B. 116 St. Maybe keep it Newport. Just don’t have both Newport and RBB with bus routes.
• QT41 Part of me says extend it to the Q84 terminal. But then again its not a long walk to either the QT40 or QT42 from 120 Ave or 129 Ave/237 St.
• QT60 Not exactly sure how I feel about it’s specifi terminal in LIC. Definitely better by avoiding 59 St Bridge traffic, even at the cost of one seat rides.
• QT61 Better than the Q47 north of 74 St, Q48 on 23 Ave, and Columbus circle is a good terminal
• QT67 should end at Queens Village LIRR. Just because Little Neck Pkwy is the last major street in Queens doesn’t mean it should end there, especially if the only connecting route is the N24, which already shares the same routing on Jamaica Ave. Leave that to NICE and have it be open door east of Springfield.
• QT68 Does a little too much
• QT73 I think this, along with the QT71 should be the routes that serve no subway stations. Make it a true Francis Lewis Blvd bus. Have it operate from the QT16 terminal down to 120 Ave. Instead of following the Q84 to 129 Ave, follow Francis Lewis Blvd all the way down to the QT45 terminal. If people need to get to Flushing or Jamaica from Francis Lewis they can walk to the nearest east-west route. Sanford would not be served by a dedicated Queens route, only the N20G.
• QT83 Should end at Rockaway Blvd  Leave Howard Beach to the QT52/88

Bad/Awful Suggestions:

• QT22/62 I agree with the QT22 truncation from Roxbury. Rockaway’s not that wide, people can walk to the QT35. The QT22/62 terminating in Cedarhurst is weird. I would almost rather have them both terminate by either Peninsula Blvd where the Q111 does or by JFK Depot like the QT71 is planned to.
• QT24 Why does it still serve SO MUCH of Brooklyn. It is already unreliable today and cutting it back to Jamaica LIRR doesn’t completely solve that.
• QT50 I feel that it is doing too much now. A bus should serve LGA from the Bronx, but I don’t think the QT50 would be the one. 
• QT74 Not a suitable replacement for the Q49
• QT75 Does WAY too much. Just have it serve 48 St, Queens Blvd, Thomson and then take the upper roadway
• QT84 Does too much very poorly. Would just have it cover the QT65 on 160 St instead of serving Bayside. This would give that area of Queens daily service to Flushing, letting the MTA keep the QT47/48 as rush hour only.

No real comment:

• QT37
• QT38
• QT39
• QT59
• QT69
• QT76
• QT77
• QT81

[B35 via Church]

14 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

Decent Routing Suggestions:

• ** list of routes **

Okay Suggestions:

• ** list of routes **

Simple question....

What separates the routes you're deeming decent, from those that you're deeming okay?

  

53 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

Some of them are direct replacements, others are really odd combinations and some have brought back routes from the dead. 

Interesting summary.... Lol...

Edited May 3, 2020 by B35 via Church

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

If I had to guess, it fits several of their important categories:

• Both routes are high ridership, and they seem tho rather combine high ridership routes with high ridership, than having a low ridership segment on a high ridership route, similar to how the combined the lower ridership part of the Q23 into the lower ridership 73 Ave corridor
• In perfect traffic conditions, it will be very fast, with only 8 stops between Jewel Ave/164 St and Lefferts Blvd/Jamaica Ave. A trip via this route today using the Q64, Q60, and Q10 local would be over 30 stops.
• Need for less buses at any give time. On the Remix map, it shows that the QT14 would need 22 buses at the peak 7 min headway. I’m not sure exactly how many the current Q64/Q10/Q10LTD need, but with the Q64 being every 4 min or less during the rush and the Q10 local being every 6 between Rockaway Blvd and Union Tpke and the Q10LTD being every 15 min according to the service guide, I would figure it is more than 22 buses at a time.
• This rationale is the same reason why the combined the Q11 branches with the Q21/41 Howard Beach section. It would be a low ridership route and the Woodhaven Blvd corridor with the QT52 and QT83 would be the higher ridership corridor. It gets rid of the current set up with the Woodhaven Blvd corridor having a high ridership core and 2 lower ridership branches. 

The Q64 today is my home route and for my first job, I took the Q10 to work so I know how they are. While this plan would most likely make them less reliable than they currently are, and I would probably only take the QT14 to the subway  since i would be getting a seat at the first stop, and would rather get a seat on an emptier QT87 and walk home from 73 Ave, even if frequency is much worse. Unless the MTA gets a decent bailout from the feds because of coronavirus, I would they would need to cut service somewhere. If they use the Queens bus redesign to do so, I would rather them combine these routes if it saves them a decent chunk of money, than to continue spending extra money operating them separate.

I'd like to add one more thing; connections.

Right now, your options for south of Queens Blvd to north of it kind of suck. As an example, all trips going to Flushing from the Lefferts Blvd require going into and out of Jamaica, which is a massive timesuck. The Q10 would gain additional connections to Q20/44 (Main), Q25/34 (Kissena), and Q65 at 164th, and connecting outside of Jamaica would almost certainly be faster than trying to go into it.

That being said, if they really wanted to achieve that goal, I would argue that using the same mileage to go to Utopia & Union would be more appropriate. I think the QT87 can probably handle Jewel/73rd on its own. (I'd also shift QT87 to Jewel until it ends at Utopia.)

Edited May 3, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[jaf0519]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Simple question....

What separates the routes you're deeming decent, from those that you're deeming okay?

The ones I’m deeming decent are ones that i would have no real issues if they were implemented like they were proposed, aside from a few street adjustments that don’t change what the route is trying to do, like with my suggestion for the QT65 and QT80.

With the ones that I labeled as okay, the concept the routes portray is fine, but there could be improvements that make the system better, or things that the public response to the draft plan might cause.

Here is what I mean:

• QT13 The purpose is to make the trip from Jamaica to Far Rockaway faster than the current Q113/Q114. But in the process it eliminates bus service from B. 9 St/Cornaga Ave. People in that area would have to walk to either the N31/N32 on B.19 St or N33 on Seagirt Blvd for service to Mott Ave  That’s why I proposed a Shuttle from Bayswater to Seagirt Blvd/B. 20 St. Even though I suggested it run rush hours only, it would maintain some service in that part of Far Rockaway and restore service to a nearby neighborhood. It’s not something that would break the system if Rockaway east of B. 19 St had no Sunday service since the other bus would be the N33, as there are other areas of Queens that were left without bus service that should get some before this area.
• QT15 Before the redesign I thought that the Q25, Q34, and Q65 should be split at Flushing, with 2 routes between Flushing and Jamaica, and 3 between Flushing and the respective northern terminals. With all three of them serving Jamaica, Flushing, and College Point/Whitestone, it makes them unreliable. A QT15 that combines the northern portion of the Q65 with a route south of Flushing would suffer the from almost the same unreliable service, minus the fact that won’t serve Jamaica. It won’t be as bad as the Q25/34/65 today, but not that much better unless Flushing traffic is dealt with somehow.
• QT18 It simply needs a better northern terminal than Union Tpke/Springfield.
• QT30 Catchment area is kind of narrow. I think it is a good partial replacement for the Q17 in Fresh Meadows, but I feel that the nonstop portion will keep ridership a little lower than it could be if you added in as stop or two.
• QT35 The MTA will make sure only one route serves western Rockaway. It will probably end up on Rockaway Beach Blvd regardless of community opposition. While I am okay with it on RBB, others clearly aren’t.
• QT41 The big complaints people had when the draft plan came out was that it didn’t serve all of 120 Ave and that the QT73 didn’t go to Jamaica. The entire route isn’t even that far of a walk from QT40, QT42,or QT68, plus the MTA proposed eliminating weekend service back in 2010 due to the budget cuts. The shorter route with a big nonstop portion honestly is setting this route up to not do as well as the MTA hopes. Wouldn’t really have any issues if it doesn’t even wind up in the final plan.
• QT60 Biggest complaint was the loss of a one seat ride, mostly by seniors. The senior fare is half of the regular fare, so even if they must transfer, they aren’t enduring an extra fare. The convenience of a one seat ride isn’t more important to me over reliability, especially since th route parallels the subway for a decent chunk, but to them it is. I’d ont know if the MTA would cave into their demands.
• QT61 I’m worried that a route serving Manhattan, Queens Plaza, Roosevelt Ave, and 74/75 Sts will be unreliable due to traffic conditions. However it is better than the Q32 which parallels the  and Q33.
• QT67 I feel like the traffic on Jamaica Ave east of Springfield Blvd will decrease reliability even more than Liberty Ave and Downtown Jamaica would.
• QT68 Overall it does a lot with serving the airport, Farmers Blvd, Liberty Ave, 165 St Terminal area, plus Hillside down to Jamaica Hospital. Ending it at 165 St Terminal would have been enough.
• QT73 Francis Lewis not being split at Hillside is great. Splitting it at Northern instead is not. Plus putting the bus on Sanford instead of Northern reduces reliability.

[jaf0519]

10 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'd like to add one more thing; connections.

Right now, your options for south of Queens Blvd to north of it kind of suck. As an example, all trips going to Flushing from the Lefferts Blvd require going into and out of Jamaica, which is a massive timesuck. The Q10 would gain additional connections to Q20/44 (Main), Q25/34 (Kissena), and Q65 at 164th, and connecting outside of Jamaica would almost certainly be faster than trying to go into it.

That being said, if they really wanted to achieve that goal, I would argue that using the same mileage to go to Utopia & Union would be more appropriate. I think the QT87 can probably handle Jewel/73rd on its own. (I'd also shift QT87 to Jewel until it ends at Utopia.)

This. The connections is something the MTA actually got right. They did go about some of it in a weird way, but once you see what they were aiming for you understand why the map looks like it does. 

Routes like the QT11 and QT14 were created because they a pieces of high ridership routes that co places that were difficult to go directly.

2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Wouldn't it just be the Q65 to the Air Train? 

I didn’t answer this earlier. The QT14 would allow this trip to happen for $2.75, avoiding the $7.75 Airtrain fare. Plus it avoids Jamaica.

The same with the QT86 and QT87. There were complaints that people wanted to go from the southern side of the Q23 to the side north of Queens Blvd. But they got this instead. The ridership on the Q23 drops decently south of the subway in Forest Hills, so the number of people actually using the Q23 like that is lower than the rest of the route. But now one can get from Forest Hills to Flushing or Little Neck in one seat. A two seat ride even opened up from Williamsburg (QT54) to far eastern Queens (QT87) without needing to go through Jamaica. These routings may look strange at first glance, but they connect Queens in ways that were never possible in the current network.

On another note, I have to disagree it’s you on the QT87 handling Jewel on its own. Let’s say that it did take over Jewel Ave instead of 73 Ave. It would only be able to do that until 164 St since the road is either too narrow for buses or is one direction eastbound at some points. But the main problem is frequency. Depending on time of day and what day it is, the QT87 is proposed to run anywhere from every 18 minutes during rush hours to every 30 minutes on Sundays. At this frequency, people would might as well walk to the subway since the buse would be full by the time they get to Kissena Blvd if not earlier. One would then assume that they should add short turns on the route between 164 St and Forest Hills.

But then, that is where the problem is. One of the goals of this redesign was simplicity. That meant reducing the variations of service patterns. The only route, correct me if i am wrong, that has short turns is the QT50, because the service pattern to Co-op City will only operate during rush hours. They would probably keep the Q64 with reduced stops before they would add short turns to the QT87 since it would be so many buses before one heading to Little Neck would arrive. 

[B35 via Church]

36 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

The ones I’m deeming decent are ones that i would have no real issues if they were implemented like they were proposed, aside from a few street adjustments that don’t change what the route is trying to do, like with my suggestion for the QT65 and QT80.

With the ones that I labeled as okay, the concept the routes portray is fine, but there could be improvements that make the system better, or things that the public response to the draft plan might cause.

Here is what I mean.......

 

FTR, I wasn't asking you to justify, or further expound on your sentiments of any of the individual proposals... As a reader, it just appeared as if there was no real distinction between the two classifications/categories, but alright.....

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, jaf0519 said:

This. The connections is something the MTA actually got right. They did go about some of it in a weird way, but once you see what they were aiming for you understand why the map looks like it does. 

Routes like the QT11 and QT14 were created because they a pieces of high ridership routes that co places that were difficult to go directly.

I didn’t answer this earlier. The QT14 would allow this trip to happen for $2.75, avoiding the $7.75 Airtrain fare. Plus it avoids Jamaica.

The same with the QT86 and QT87. There were complaints that people wanted to go from the southern side of the Q23 to the side north of Queens Blvd. But they got this instead. The ridership on the Q23 drops decently south of the subway in Forest Hills, so the number of people actually using the Q23 like that is lower than the rest of the route. But now one can get from Forest Hills to Flushing or Little Neck in one seat. A two seat ride even opened up from Williamsburg (QT54) to far eastern Queens (QT87) without needing to go through Jamaica. These routings may look strange at first glance, but they connect Queens in ways that were never possible in the current network.

On another note, I have to disagree it’s you on the QT87 handling Jewel on its own. Let’s say that it did take over Jewel Ave instead of 73 Ave. It would only be able to do that until 164 St since the road is either too narrow for buses or is one direction eastbound at some points. But the main problem is frequency. Depending on time of day and what day it is, the QT87 is proposed to run anywhere from every 18 minutes during rush hours to every 30 minutes on Sundays. At this frequency, people would might as well walk to the subway since the buse would be full by the time they get to Kissena Blvd if not earlier. One would then assume that they should add short turns on the route between 164 St and Forest Hills.

But then, that is where the problem is. One of the goals of this redesign was simplicity. That meant reducing the variations of service patterns. The only route, correct me if i am wrong, that has short turns is the QT50, because the service pattern to Co-op City will only operate during rush hours. They would probably keep the Q64 with reduced stops before they would add short turns to the QT87 since it would be so many buses before one heading to Little Neck would arrive. 

What I am saying is that rather than have two buses relatively close to each other, you could just eliminate the weird Q10 leg up north, and then boost QT87 frequency with the buses you save.

The corridor that the QT87 serves deserves far higher than a bus every 18 during rush hours, even as a standalone bus route without any changes to the rest of the redesign.

[jaf0519]

41 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

What I am saying is that rather than have two buses relatively close to each other, you could just eliminate the weird Q10 leg up north, and then boost QT87 frequency with the buses you save.

The corridor that the QT87 serves deserves far higher than a bus every 18 during rush hours, even as a standalone bus route without any changes to the rest of the redesign.

Sorry if I didn’t make it clear. Understood that you meant for the QT87 to replace the QT14 leg from Forest Hills to Electchester. But I have noticed another problem. There is a reason why the MTA made the QT87 infrequent. It shares large chunks of its route with other routes. Look at the comparison of weekday frequency with the current routes and QT87:

Numbers from the Queens Bus Service Guide (AM/NOON/PM/EVE/NITE)

• Metropolitan Ave Area to Forest Hills-71 Ave  : Service levels are roughly the same/slightly worse

1. Current Q23: 8/12/7/9/-
2. Split between QT86 on Yellowstone: 20/24/15/30/- and QT87 on Ascan: 18/30/18/30/-; averages out to 9.5/13.5/8.25/15/-

• Forest Hills-71 Ave  to Main St: Service levels are much worse

1. Current Q64: 4/10/3/6/30
2. QT87: 18/30/18/30/-
3. If you need from exactly Forest Hills to Main St/Jewel Ave: 9.5/13.5/8.25/15/- since you can take the QT86 via Vleigh Pl

• 188 St to Springfield Blvd: Service is reduced, but Q88 ridership doesn’t match the amount of service it gets east of 188 St

1. Current Q88: 3/9/4/15/-
2. Split between QT33: 15/15/15/24/- and QT87: 18/30/18/30/-; averages out to 8.25/11.25/8.25/13.5/-

• Springfield Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy/HHE: Service levels are better 

1. Current Q30: 15/15/15/12/-
2. Split between QT34: 12/14/12/24/60 and QT87: 18/30/18/30/-; averages out to 7.5/11/7.5/13.5/60

• HHE to Little Neck LIRR: Slight service improvement 

1. Current Q36:  20:30:15:-:-
2. QT87: 18/30/18/30/-

The QT87 only needs more service between the subway and Main St, the portion where the QT14 is nonstop. The short turns might as well be a separate route to Queens College via Jewel and Melbourne. The furthest the QT87 short turns could need to go is 188 ST, as that is the only section it is alone, but that’s because it has the least ridership potential. Everyone overthere is already either driving or taking the Q46/future QT11.

If you add service, you’ll end up either overserving one area or reducing service on other routes like the QT33 or QT34. Its a real complex puzzle and there are only so many pieces.

[bobtehpanda]

19 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

Sorry if I didn’t make it clear. Understood that you meant for the QT87 to replace the QT14 leg from Forest Hills to Electchester. But I have noticed another problem. There is a reason why the MTA made the QT87 infrequent. It shares large chunks of its route with other routes. Look at the comparison of weekday frequency with the current routes and QT87:

Numbers from the Queens Bus Service Guide (AM/NOON/PM/EVE/NITE)

• Metropolitan Ave Area to Forest Hills-71 Ave  : Service levels are roughly the same/slightly worse

1. Current Q23: 8/12/7/9/-
2. Split between QT86 on Yellowstone: 20/24/15/30/- and QT87 on Ascan: 18/30/18/30/-; averages out to 9.5/13.5/8.25/15/-

• Forest Hills-71 Ave  to Main St: Service levels are much worse

1. Current Q64: 4/10/3/6/30
2. QT87: 18/30/18/30/-
3. If you need from exactly Forest Hills to Main St/Jewel Ave: 9.5/13.5/8.25/15/- since you can take the QT86 via Vleigh Pl

• 188 St to Springfield Blvd: Service is reduced, but Q88 ridership doesn’t match the amount of service it gets east of 188 St

1. Current Q88: 3/9/4/15/-
2. Split between QT33: 15/15/15/24/- and QT87: 18/30/18/30/-; averages out to 8.25/11.25/8.25/13.5/-

• Springfield Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy/HHE: Service levels are better 

1. Current Q30: 15/15/15/12/-
2. Split between QT34: 12/14/12/24/60 and QT87: 18/30/18/30/-; averages out to 7.5/11/7.5/13.5/60

• HHE to Little Neck LIRR: Slight service improvement 

1. Current Q36:  20:30:15:-:-
2. QT87: 18/30/18/30/-

The QT87 only needs more service between the subway and Main St, the portion where the QT14 is nonstop. The short turns might as well be a separate route to Queens College via Jewel and Melbourne. The furthest the QT87 short turns could need to go is 188 ST, as that is the only section it is alone, but that’s because it has the least ridership potential. Everyone overthere is already either driving or taking the Q46/future QT11.

If you add service, you’ll end up either overserving one area or reducing service on other routes like the QT33 or QT34. Its a real complex puzzle and there are only so many pieces.

• Metro to Forest Hills: Don't need QT86 south of QBL, IMO.
• 188 to Springfield; fine, you could afford to boost the QT87
• Springfield to Little Neck/HHE: Quite frankly, I don't think the QT87 should be serving anything east of Springfield. 

You bring up a good point tho, which is that the MTA is talking out of both sides of the mouth; one of the redesign's goals is allegedly "reduce duplicate service", and yet here we are talking about the duplicate services in the redesign.

[MTADieselBuses]

I'm a little more intrigued about the service changes within the Rockaway portion of Queens, here's my stance on that:

Firstly, to make it clear, I believe the route reduction of the Q22 (QT22) service, where it would now terminate at the 116th station shouldn't be final terminus of this route, there should be another terminus at Jacob Riis Park served by the QT22. In whole, QT22 service from 116th to Jacob Riis shouldn't be terminated completely, it should remain during the Summer season seeing as there is a higher rate of ridership during that time, mostly consisting of beach-goers and vacationers. For instance, those would want to go to Jacob Riis for the beach etc. shouldn't have to wait for the QT35, the QT22 can follow the QT35 route to Jacob Riis to support service going there. 

The QT52-SBS should be extended to the terminus of the QT13 to provide better connection for passengers, though it can also be extended further to Mott Avenue station for further connection (  and the LIRR). It would continue down Rockaway Fwy then follow the QT13 to arrive at Mott Avenue.

 

[jaf0519]

44 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

• Metro to Forest Hills: Don't need QT86 south of QBL, IMO.
• 188 to Springfield; fine, you could afford to boost the QT87
• Springfield to Little Neck/HHE: Quite frankly, I don't think the QT87 should be serving anything east of Springfield. 

You bring up a good point tho, which is that the MTA is talking out of both sides of the mouth; one of the redesign's goals is allegedly "reduce duplicate service", and yet here we are talking about the duplicate services in the redesign.

At least it is the only route that I have really noticed that suffers from this problem. Plus most of the routes it shares streets with are the purple express routes to Jamaica. On on Jewel Ave where the QT14 operates is it different, since the QT14 skips all stops on that section. 

It’s also weird with the other points. I feel like the only reason why the QT86 serves Forest Hills south of Queens Blvd is because the MTA recieved requests for a Yellowstone Blvd route and what else could they put there?

I do have to give credit to the MTA for one thing though. No limited routes (basically the QT1-7,13,44,50,52) share numbers with locals. Even though the routes a slightly different, the QT1 is a limited QT69, the QT2 is a limited QT76, the QT3 is a limited QT54, the QT6 is a limited QT58, the QT44 is a limited QT86, and the QT52 is a limited QT83. While the didn’t do this for the Bronx, I hope for Brooklyn and Manhattan the limited get different numbers. 

[Q43LTD]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Simple question....

What separates the routes you're deeming decent, from those that you're deeming okay?

  

Interesting summary.... Lol...

Lol... that's pretty much it. I mean, Linden, Rockaway, Utopia, Francis Lewis (somewhat), Springfield, Jamaica Av, 73 Av (somewhat) and all these other corridors get through bus routes except for poor Little Neck Pkwy. With the Q53 SBS stupidly eliminated for the Q52 and an extended Q104, it makes me think the B103 may not survive the Brooklyn redesign. 

[bobtehpanda]

46 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

Lol... that's pretty much it. I mean, Linden, Rockaway, Utopia, Francis Lewis (somewhat), Springfield, Jamaica Av, 73 Av (somewhat) and all these other corridors get through bus routes except for poor Little Neck Pkwy. With the Q53 SBS stupidly eliminated for the Q52 and an extended Q104, it makes me think the B103 may not survive the Brooklyn redesign. 

Having lived there, I think any bus service on LNP is doomed to fail. There's just not enough there there.