Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Q43LTD]

18 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

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

Remind me, what is LNP, mostly residential?

[checkmatechamp13]

22 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Replies are in bold. 

The reasoning isn't that I don't think there is that much demand for connecting those areas. The reasoning is that those resources could be better-used elsewhere, especially since the MTA talks about having the bus network better-compliment the subway network. 

17 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

It's been a while but a lot of people opposed the elimination of the Q53-SBS instead of the Q52-SBS as well as the merger of both southern Q11 branches and the Q21 IIRC. 

That is true, but the MTA didn't do anything with the official plan yet as a result of that backlash. They only said that they listened and will reconsider.

21 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Did anything happen after the first round of draft/public comment?

They said they listened but they didn't make any official changes. The whole redesign is now on pause as part of the COVID19 shutdown (particularly because they don't know what their financial picture will lool like)

11 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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

Difficulty in getting across Flushing Meadows Park in general. To get to Flushing from areas along the Q10 you need to take 3 buses (e.g. Q10-Q46-Q20/44) or go through Jamaica (e.g. Q54-Q44)

10 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

 

• 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 QT83 has coverage-level frequencies. You'd be better off splitting it in a similar manner to the current Q11/21.

8 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

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

AirTrain doesn't stop at Lefferts Blvd & Jamaica Avenue.

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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). 

• 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.

That was an error about having the QT10 bypass QCM. I pointed that out at the Ridgewood meeting and they said they would correct it.

Remember that the 66 only covers the western part of Northern Blvd so it's not the entirety. Also they wanted to avoid the congestion at QBP which I agree with.

I was the one whp suggested 65th Place but I do believe it should stay going to Roosevelt Island. There should be a way to get off the island by bus rather than just train/tram/ferry.

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

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.)

I think the (current) alignment of the streets in that area makes it impossible to have a Lefferts Blvd/Union Tpke route.

5 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

 

• QT18 It simply needs a better northern terminal than Union Tpke/Springfield.
• 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.
• 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.

QT18 could run down the current Q1 Braddock branch.

Agree with your QT61 comment.

I think the QT73 runs like that to give better access from Fresh Meadows and also areas further south on Francis Lewis Blvd to Flushing. Especially since the Q27 is being split into several routes.

29 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

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

I just don't get why they ran the QT34 down Winchester instead.

[bobtehpanda]

3 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I just don't get why they ran the QT34 down Winchester instead.

This is the cynic in me, but the state has been selling off and redeveloping the Creedmore parcels for years. I would really be surprised if it wasn't replaced by one of those big mixed-use projects in the next 20 or so years.

[jaf0519]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

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

Even so, its the only major corridor with nothing, aside from the QT87 north of HHE. Even if the MTA gives it something minimal. The minimum guideline is currently supposed to be a bus stop within 0.25 miles anywhere in NYC except for southwestern Staten Island where I believe it is 1 or 1.5 miles. The LIRR is supposed to serve low ridership stations on the Montauk and Greenport Branches at a minimum of every 120 minutes. Both of those standards aren’t followed. The old standard for the public bus lines had the Q21 between Ozone Park and Rockaway having the frequency of every 72 minutes off-peak. Might as well ignore the current maximum 30 minute headway for buses as well.  Give the full Little Neck corridor service between Little Neck LIRR and Queens Village LIRR via LN/Jamaica, weekday rush hours only, every 60 minutes. There will never be a successful route on LNP, but the area is too big for the MTA to just abandon completely.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

8 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

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.

Decent Routing Suggestions:

• QT82 Better routing than the Q38 in LeFrak and Q23 in Corona

Just because the routing looks better and less cluttered, doesn't mean it's necessarily useful. This QT82 plan overall sucks, since it's essentially combining the Q29 with the Penelope Avenue portion of the Q38. So now, it'll add commute times for those trying to get to the subway, and for Q29 riders going past Hoffman Drive/QCM (of which there are a lot), they'll have to readjust their commutes to have to go out of the way. Out of all the through routes passing by QCM, the only route which has a lot of people getting off and another group getting on is the Q38. 

While we're on the Q38, LeFrak city residents lost their access to QCM, and to the routes which stop there. Sure, you can make the case that Woodhaven Boulevard connections will still be preserved for most routes, but it'll take longer than if it went directly to Hoffman Drive. And the Penelope Avenue portion it partially replaces is not sufficient enough because a good chunk of Middle Village (and parts of Forest Hills) that has no replacement would be more than a quarter mile from a bus stop. 

6 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

• 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.

The complaints are that of people who are already transferring in Manhattan and who use the bus east of Sunnyside. Also, by running near/alongside the  between Sunnyside and Hunters Point, you're making the Q60 parallel the subway more. 

6 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

• 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.

Just because it parallels other routes doesn't make it redundant. The Q32, while paralleling the  for a good portion of its route, carries 11,000+ passengers on a typical weekdays, so it isn't anything to ignore. There a lot of people who use it from Manhattan into Queens, and even many who use it past Sunnyside into Woodside and into Jackson Heights because it was a better option over the QBL. This is why I dislike the reorganization of the buses in that area, because it assumes that only people from Sunnyside and QBP are getting on the bus to Manhattan, when that's not the case. More than half of those people get on before 48th Street. The QT61 helps if you're going only along 59th, but other than that, it's not useful. The QT75 doesn't help anybody going beyond Sunnyside.

 

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

• Metro to Forest Hills: Don't need QT86 south of QBL, IMO.

I disagree, I don't feel that the Q23 should be the only existing route in Forest Hills south of QBL. Many of the areas along Yellowstone Boulevard are still far away from the Q23, and it's slightly faster to walk, even though the walk can be long. The Q23 can remain on 69th Avenue as it currently does, and there should be a Yellowstone Boulevard route there to get people to/from 71st Avenue, and to points further east. I actually think the QT86 in terms of routing is one of the better concepts 

The QT87 I would argue doesn't need to run south of QBL. People along Ascan are not looking for bus service to 71st Avenue like that, and Forest Hills Gardens doesn't want them. Speaking about the QT87, the route between Utopia Parkway and Springfield Boulevard I would look to change, because taking 73rd Avenue from Main Street to Springfield doesn't have many ridership generators, and people from Forest Hills are not going to be riding buses out that far. I would have the QT87 shifted to Horace Harding from either Utopia Parkway or 188th Street to Springfield, because I don't see people along 73rd Avenue wanting to head straight on 73rd Avenue or into Forest Hills in large numbers. The QT12 would instead serve 73rd Avenue to preserve access to Fresh Meadows Shopping Center, points along Horace Harding and QCM. 

8 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Bad/Awful Suggestions:

• 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.

The issue I have with the QT84 is what it does once it gets to Northern Boulevard (which is heading on Northern to Bell, and terminate). It appears very random and because they didn't know what else to do with it. Also, most people onboard north of Northern Boulevard go down past Northern, so that's only going to reduce the relatively small ridership there is on the existing Q76 segment north of Northern. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[LGA Link N Train]

21 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Just because the routing looks better and less cluttered, doesn't mean it's necessarily useful. This QT82 plan overall sucks, since it's essentially combining the Q29 with the Penelope Avenue portion of the Q38. So now, it'll add commute times for those trying to get to the subway, and for Q29 riders going past Hoffman Drive/QCM (of which there are a lot), they'll have to readjust their commutes to have to go out of the way. Out of all the through routes passing by QCM, the only route which has a lot of people getting off and another group getting on is the Q38. 

While we're on the Q38, LeFrak city residents lost their access to QCM, and to the routes which stop there. Sure, you can make the case that Woodhaven Boulevard connections will still be preserved for most routes, but it'll take longer than if it went directly to Hoffman Drive. And the Penelope Avenue portion it partially replaces is not sufficient enough because a good chunk of Middle Village (and parts of Forest Hills) that has no replacement would be more than a quarter mile from a bus stop. 

LeFrak isn't that far from QCM by any means, I'd say that its a 10 minute walk at least. So I think the QT82 north of Queens Blvd is justified. But along the Penelope section, I disagree with it not going to Metro Station. 

21 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The complaints are that of people who are already transferring in Manhattan and who use the bus east of Sunnyside. Also, by running near/alongside the  between Sunnyside and Hunters Point, you're making the Q60 parallel the subway more. 

Just because it parallels other routes doesn't make it redundant. The Q32, while paralleling the  for a good portion of its route, carries 11,000+ passengers on a typical weekdays, so it isn't anything to ignore. There a lot of people who use it from Manhattan into Queens, and even many who use it past Sunnyside into Woodside and into Jackson Heights because it was a better option over the QBL. This is why I dislike the reorganization of the buses in that area, because it assumes that only people from Sunnyside and QBP are getting on the bus to Manhattan, when that's not the case. More than half of those people get on before 48th Street. The QT61 helps if you're going only along 59th, but other than that, it's not useful. The QT75 doesn't help anybody going beyond Sunnyside.

Well that's good to note. As an occasional Q60 rider, I think it should preserve Manhattan Access given the clusterf**ks that is QBL (especially on weekends). Also, Would switching the QT61 and QT75 Manhattan Terminals work? 

21 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

 

I disagree, I don't feel that the Q23 should be the only existing route in Forest Hills south of QBL. Many of the areas along Yellowstone Boulevard are still far away from the Q23, and it's slightly faster to walk, even though the walk can be long. The Q23 can remain on 69th Avenue as it currently does, and there should be a Yellowstone Boulevard route there to get people to/from 71st Avenue, and to points further east. I actually think the QT86 in terms of routing is one of the better concepts 

The QT87 I would argue doesn't need to run south of QBL. People along Ascan are not looking for bus service to 71st Avenue like that, and Forest Hills Gardens doesn't want them. Speaking about the QT87, the route between Utopia Parkway and Springfield Boulevard I would look to change, because taking 73rd Avenue from Main Street to Springfield doesn't have many ridership generators, and people from Forest Hills are not going to be riding buses out that far. I would have the QT87 shifted to Horace Harding from either Utopia Parkway or 188th Street to Springfield, because I don't see people along 73rd Avenue wanting to head straight on 73rd Avenue or into Forest Hills in large numbers. The QT12 would instead serve 73rd Avenue to preserve access to Fresh Meadows Shopping Center, points along Horace Harding and QCM. 

If anything, the QT86 route along Yellowstone is perfect. The QT87, should preserve the Q23 route from Burns Street all the way to Metropolitan Avenue. 

[N6 Limited]

On 4/30/2020 at 4:04 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's a good question. I don't see a logical reason why it should be delayed (because from the Existing Conditions Report to get to the draft plan, there's no public meetings, and people can still submit comments on the Existing Conditions Report online). But I do know the Queens plan is paused since they couldn't finish the public meetings. The main reason for any delay would be more if they needed all of their planning staff to manage the service levels while this COVID-19 situation is going on.

What I think the bigger issue is, is that they have no idea what the budget looks like (the federal government might come bail them out entirely and they can keep it cost-neutral or even add some money if necessary,especially with congestion pricing coming out, or they might only receive a partial bailout and have to make severe cuts...which should be tied to the redesign so at least they're making them in a somewhat efficient way)

Which I guess looking back on it, maybe the Brooklyn redesign will be delayed for that major reason: They don't know what budget they will be working with.

This delay may help, if they're still working on the Brooklyn Redesign, they can the Brooklyn and Queens Redesign on the same time frame and work on them together.

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Remind me, what is LNP, mostly residential?

Entirely so. The most commercial development on the road is a strip mall and a CVS.

5 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Even so, its the only major corridor with nothing, aside from the QT87 north of HHE. Even if the MTA gives it something minimal. The minimum guideline is currently supposed to be a bus stop within 0.25 miles anywhere in NYC except for southwestern Staten Island where I believe it is 1 or 1.5 miles. The LIRR is supposed to serve low ridership stations on the Montauk and Greenport Branches at a minimum of every 120 minutes. Both of those standards aren’t followed. The old standard for the public bus lines had the Q21 between Ozone Park and Rockaway having the frequency of every 72 minutes off-peak. Might as well ignore the current maximum 30 minute headway for buses as well.  Give the full Little Neck corridor service between Little Neck LIRR and Queens Village LIRR via LN/Jamaica, weekday rush hours only, every 60 minutes. There will never be a successful route on LNP, but the area is too big for the MTA to just abandon completely.

There doesn't need to be a north south route on LNP; you could meet coverage entirely with east-west routes. 

If a bunch of suburban single family homes on a road counts as a corridor, then there should by that logic be a bus on every last street in this town.

[Q43LTD]

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

AirTrain doesn't stop at Lefferts Blvd & Jamaica Avenue.

 I was referring to the route as a whole. 

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

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.....

Yeah, but with that extension to Cedarhurst, forget it...

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I just don't get why they ran the QT34 down Winchester instead.

Probably something to do with (people in) that general region of the Q30 & taking too long to get to Jamaica.... It is one of those purple routes, after all...

9 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Just because the routing looks better and less cluttered, doesn't mean it's necessarily useful. This QT82 plan overall sucks, since it's essentially combining the Q29 with the Penelope Avenue portion of the Q38. So now, it'll add commute times for those trying to get to the subway, and for Q29 riders going past Hoffman Drive/QCM (of which there are a lot), they'll have to readjust their commutes to have to go out of the way. Out of all the through routes passing by QCM, the only route which has a lot of people getting off and another group getting on is the Q38.

IDC much for this QT82 route for a different reason... South of QB, it's an attempt to get people to the QB line quicker - but the problem is, there's a greater demand for QCM.... North of QB, it's an attempt to patch up a service gap.... My issue basically stems around the fact of these 2 concepts/portions of the route being combined.... I would've much rather the northern portion of the QT82 be a branch (or a variant) of the QT72, than to have the QT82 as proposed from end to end...

....then there's the issue with Glendale & Middle Village folks losing direct access to the QB express & as you said, a longer commute to get to the .... Then there's the issue with the stunted coverage along 80th st, north of Furmanville.... Man, those folks are just better off with the Q47... Addressing a service gap in Corona to end up creating a (larger) service gap in Middle Village & the northern portion of Maspeth, is counterproductive.....

9 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Just because it parallels other routes doesn't make it redundant. The Q32, while paralleling the  for a good portion of its route, carries 11,000+ passengers on a typical weekdays, so it isn't anything to ignore. There a lot of people who use it from Manhattan into Queens, and even many who use it past Sunnyside into Woodside and into Jackson Heights because it was a better option over the QBL. This is why I dislike the reorganization of the buses in that area, because it assumes that only people from Sunnyside and QBP are getting on the bus to Manhattan, when that's not the case. More than half of those people get on before 48th Street. The QT61 helps if you're going only along 59th, but other than that, it's not useful. The QT75 doesn't help anybody going beyond Sunnyside.

You're right that the Q32 & the aren't redundant, but I would argue that there isn't a real need for the entire current Q32 as is... I'm not understanding how this reorganization assumes that only ppl. in Sunnyside & QBP are taking buses to Manhattan - when the QT61's routing between 5th/59th & Moore terminal is the same as the Q32.... Also, you say the QT61 helps for folks only seeking 59th, but the funny thing about that, is that the thing practically tanks at the subway station (59th) anyway & usage isn't really getting any better in Manhattan past that point, inbound... On the Queens end, the issue with the Q32 past Moore terminal has always been that it doesn't run past Northern..... What I think is moot regarding the QT61, is the having of the Jackson Heights portion of the [Q47 north of Roosevelt] deserving direct Manhattan access, over the [Q33 portion north of Roosevelt].... Having the QT61 serve 23rd av. though, is rather excessive... Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that the QT61 is "better" than the Q32 either....

The QT75 is a more residential version of the Q32 in Sunnyside, combined with the Q104's stint in Sunnyside; it's the quintessential Sunnyside route.... A lot of those folks taking Q32's/Q60's along QB to/from Manhattan are not as proximate to QB than you might think.... There are a good chunk of seniors taking buses along that part of QB too, so I don't really have near as much of a problem with keeping the Q32 intact... The QT75 not helping anybody going past Sunnyside I don't agree with either; that's like saying nobody uses the Q104 between Northern & QB, which is not even remotely true.....

9 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I disagree, I don't feel that the Q23 should be the only existing route in Forest Hills south of QBL. Many of the areas along Yellowstone Boulevard are still far away from the Q23, and it's slightly faster to walk, even though the walk can be long. The Q23 can remain on 69th Avenue as it currently does, and there should be a Yellowstone Boulevard route there to get people to/from 71st Avenue, and to points further east. I actually think the QT86 in terms of routing is one of the better concepts 

The QT87 I would argue doesn't need to run south of QBL. People along Ascan are not looking for bus service to 71st Avenue like that, and Forest Hills Gardens doesn't want them. Speaking about the QT87, the route between Utopia Parkway and Springfield Boulevard I would look to change, because taking 73rd Avenue from Main Street to Springfield doesn't have many ridership generators, and people from Forest Hills are not going to be riding buses out that far. I would have the QT87 shifted to Horace Harding from either Utopia Parkway or 188th Street to Springfield, because I don't see people along 73rd Avenue wanting to head straight on 73rd Avenue or into Forest Hills in large numbers. The QT12 would instead serve 73rd Avenue to preserve access to Fresh Meadows Shopping Center, points along Horace Harding and QCM.

Both of those routes (QT86/QT87) do too much meandering in their approaches to Forest Hills....

9 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The issue I have with the QT84 is what it does once it gets to Northern Boulevard (which is heading on Northern to Bell, and terminate). It appears very random and because they didn't know what else to do with it. Also, most people onboard north of Northern Boulevard go down past Northern, so that's only going to reduce the relatively small ridership there is on the existing Q76 segment north of Northern. 

(Not defending it, but) The gripe about the Q76 for the longest, has been that it doesn't go to Flushing.... This is their attempt at that.

I can see schoolkids & elderly riders primarily using this QT84 between Bayside & Clearview/Whitestone... The part I find reprehensible about this route though, is combining that concept with about HALF of the Q25's service area between Flushing & College Point.... While you could argue that College Point (the neighborhood) is overserved, this plan outright screws those folks... The onus is to have the majority of those folks up there taking QT15's to get to/from Flushing - never mind that the route is basically a (frugal) combination of [the Q27 b/w QCC & Flushing] & [the Q65 b/w Flushing & Shore Front Park].... GTBFKM with service every 8 mins. peak on a route like that (QT15); there's gonna be more flagging than on NFL players going on up there....

Also, for lack of a better term, the QT64 up there is just.... bad.

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

...Also, Would switching the QT61 and QT75 Manhattan Terminals work?

Logistically speaking: Well how delay prone is the Q32? How much more mileage would the QT61 have, compared to the Q32?

In terms of demand: I'm inclined to believe that having either route serve either terminal in Manhattan would be inconsequential.... Folks are not taking Q32's deep(er) in Manhattan like they used to..

Edited May 4, 2020 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

13 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Even so, its the only major corridor with nothing, aside from the QT87 north of HHE. Even if the MTA gives it something minimal. The minimum guideline is currently supposed to be a bus stop within 0.25 miles anywhere in NYC except for southwestern Staten Island where I believe it is 1 or 1.5 miles. The LIRR is supposed to serve low ridership stations on the Montauk and Greenport Branches at a minimum of every 120 minutes. Both of those standards aren’t followed. The old standard for the public bus lines had the Q21 between Ozone Park and Rockaway having the frequency of every 72 minutes off-peak. Might as well ignore the current maximum 30 minute headway for buses as well.  Give the full Little Neck corridor service between Little Neck LIRR and Queens Village LIRR via LN/Jamaica, weekday rush hours only, every 60 minutes. There will never be a successful route on LNP, but the area is too big for the MTA to just abandon completely.

The guidelines are based on population density and percentage of autoless households. They don't mention anything about Staten Island specifically.

In any case, those are general guidelines and that is not to say that they should be blindly followed. (When they had the Hackathon for Staten Island bus service, they said to ignore any guidelines that may exist. So if you have an idea for a route but you only think it should run every 60 minutes even though the guidelines say it should run every 30 minutes or better, then just say you recommend service every 60 minutes)

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

LeFrak isn't that far from QCM by any means, I'd say that its a 10 minute walk at least. So I think the QT82 north of Queens Blvd is justified. But along the Penelope section, I disagree with it not going to Metro Station. 

Well that's good to note. As an occasional Q60 rider, I think it should preserve Manhattan Access given the clusterf**ks that is QBL (especially on weekends). Also, Would switching the QT61 and QT75 Manhattan Terminals work? 

If anything, the QT86 route along Yellowstone is perfect. The QT87, should preserve the Q23 route from Burns Street all the way to Metropolitan Avenue. 

I agree about the route being close enough to the QCM. As @B35 via Church noted, I do disagree about how they went about combining it with the Q29/38 south of Queens Blvd (BTW I think it was more that they didn't know how to effectively serve 63rd Drive, than about finding a quicker way to the QBL)

Long-term once they finish all the CBTC work, the QBL should be running smoothly. You'd help a lot more people by having the QBL running smoothly than by just having a backup bus option. 

The QT61 is long enough as-is. It definitely doesn't need to be extended any further.

For the QT86, I think it could go just a bit further to connect with the QT55 on Myrtle Avenue.

10 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

This delay may help, if they're still working on the Brooklyn Redesign, they can the Brooklyn and Queens Redesign on the same time frame and work on them together.

The plan was always to start Queens first and have Brooklyn catch up (because Queens is geographically bigger than Brooklyn and also less gridded, so the changes will be more drastic overall in Queens than Brooklyn and thus take more time to prepare for).

The main issue is more the question of how much can the redesign team handle in terms of volume of complaints at once. Even with perfect calculations there are still going to be unforeseen issues, and then of course there's the people who just want to rant about nonsense who add to all of the chaos.

When I talked to one of the planners (who was actually leading the Brooklyn redesign but he jumped in to help at a Queens meeting as well) he said the phasing is to be discussed later on. It might be Eastern Queens, then border territory, then Brooklyn. It might be Queens + border territory, then Brooklyn or it might be all at once. 

[MTADieselBuses]

Quote

Yeah, but with that extension to Cedarhurst, forget it...

I still don't know the rationale behind that, that area doesn't generate sufficient ridership nor do the people there have any interest traveling inwards, down to Rockaway Park. They should just have it terminate at Mott Avenue, extend the QT62 to Mott Avenue as well and have passengers interested in traveling north use the QT62, the Mott Ave terminus being a prevalent transfer point.

[MTADieselBuses]

The QT13 also severely lacks bus stops, they went a little too far with the distance between stops, it renders it unreliable for passengers.

[B35 via Church]

3 minutes ago, MTADieselBuses said:

The QT13 also severely lacks bus stops, they went a little too far with the distance between stops, it renders it unreliable for passengers.

Yeah, all those blue colored routes are like that.... I don't particularly care for the concept either.

Just now, MTADieselBuses said:

I still don't know the rationale behind that, that area doesn't generate sufficient ridership nor do the people there have any interest traveling inwards, down to Rockaway Park. They should just have it terminate at Mott Avenue, extend the QT62 to Mott Avenue as well and have passengers interested in traveling north use the QT62, the Mott Ave terminus being a prevalent transfer point.

Not Rockaway Park specifically, but I can understand giving more of the Rockaways direct access to areas past Mott - the problem is that they're having both the QT22 & the QT62 end at Burnside (because there's no where to feasibly end buses 5 Towns shopping ctr..... Otherwise, I'd bet anything those two routes would terminate there instead; Burnside/Rockaway Tpke. is in the middle of nothing in-particular....

[LGA Link N Train]

This is something that I started to wonder, but the amount of duplicative services in the redesign is something here are a few duplicates that I’ve noticed:

QT69 - Duplicated by the QT1 on 21st Street

QT14 - Duplicated by the QT87

QT36 - Duplicated by the QT18, QT33, QT34, QT38, QT39

 

[jaf0519]

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is something that I started to wonder, but the amount of duplicative services in the redesign is something here are a few duplicates that I’ve noticed:

QT69 - Duplicated by the QT1 on 21st Street

QT14 - Duplicated by the QT87

QT36 - Duplicated by the QT18, QT33, QT34, QT38, QT39

 

This isn’t as bad as some of the duplications today. 

• QT69 acts as a local while the QT1 is the limited, similar to the Q69 and Q100 today.
• QT14 is actually nonstop during the entire portion the QT87 shares with it on Jewel Ave from Main St to Forest Hills
• The same could be said about the Merrick Corridor (QT18/40/41/42) and Guy R. Brewer Corridor (QT13/19/43/45), as well as the Sutphin Corridor (QT20/46/47). On all of these the red local routes (QT18/19/20), and purple express (QT33-34/36/38-43/45) which serve as  limited service since the corridors don’t have their own blue routes (except for Guy R. Brewer which is why the QT13 stops are further apart), and then as locals when the routes diverge, serve distinct purposes. It’s better than a corridor like Kissena Blvd that has both the Q25 and Q34, when one would be fine, especially with how infrequent the Q34 is outside of rush hours.

[B35 via Church]

15 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is something that I started to wonder, but the amount of duplicative services in the redesign is something here are a few duplicates that I’ve noticed:

QT69 - Duplicated by the QT1 on 21st Street

QT14 - Duplicated by the QT87

QT36 - Duplicated by the QT18, QT33, QT34, QT38, QT39

Different purposes....

Queens would be in a world of trouble if the bus network had zero duplication.

[LGA Link N Train]

12 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Different purposes....

Queens would be in a world of trouble if the bus network had zero duplication.

Well, I guess that’s true. 

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

I still don't know the rationale behind that, that area doesn't generate sufficient ridership nor do the people there have any interest traveling inwards, down to Rockaway Park. They should just have it terminate at Mott Avenue, extend the QT62 to Mott Avenue as well and have passengers interested in traveling north use the QT62, the Mott Ave terminus being a prevalent transfer point.

I think the general idea is that the QT22 would otherwise duplicate the subway for its whole route (granted you would need to transfer at Broad Channel and the frequencies aren't great). So this gives it access to an area off the subway network. Its own unique area so to speak. 

I guess the other big question is, do more people in Inwood need access to mainland Queens (which would be provided by the QT62) or to areas within the Rockaways (which would be provided by the QT22)? 

20 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is something that I started to wonder, but the amount of duplicative services in the redesign is something here are a few duplicates that I’ve noticed:

QT69 - Duplicated by the QT1 on 21st Street

QT14 - Duplicated by the QT87

QT36 - Duplicated by the QT18, QT33, QT34, QT38, QT39

I don't think that is a huge issue. Considering how much of the Queens bus network is hub-and-spoke, some level of duplication is bound to happen.

And in some cases, the duplication is in the form of (basically) local/limited-stop service. While there are a few cases where I disagree with the routing, I don't think excess duplication is an issue in the proposed network overall (I'd say it's definitely less than the level of duplication in the current network. Whether you consider that excessive is up for debate)

[B35 via Church]

29 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I guess the other big question is, do more people in Inwood need access to mainland Queens (which would be provided by the QT62) or to areas within the Rockaways (which would be provided by the QT22)?

Without hesitation, I'd say mainland Queens (but not along Rockaway blvd)..... Folks would likely backtrack to Far Rockaway on the QT22 to catch the QT13 up towards SE Queens & Jamaica.... Can't see most those folks taking the QT22 to Burnside, to then have to hoof it up to Peninsula to catch the QT13.... Walking along Rockaway Tpke. isn't really ped. friendly - although there are sidewalks, there are also far too many vehicles pulling in & out of shopping plazas, gas stations, etc.... In that regard, it's like Hylan Blvd. on steroids.

[NewFlyer 230]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is something that I started to wonder, but the amount of duplicative services in the redesign is something here are a few duplicates that I’ve noticed:

QT69 - Duplicated by the QT1 on 21st Street

QT14 - Duplicated by the QT87

QT36 - Duplicated by the QT18, QT33, QT34, QT38, QT39

 

They all serve a particular purpose. 
i think the Queens bus system as it is currently is has too much duplication. I do like that they tried addressing that with the redesign but in order for that to be successful the base route serving a particular corridor has to be very frequent itself or else it will flop. 
Some corridors in Queens that have too much duplication is:

1. Hillside Ave, I think this is the worst offender tbh

2. Jamaica Ave/Archer Ave between Sutphin Blvd & 168th street.

3. Kissena Blvd, I don’t think the Q17/Q27 should be making all the stops they make on Kissena. 
4. Woodhaven Blvd. They did address this in the redesign. I’m glad there is one SBS service and one local service, but I agree with many others that the Q53 should be retained. East of the Wye has full time direct  service to Manhattan as well as the Q22. The west has the beaches which and the infrequent  train. The Q53 sees way more usage than the Q52 does in Rockaway so I don’t know why they are suddenly trying to force ridership on the Q52 if it’s not there. 
 

Then there are some minor duplication like the Q12 and Q13 and the Q13 and Q28 on Northern even though it’s not as bad as Hillside Ave. With the recent articulation of the Q12 I’m so surprised the Q13 didn’t see a reduction in service. 
 

Then there is Merrick Blvd which got addressed in the redesign as well and Guy Brewer which they also addressed as well.

[checkmatechamp13]

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Without hesitation, I'd say mainland Queens (but not along Rockaway blvd)..... Folks would likely backtrack to Far Rockaway on the QT22 to catch the QT13 up towards SE Queens & Jamaica.... Can't see most those folks taking the QT22 to Burnside, to then have to hoof it up to Peninsula to catch the QT13.... Walking along Rockaway Tpke. isn't really ped. friendly - although there are sidewalks, there are also far too many vehicles pulling in & out of shopping plazas, gas stations, etc.... In that regard, it's like Hylan Blvd. on steroids.

Could they instead have the QT22 terminate at Rockaway/Peninsula and turn around by heading west towards the Nassau Expressway? (e.g. Rockaway-Peninsula-Nassau-Rockaway) Is there a place in that area where buses can reasonably layover?

[Q43LTD]

40 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Could they instead have the QT22 terminate at Rockaway/Peninsula and turn around by heading west towards the Nassau Expressway? (e.g. Rockaway-Peninsula-Nassau-Rockaway) Is there a place in that area where buses can reasonably layover?

No. I would consider the virtually dead Bay Harbour Mall by using the parking lot, but no. That's why some have suggested ending the QT22 and 62 to Cedarhurst LIRR

[B35 via Church]

16 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

They all serve a particular purpose. 
i think the Queens bus system as it is currently is has too much duplication. I do like that they tried addressing that with the redesign but in order for that to be successful the base route serving a particular corridor has to be very frequent itself or else it will flop. 

Some corridors in Queens that have too much duplication is:

1. Hillside Ave, I think this is the worst offender tbh

2. Jamaica Ave/Archer Ave between Sutphin Blvd & 168th street.

3. Kissena Blvd, I don’t think the Q17/Q27 should be making all the stops they make on Kissena.

4. Woodhaven Blvd. They did address this in the redesign. I’m glad there is one SBS service and one local service, but I agree with many others that the Q53 should be retained. East of the Wye has full time direct  service to Manhattan as well as the Q22. The west has the beaches which and the infrequent  train. The Q53 sees way more usage than the Q52 does in Rockaway so I don’t know why they are suddenly trying to force ridership on the Q52 if it’s not there. 
 

Then there are some minor duplication like the Q12 and Q13 and the Q13 and Q28 on Northern even though it’s not as bad as Hillside Ave. With the recent articulation of the Q12 I’m so surprised the Q13 didn’t see a reduction in service. 
 

Then there is Merrick Blvd which got addressed in the redesign as well and Guy Brewer which they also addressed as well.

I only concur with there being too much duplication along Hillside (for the simple fact that some of those SE Queens buses could use Jamaica av. to get to Downtown Jamaica) and along Woodhaven (the Q21 & Q52 are not only duplicative, but superfluous)....

To say that there's too much duplication along Jamaica & Archer is basically saying that there's too many routes serving Downtown Jamaica (I actually don't have a problem w/ the number of routes serving Jamaica).... The routes gotta run along somewhere to serve a central/common destination.... How many (or which) routes would you boot out of Downtown Jamaica, on the notion that there's simply too many of them?

While there is duplication, I wouldn't necessarily say there's too much of it along Kissena - esp. since I tend to view the Q25/34 as one route.... I would boot the Q27 off Holly altogether because Kissena is too narrow, which exacerbates congestion.... Now if Kissena was as wide as Hillside, I'd leave the Q27 on Kissena...

11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Could they instead have the QT22 terminate at Rockaway/Peninsula and turn around by heading west towards the Nassau Expressway? (e.g. Rockaway-Peninsula-Nassau-Rockaway) Is there a place in that area where buses can reasonably layover?

Short answer (for both questions): Nope.

Long answer: While the NB (current Q114) bus stop is on the near side of that intersection, buses would have to be in the turning lane to even make that left turn off Rockaway Tpke onto Bay Blvd (that's not Peninsula at that point btw).... Even if they did allow buses an exemption to where they can make that right turn off the Nassau Expwy. to get back to the SB side of Rockaway Tpke., there's no where to have buses layover anywhere in that general vicinity of Rockaway Tpke.....

11 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

No. I would consider the virtually dead Bay Harbour Mall by using the parking lot, but no. That's why some have suggested ending the QT22 and 62 to Cedarhurst LIRR

Right, but for what Checkmate is asking about, having the QT22/QT62 end at Cedarhurst LIRR would make matters worse for Inwood folks needing (to catch the QT13 to get to)  Jamaica....

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 5/4/2020 at 7:40 AM, B35 via Church said:

You're right that the Q32 & the aren't redundant, but I would argue that there isn't a real need for the entire current Q32 as is... I'm not understanding how this reorganization assumes that only ppl. in Sunnyside & QBP are taking buses to Manhattan - when the QT61's routing between 5th/59th & Moore terminal is the same as the Q32.... Also, you say the QT61 helps for folks only seeking 59th, but the funny thing about that, is that the thing practically tanks at the subway station (59th) anyway & usage isn't really getting any better in Manhattan past that point, inbound... On the Queens end, the issue with the Q32 past Moore terminal has always been that it doesn't run past Northern..... What I think is moot regarding the QT61, is the having of the Jackson Heights portion of the [Q47 north of Roosevelt] deserving direct Manhattan access, over the [Q33 portion north of Roosevelt].... Having the QT61 serve 23rd av. though, is rather excessive... Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that the QT61 is "better" than the Q32 either....

The QT75 is a more residential version of the Q32 in Sunnyside, combined with the Q104's stint in Sunnyside; it's the quintessential Sunnyside route.... A lot of those folks taking Q32's/Q60's along QB to/from Manhattan are not as proximate to QB than you might think.... There are a good chunk of seniors taking buses along that part of QB too, so I don't really have near as much of a problem with keeping the Q32 intact... The QT75 not helping anybody going past Sunnyside I don't agree with either; that's like saying nobody uses the Q104 between Northern & QB, which is not even remotely true.....

I wasn't implicating that people don't use the Q104 along 48th Street at all. My post was referring to those who use the bus going into Manhattan. The QT75 would be useful for Sunnyside folks and the like, but for those going to Woodside and Jackson Heights, it doesn't. Sure the QT61 makes stops along 59th, and while the inbound buses do tend to empty by 59th, the outbound buses tend to fill up south of 42nd (another problem with the QT75 is that it only goes to 42nd and not to Penn). 

On 5/4/2020 at 7:40 AM, B35 via Church said:

(Not defending it, but) The gripe about the Q76 for the longest, has been that it doesn't go to Flushing.... This is their attempt at that.

I can see schoolkids & elderly riders primarily using this QT84 between Bayside & Clearview/Whitestone... The part I find reprehensible about this route though, is combining that concept with about HALF of the Q25's service area between Flushing & College Point.... While you could argue that College Point (the neighborhood) is overserved, this plan outright screws those folks... The onus is to have the majority of those folks up there taking QT15's to get to/from Flushing - never mind that the route is basically a (frugal) combination of [the Q27 b/w QCC & Flushing] & [the Q65 b/w Flushing & Shore Front Park].... GTBFKM with service every 8 mins. peak on a route like that (QT15); there's gonna be more flagging than on NFL players going on up there....

Also, for lack of a better term, the QT64 up there is just.... bad.

I agree that the QT84 is not an adequate replacement for the Q25 in that area. Frequencies are much lower, and the QT15 definitely won't cut it. It also doesn't help that the QT86 ends near College Point Depot and doesn't actually go into the residential sections of College Point. 

 

I don't have a problem with the QT64, I could potentially see it catch whatever Q76 riders there are there, plus more people off the College Point routes heading into Flushing to transfer to other routes, so it could work out. Even if they still have to transfer, a trip to points further out east would be faster since they don't have to deal with traffic and passenger volumes. What I don't like is that the QT64 is a 24/7 service. During late nights I just don't see much of any demand from that area out to NE Queens, and once again, everyone would need to make their way to the QT15.