Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[LGA Link N Train]

I think I have some added thoughts on some routes

QT1 - I still personally like this route, however there are many proponents of this proposal given that it mimics the proposed Boondoggle-X. Also eliminates the Q103 and all bus service on Vernon Blvd. Now from experience, by the time the B62 gets into queens, there aren’t that many passengers left on board. (I’m not sure if that’s the same with the B32), I personally wouldn’t mind if the Q69 or QT79 terminated in Greenpoint instead to at least preserve that Queens-Brooklyn Access. 

QT3/QT54 - While I still agree with @B35 via Church on splitting the Q54, I have to ask: “How many people are actually traveling between Jamaica and Williamsburg?” I ask this mainly cause I want to understand the rationale of giving Metropolitan Avenue Local/Limited Service as opposed to splitting the route.

QT14 - While combining the Q10 and Q64 is ridiculous, I can now understand the rationale behind it. Though due to concerns about crowding, I think the  should think twice about it. 

QT65 - While I have no problem with its route, people living along 160th have. However, if the  doesn’t want it running toward Flushing, then where else would it go? Cause I can only think of Flushing if the  chose to swap the QT65 and QT73 terminals. 

QT79 - I’m personally opposed with any route running underneath the  in Astoria , I would route it via 21st Street and terminate it in Queensboro Plaza or Williamsburg. 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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).

It would be one thing if it was an AM vs. PM thing, but inbound usage on the Q32 is like that, regardless of the time of day..... Blatantly inconsistent usage inbound vs. outbound like that is quite telling/bothersome....

As for the QT75, okay, so riders from one end of the route won't utilize the thing to Manhattan as much as those emanating from the middle of the route would.... I'm not quite sure what ultimate point you're trying to make with that, other than the QT75 having no business running past Sunnyside... You may have not been implicating that usage along 48th is poor, but your commentary is implicating that Manhattan would make or break the usefulness of the thing (QT75)....

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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. 

Not only is the QT84 an inadequate Q25 replacement up there, the QT86 isn't even a decent supplement up there to the QT84.... It (QT86) literally does nothing for College Point residents.... Although the QT64 solves the whole Q20a/b thing (14th vs. 20th, along with the terminal scenario at College Point Blvd), it doesn't do much for folks in College Point by itself either.... Instead of the Q20b being an afterthought, the QT64 up there'll be used to get to the QT15 or QT16.... Fact of the matter is that there is a need for a second north-south route having a similar amount of coverage in College Point as the QT15....

As far as the QT64 being 24/7, 10 bucks says if this route ever comes to fruition, it won't travel the full route 24/7.... Folks will complain about loud buses passing through their pretentious area all times of the night.... The thing would likely nerfed north of Northern, or even HHE....

To sum it up, the hub & spoke model for/in Downtown Flushing isn't the problem.... Making it more of a modified grid (by "linking neighborhoods") exacerbates things.... The subway dash routes (QT48, QT49, QT51) though will be packed to the f**king brim...

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I think I have some added thoughts on some routes

QT1 - I still personally like this route, however there are many proponents of this proposal given that it mimics the proposed Boondoggle-X. Also eliminates the Q103 and all bus service on Vernon Blvd. Now from experience, by the time the B62 gets into queens, there aren’t that many passengers left on board. (I’m not sure if that’s the same with the B32), I personally wouldn’t mind if the Q69 or QT79 terminated in Greenpoint instead to at least preserve that Queens-Brooklyn Access. 

QT3/QT54 - While I still agree with @B35 via Church on splitting the Q54, I have to ask: “How many people are actually traveling between Jamaica and Williamsburg?” I ask this mainly cause I want to understand the rationale of giving Metropolitan Avenue Local/Limited Service as opposed to splitting the route.

I'll put it to you this way, there are typically more people on the bus when the B32 hits Court Sq (well 21st/44th dr.), compared to the B62.... Even I have to admit how crazy the demand for service along Jackson av. has withered (which makes the proposing of the QT60 & QT79 running along it [to eventually get to the ferry] very questionable)....

Most Brooklynites taking Q54's are not taking it to Jamaica... Way I see it, they don't want to split the route because it's going to cost more money to run the commensurate amount of service needed for both 'splits' of the route..... The current Q54 runs at a clip of 10 BPH peak (put a pin on that) - Now peep this, QT3's are proposed to run at only 5 BPH & the QT54 to run at every 20 minutes PEAK (3 BPH).... I don't think I have to say much more.

[LGA Link N Train]

42 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The current Q54 runs at a clip of 10 BPH peak (put a pin on that) - Now peep this, QT3's are proposed to run at only 5 BPH & the QT54 to run at every 20 minutes PEAK (3 BPH).... I don't think I have to say much more.

Wait a minute, that's a service cut!

I guess that it would cost too much money to split the Q54, but then I see some sort of backwards logic here. The is proposing a few routes that in their currently proposed forms, won't financially help them as much such as the QT2 and QT87. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

It would be one thing if it was an AM vs. PM thing, but inbound usage on the Q32 is like that, regardless of the time of day..... Blatantly inconsistent usage inbound vs. outbound like that is quite telling/bothersome....

As for the QT75, okay, so riders from one end of the route won't utilize the thing to Manhattan as much as those emanating from the middle of the route would.... I'm not quite sure what ultimate point you're trying to make with that, other than the QT75 having no business running past Sunnyside... You may have not been implicating that usage along 48th is poor, but your commentary is implicating that Manhattan would make or break the usefulness of the thing (QT75)....

I'm saying that the QT75 being the route that goes into Manhattan over the QT60 (and further south into Midtown over the QT61) is not considering that people east of Sunnyside use the existing route to/from Manhattan. My post didn't have to do with the potential ridership of the route, but the mere selection of it over the others. This wouldn't be a problem if there weren't people using Q32s and Q60s to/from Manhattan coming from points east of 48th Street in notable numbers.

Sure the QT61 would cover 59th/60th, but you still lose those riders who are coming from points south. You'll probably get some people using the QT75, but not everyone (which would further reduce ridership).  Some of those same people getting on in the 30s and 40s I've seen ride into Woodside. The QT75 wouldn't help them. In a similar fashion, the QT75 wouldn't benefit those on the Q60 riding past Sunnyside into Woodside, Elmhurst (and a few going even further east than that because of the lack of subway accessibility), and you might lose riders from that group as well. You could have the QT60 continue to run into Manhattan (virtually similar, if not slightly less runtime than to/from Hunters Point) and this wouldn't be so much of an issue. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[NewFlyer 230]

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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...

 

I would leave the Q4, Q5, Q42, Q84, and Q85 the way that they all because they all end at Parsons/Archer for the subway connection
The Q83 in my opinion should end with the Merrick Blvd routes as I like to call them at Parsons Blvd. It’s interesting because every time I wait for the Q25/Q34 over there at Bay E on Archer Av, I always forget that the Q83’s first stop is on 153rd street and Hillside Ave. So I see the bus pull in at Bay D with a few people and then I remember that it doesn’t start there. 

The Q24 and Q54 should terminate where the Q40 does at 148th and Hillside. While it might not do much to help the reliability of the routes it won’t have to hit traffic on Jamaica Ave between Sutphin and their terminals at 168th and 171st streets. They just add to the traffic over and there and there are so many bus routes traveling over there as it is. The Q40 I would move it two blocks west to 146th and Hillside Ave to make room for the Q24/Q54.

I would keep the Q30 as it is just because a lot of school kids utilize it, but I would cut the Q31 to 169th street outside of rush hours. There is no need for two Utopia routes running along Jamaica Ave especially with the Q31 carrying air most of the time. 

 

The Q56 I would keep as is. It serves Jamaica Ave to the west and I do think it’s important to have to a bus route coming from that end serve the entire downtown area. The Q110 I would actually have it run to Jamaica Sutphin Blvd so that a bus coming from the east along Jamaica Ave can serve the entire downtown Jamaica Ave. 
 

As for the Q20/Q44, I know you’ve said in the past that the Q20 should terminate at Briarwood but I feel like it’s so sudden and in the middle of nowhere. I know the  and  are there but I find that not too many people get off there to transfer to the train. I feel like the issue with the Q20 is that over the years the MTA has purposely slowed it down to make the Q44 more attractive. And it surely has worked because the Q44 see more usage along Archer and pretty much in Jamaica in general. Of course I’m not expecting it to run as fast as the Q44 SBS, but I don’t remember it being so slow back in the days when they both used to use standard buses. Ever since the Q44 got articulated buses and eventually became a select bus route, that’s when the Q20 became an afterthought. It’s slowness has become so apparent nowadays where there is barely any traffic on Main Street south of the Horace Harding Expressway but it’s still crawling for some reason. A lot of those local stops aren’t even that well used except for a few of them so buses should be moving. I would consider having it run to Jamaica Hospital or just cut both the Q20 and Q44 to Hillside Ave and 153rd street. I feel like if it ends at Kew Gardens it will turn into another Q74. The QT86 is a joke in my opinion, but I suppose it has some potential between Queens Blvd and Cooper Ave.

As for the Q6, Q8, Q9 and Q41, both the Q6, and Q8 should continue serving 165th street terminal as they both see good usage. The Q9 is kind of iffy, it does pick up on Jamaica so maybe I would keep it there, tbh I don’t know what to do with it. The Q41 does not even exist in the redesign plan so I guess they figure everyone will just hop on the Q24, QT5(Q8) and QT67(Q112). From the times I’ve used the Q41from Jamaica it empties out by Liberty Ave so perhaps maybe it doesn’t need to exist. It was good that they fixed the route some years back in Richmond Hills to have it run down 109th Ave, and straight down 127th street to Atlantic instead of it making all these unnecessary turns. I’m sure it can still exist maybe just between Hillside Ave/ Sutphin Blvd to the Rockaway Blvd Station.

As for other routes I like the QT67 route if we just forget about the Q110 part of the route. I think the current Q112 should take that route to reach Liberty Ave instead of the way it does now. There isn’t any room at Jamaica Sutphin so I guess it can stay where it’s at. 
I would say move the Q17 to 165th street terminal but that’s only if they terminate the Q76 and Q77 to 179th street. Those routes I believe actually terminated at 179th street some years back (until 1988) but got extended to the bus terminal on 165th steet. 
 

[B35 via Church]

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Wait a minute, that's a service cut!

I guess that it would cost too much money to split the Q54, but then I see some sort of backwards logic here. The is proposing a few routes that in their currently proposed forms, won't financially help them as much such as the QT2 and QT87. 

Backwards-logic (lol) or misallocation of resources ?

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I'm saying that the QT75 being the route that goes into Manhattan over the QT60 (and further south into Midtown over the QT61) is not considering that people east of Sunnyside use the existing route to/from Manhattan. My post didn't have to do with the potential ridership of the route, but the mere selection of it over the others. This wouldn't be a problem if there weren't people using Q32s and Q60s to/from Manhattan coming from points east of 48th Street in notable numbers.

Sure the QT61 would cover 59th/60th, but you still lose those riders who are coming from points south. You'll probably get some people using the QT75, but not everyone (which would further reduce ridership).  Some of those same people getting on in the 30s and 40s I've seen ride into Woodside. The QT75 wouldn't help them. In a similar fashion, the QT75 wouldn't benefit those on the Q60 riding past Sunnyside into Woodside, Elmhurst (and a few going even further east than that because of the lack of subway accessibility), and you might lose riders from that group as well. You could have the QT60 continue to run into Manhattan (virtually similar, if not slightly less runtime than to/from Hunters Point) and this wouldn't be so much of an issue. 

Oh, I'd say that they actually are considering riders east of Sunnyside - instead of maintaining the ones that are taking Q32's into Manhattan and Q60's into Manhattan, they're prioritizing them.... There are simply more people taking Q32's into Manhattan over the Q60, that is a fact.... More & more people on the Q60 are either bailing at Queens Plaza or QBP subway these days.... It is exactly why I always thought there should be a significant amount of Q60's ending at QBP, instead of going over the bridge....

Alright, so your argument is basically that there are more riders east of Sunnyside on the Q60 riding into Manhattan, compared to that of anyone that'd ride into Manhattan on the QT75 north of Sunnyside... I would think that would be obvious.... While I'm not necessarily agreeing with the QT75 specifically running to Manhattan over the QT60, I do agree with the notion that (as many BPH on the) Q32's & Q60's shouldn't be running over the bridge..... Whether the QT61 takes on the Q32's course or the Q60's course in Manhattan, I find to be immaterial - as was already said, inbound riders are bolting for 59th st subway.... The running of the QT61 to Columbus Circle, to me, says that they still want to maintain the direct xfer to 59th subway - but at the same time, realize that you can't feasibly terminate buses in that immediate vicinity of Manhattan.... The current Q60 & Q101 termini in Manhattan is a PITA to get to from a pedestrian standpoint....

What I don't agree with when it comes to the QT60, is the whole ferry (experiment) bit... Folks are gonna bolt for Court Sq. & that's going to be the extent of QT60 usage west of Van Dam.... That is a poor allocation of mileage (yes, I'd rather have buses going to Manhattan [albeit, not every single trip] over going to Hunterspoint Ferry).... I'm not going to single out the lack of potential direct Manhattan ridership on the QT75 north/east of Sunnyside though, because I do see that segment of the route garnering a decent amt. of intraborough ridership.....

Something to note about buses in the QBP area is that they don't have anything terminating there.... The current situation regarding QBP is something I've brought up before, but I think they went too far in addressing that issue.... At the very least, I'd still have QT60's & QT69's ending there.

 

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church I actually agree with not having anything end at QBP. Most of the connections can still be had in less congested areas (for example, the QT69 still connects to the at 44th Drive, and the is a short walk from Vernon & 48th). The QT60 actually gains a connection to the at 21st & Jackson, while also maintaining the connection to the for those in Sunnyside. (And the QT61 maintains the connections to the Broadway Line, though I have my own issues with that route)

I will say, this could be a good opportunity to modify the Q103 and have it run to QBP (since the QT69 is covering the southern part anyway). So that could be the route that terminates there.

I will say that the area around Vernon/Jackson can sometimes be surprisingly congested (since there is an entrance to the LIE near there). And whenever the Pulaski Bridge is raised for ships, there can be traffic jams around that part of Jackson Avenue, so it's not as if QBP is the only congestion hotspot in LIC.

[B35 via Church]

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I would leave the Q4, Q5, Q42, Q84, and Q85 the way that they all because they all end at Parsons/Archer for the subway connection
The Q83 in my opinion should end with the Merrick Blvd routes as I like to call them at Parsons Blvd. It’s interesting because every time I wait for the Q25/Q34 over there at Bay E on Archer Av, I always forget that the Q83’s first stop is on 153rd street and Hillside Ave. So I see the bus pull in at Bay D with a few people and then I remember that it doesn’t start there. 

The Q24 and Q54 should terminate where the Q40 does at 148th and Hillside. While it might not do much to help the reliability of the routes it won’t have to hit traffic on Jamaica Ave between Sutphin and their terminals at 168th and 171st streets. They just add to the traffic over and there and there are so many bus routes traveling over there as it is. The Q40 I would move it two blocks west to 146th and Hillside Ave to make room for the Q24/Q54.

I would keep the Q30 as it is just because a lot of school kids utilize it, but I would cut the Q31 to 169th street outside of rush hours. There is no need for two Utopia routes running along Jamaica Ave especially with the Q31 carrying air most of the time. 

The Q56 I would keep as is. It serves Jamaica Ave to the west and I do think it’s important to have to a bus route coming from that end serve the entire downtown area. The Q110 I would actually have it run to Jamaica Sutphin Blvd so that a bus coming from the east along Jamaica Ave can serve the entire downtown Jamaica Ave. 

Reading this part of your post, I generally agree with the sentiments.... I think people down in SE Queens gun for the Q83 (over say, the Q3 or the Q77) because it gives riders the option of the or the (they can always xfer at Briarwood, but you never know what/how some people think/feel about certain things)..... One thing I will say about the Q83 is that those suckers leave Parsons jampacked, and I've seen some pretty epic lines for it along 153rd when things are running late....

If I were to mutually terminate the Q24 & Q54 somewhere, it would not be at Sutphin .... One area of Jamaica where they could consider terminating some of these buses (in general), is down by the Liberty av side of York College... This way, you could still have buses running along Jamaica or Archer, while still serving enough of Downtown Jamaica (b/w Sutphin & Brewer)... Jamaica Ctr. itself, while ideal, can't really handle 2 more routes ending there.... One thing for sure is that I would not have the Q54 end w/ the Q56 over at 170th....

...Speaking of which, I have always believed that the reason both those routes (Q54/56) get utilized over there (over the Q110), is due to the fact that the Q110 turns off at 153rd.... Those folks that reside east of Merrick tend to take buses well past Jamaica/Archer - which is why I'd have the Q110 serve more of Jamaica av..... I can agree with Jamaica/Sutphin, but I was thinking more along the lines of over there by Jamaica Hospital / Jamaica - Van Wyck (to layover there at the current SB Q54 stop at 132nd/Jamaica).... As for the Q56, I'd just throw it inside 165th st terminal....

I'd also argue there not being a need for 2 Utopia routes.... While the redesign does address this, IMO, it has it serving WAY too much of Utopia (QT65) - and the cutting across to get to College Point after the fact, is beyond bonkers..... They decided to prioritize the north-south coverage that the Q31 offers, over the usage the Q30 garners (over the Q31).... At least they kept the QCC - Jamaica connection with that QT33 (although it only runs as far as Jamaica/Merrick)..... You think the Q31 is bad, holy shit if that QT65 ever comes to fruition - the current Q76 will resemble the 42nd st , compared to it..... We may joke in saying that the Q76 (and the Q31) is a glorified school bus on these parts, but at least a school bus still carries....

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

As for the Q20/Q44, I know you’ve said in the past that the Q20 should terminate at Briarwood but I feel like it’s so sudden and in the middle of nowhere. I know the  and  are there but I find that not too many people get off there to transfer to the train. I feel like the issue with the Q20 is that over the years the MTA has purposely slowed it down to make the Q44 more attractive. And it surely has worked because the Q44 see more usage along Archer and pretty much in Jamaica in general. Of course I’m not expecting it to run as fast as the Q44 SBS, but I don’t remember it being so slow back in the days when they both used to use standard buses. Ever since the Q44 got articulated buses and eventually became a select bus route, that’s when the Q20 became an afterthought. It’s slowness has become so apparent nowadays where there is barely any traffic on Main Street south of the Horace Harding Expressway but it’s still crawling for some reason. A lot of those local stops aren’t even that well used except for a few of them so buses should be moving. I would consider having it run to Jamaica Hospital or just cut both the Q20 and Q44 to Hillside Ave and 153rd street. I feel like if it ends at Kew Gardens it will turn into another Q74. The QT86 is a joke in my opinion, but I suppose it has some potential between Queens Blvd and Cooper Ave.

As for the Q6, Q8, Q9 and Q41, both the Q6, and Q8 should continue serving 165th street terminal as they both see good usage. The Q9 is kind of iffy, it does pick up on Jamaica so maybe I would keep it there, tbh I don’t know what to do with it. The Q41 does not even exist in the redesign plan so I guess they figure everyone will just hop on the Q24, QT5(Q8) and QT67(Q112). From the times I’ve used the Q41 from Jamaica it empties out by Liberty Ave so perhaps maybe it doesn’t need to exist. It was good that they fixed the route some years back in Richmond Hills to have it run down 109th Ave, and straight down 127th street to Atlantic instead of it making all these unnecessary turns. I’m sure it can still exist maybe just between Hillside Ave/ Sutphin Blvd to the Rockaway Blvd Station.

As for other routes I like the QT67 route if we just forget about the Q110 part of the route. I think the current Q112 should take that route to reach Liberty Ave instead of the way it does now. There isn’t any room at Jamaica Sutphin so I guess it can stay where it’s at. 
I would say move the Q17 to 165th street terminal but that’s only if they terminate the Q76 and Q77 to 179th street. Those routes I believe actually terminated at 179th street some years back (until 1988) but got extended to the bus terminal on 165th steet.

Although unfortunate, what you're mentioning (regarding its sluggishness) is a large part of the reason why I'd truncate the Q20a/b to Briarwood subway.... The star of the show is the Q44 & IMO Downtown Jamaica can do without the BPH on the Q20a/b clogging up Archer, while virtually everyone's gunning for the Q44.... When I'd come home from work, I'd always say to myself, why do they even run these things out here with barely a seated load (and I'm being generous with that), when the dam 44's always packed to the brim.... It wasn't an anomalous ordeal either, it was literally everyday... Empty ass NB Q20's along Archer & the masses on Q44's before it turned onto Sutphin... You're right about the usage of the Q20 in relation to the Q44 though - people would bite the bullet along Main & take the Q20 to Jamaica if they couldn't get on the Q44 (when 40'-ers were ran on them)... Now that there's more capacity on the Q44 per bus, pfft - those same people stopped biting bullets & started biting the dust instead when it came to the Q20..... This is an example of where/how artics should be used, not throwing artics onto a route simply because you want to cut service.... That doesn't excuse the (apparently intentional IMO) crawling of the Q20 along Main though.....

LMAO about the Q86... The distance between Main & QB along Union Tpke may look short on the map, but it can take quite the time for Q46 to get to subway from Main st. at times..... It would have been simpler/quicker to run it down to Briarwood for the subway connection.... I'm not buying that folks along Main st. are/have clamored for a 1 seat ride to Yellowstone & (the dead mall that is) Atlas Park.... The amount of bus routes proposed to run along QB b/w Kew Gardens & Forest Hills (QT11, 14, 60, 86, 87), along with the meandering of the QT86 & QT87, are absurd.... I have often said that a turn off a given corridor can make a world of difference for a bus route, but this clearly doesn't fit the bill... Even if you wanted to give Glendale & Forest Hills a 1-seat ride to Flushing, have it take Jewel to Main, instead of QB > Union Tpke > Main.... Oh, and then there's the ending of it in the middle of nowhere on the northern end of the thing; Linden/28th? Really..... I get cutting down of the number of buses terminating in Flushing, but come on....

As for the JFK depot routes inside 165th, while I happen to like the little engine that DOES (is what I like to dub the Q9... lol), that is the route I'd remove from 165th to run up Sutphin to end with the Q40 instead.... Yeah, the Q6 & the Q8 are the most prominent routes inside 165th by a wide margin (although I have to say, I do like the QT20 proposal).... IDK, if the Q24 were to be removed from ending at Archer/Merrick, I would consider moving the Q41 in that spot instead (to make space for the Q56)..... I can't agree with eliminating the Q41 outright....

[B35 via Church]

39 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church I actually agree with not having anything end at QBP. Most of the connections can still be had in less congested areas (for example, the QT69 still connects to the at 44th Drive, and the is a short walk from Vernon & 48th). The QT60 actually gains a connection to the at 21st & Jackson, while also maintaining the connection to the for those in Sunnyside. (And the QT61 maintains the connections to the Broadway Line, though I have my own issues with that route)

I will say, this could be a good opportunity to modify the Q103 and have it run to QBP (since the QT69 is covering the southern part anyway). So that could be the route that terminates there.

I will say that the area around Vernon/Jackson can sometimes be surprisingly congested (since there is an entrance to the LIE near there). And whenever the Pulaski Bridge is raised for ships, there can be traffic jams around that part of Jackson Avenue, so it's not as if QBP is the only congestion hotspot in LIC.

What I never cared for about the Q69 is the terminating of it at QBP, to then backtrack to Court sq. to run up the rest of 21st.... I would've drawn a hard line for it to either solely serve QBP or Court Sq. - but for the life of me, I can't condone running it to Hunterspoint.... I don't see Queens patrons up there in Ravenswood, Astoria, and Steinway benefiting from running QT69's down there... The problem with Hunterspoint as an up-and-coming area (unlike DUMBO & hipster Williamsburg) is that it lacks an "it" factor; while visually appealing, there's no real draw.... To me, that area around Gantry Plaza is attempting to be a carbon copy of Battery Park City.... On top of it, the restaurant scene (or what's left of it) along Vernon hasn't been the same for quite some time now....

The QT60 gains a direct connection to the , but loses a direct connection to the .... Fair trade off? Your opinion is as good as mine....

QBP isn't the only congested area in LIC by a longshot.... You still got Thomson, Van Dam, and even Jackson av at an increasing rate (which goes back to  @LaGuardia Link N Tra's point regarding the waning B62 usage in Queens).... But tying this back to the QT60, although Thomson is no lightweight when it comes to congestion, yeah - it isn't on the level of that of around QBP..... No argument there.

Care to spill it (about your gripe{s} with the QT61)?

 

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Backwards-logic (lol) or misallocation of resources ?

I guess it’d be misallocation of resources. (I was half asleep throughout all of yesterday). Which something that I happen to notice a lot out of this map. 
 

11 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

As for other routes I like the QT67 route if we just forget about the Q110 part of the route. I think the current Q112 should take that route to reach Liberty Ave instead of the way it does now. There isn’t any room at Jamaica Sutphin so I guess it can stay where it’s at. 

Regarding the QT67, I agree with you on this, though I think Q110 section of the route should preserve the name. As for the Liberty Avenue Section I’d the route, I don’t know if I’d prefer for it to be a Ozone Park-Jamaica shuttle or to have it cover the entirety of Liberty and have it terminate at St. Albans or something. 
 

11 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The QT86 is a joke in my opinion, but I suppose it has some potential between Queens Blvd and Cooper Ave.

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The amount of bus routes proposed to run along QB b/w Kew Gardens & Forest Hills (QT11, 14, 60, 86, 87), along with the meandering of the QT86 & QT87, are absurd.... I have often said that a turn off a given corridor can make a world of difference for a bus route, but this clearly doesn't fit the bill... Even if you wanted to give Glendale & Forest Hills a 1-seat ride to Flushing, have it take Jewel to Main, instead of QB > Union Tpke > Main.... Oh, and then there's the ending of it in the middle of nowhere on the northern end of the thing; Linden/28th? Really..... I get cutting down of the number of buses terminating in Flushing, but come on....

Geese, I didn’t even realize the level of duplication on QB between Forest Hills and Kew Gardens. The QT86 between QB and Cooper is fine because it’s running on Yellowstone. . (Though it’d be better if extended to Myrtle Avenue instead of the QT82). And while I understand the sentiment with what they did between Kew Gardens and Flushing, I do have to agree that the terminal choice is... strange. (At least you have the depot right there) It also makes the QT84 a strange route. The QT87 is a boondoggle and won’t help much of anyone. I remember reading on the Queens Bus Redesign Facebook Group that residents on 73rd Avenue (east of 188th) were opposed to having a bus there. IMO the QT87 needs to be revised completely. 

 

 

13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

You'll probably get some people using the QT75, but not everyone (which would further reduce ridership).  Some of those same people getting on in the 30s and 40s I've seen ride into Woodside. The QT75 wouldn't help them. In a similar fashion, the QT75 wouldn't benefit those on the Q60 riding past Sunnyside into Woodside, Elmhurst (and a few going even further east than that because of the lack of subway accessibility), and you might lose riders from that group as well. You could have the QT60 continue to run into Manhattan (virtually similar, if not slightly less runtime than to/from Hunters Point) and this wouldn't be so much of an issue. 

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church I actually agree with not having anything end at QBP. Most of the connections can still be had in less congested areas (for example, the QT69 still connects to the at 44th Drive, and the is a short walk from Vernon & 48th). The QT60 actually gains a connection to the at 21st & Jackson, while also maintaining the connection to the for those in Sunnyside. (And the QT61 maintains the connections to the Broadway Line, though I have my own issues with that route)

I will say, this could be a good opportunity to modify the Q103 and have it run to QBP (since the QT69 is covering the southern part anyway). So that could be the route that terminates there.

I will say that the area around Vernon/Jackson can sometimes be surprisingly congested (since there is an entrance to the LIE near there). And whenever the Pulaski Bridge is raised for ships, there can be traffic jams around that part of Jackson Avenue, so it's not as if QBP is the only congestion hotspot in LIC.

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What I never cared for about the Q69 is the terminating of it at QBP, to then backtrack to Court sq. to run up the rest of 21st.... I would've drawn a hard line for it to either solely serve QBP or Court Sq. - but for the life of me, I can't condone running it to Hunterspoint.... I don't see Queens patrons up there in Ravenswood, Astoria, and Steinway benefiting from running QT69's down there... The problem with Hunterspoint as an up-and-coming area (unlike DUMBO & hipster Williamsburg) is that it lacks an "it" factor; while visually appealing, there's no real draw.... To me, that area around Gantry Plaza is attempting to be a carbon copy of Battery Park City.... On top of it, the restaurant scene (or what's left of it) along Vernon hasn't been the same for quite some time now....

The QT60 gains a direct connection to the , but loses a direct connection to the .... Fair trade off? Your opinion is as good as mine....

QBP isn't the only congested area in LIC by a longshot.... You still got Thomson, Van Dam, and even Jackson av at an increasing rate (which goes back to  @LaGuardia Link N Tra's point regarding the waning B62 usage in Queens).... But tying this back to the QT60, although Thomson is no lightweight when it comes to congestion, yeah - it isn't on the level of that of around QBP..... No argument there.

Care to spill it (about your gripe{s} with the QT61)?

 

So what I’m getting from these 3 quotes are the following:

1. Most Q32 riders get off at 59th Street. Implementing the QT75 would not help anyone (except for those in Sunnyside). 
2. The QT60 running to Hunters Point doesn’t make sense despite gaining a connection to the train. Yet, there’s not enough ridership to justify running it into Manhattan, so terminating it at Queensboro Plaza Or Court Square would be a better allocation of resources. 
3. Neighborhoods north of QBP won’t benefit from running the QT69 Down to Hunters Point via Vernon Blvd/48th Avenue/Center Blvd. 
4. LIC does get congested, but not at the level of QBP. 

What’d I suggest for this area would be the following:

• Run the QT60 up to 44th Drive then turn it up 23rd Street, then Queens Plaza South, then back via 27th Street. 
• The QT1 and QT79 should swap, the QT1 should run up to Rikers via 21st Street and the QT79 should be the sole Vernon Blvd Route. Preferably, I wouldn’t have any bus route run under 31st Street as that just duplicates the  and  along Astoria.
• The QT69 could run into Greenpoint Avenue and Terminate there. The only routes I’d leave at Hunters Point are the QT66 and QT79.
• The QT75 should be revised to better serve Sunnyside, Woodside and Jackson Heights. As to how, I’m not sure yet. 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Geese, I didn’t even realize the level of duplication on QB between Forest Hills and Kew Gardens. The QT86 between QB and Cooper is fine because it’s running on Yellowstone. . (Though it’d be better if extended to Myrtle Avenue instead of the QT82). And while I understand the sentiment with what they did between Kew Gardens and Flushing, I do have to agree that the terminal choice is... strange. (At least you have the depot right there) It also makes the QT84 a strange route. The QT87 is a boondoggle and won’t help much of anyone. I remember reading on the Queens Bus Redesign Facebook Group that residents on 73rd Avenue (east of 188th) were opposed to having a bus there. IMO the QT87 needs to be revised completely.

So that's what they really feel about today's Q88.... Good to know.

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So what I’m getting from these 3 quotes are the following:

1. Most Q32 riders get off at 59th Street. Implementing the QT75 would not help anyone (except for those in Sunnyside). 
2. The QT60 running to Hunters Point doesn’t make sense despite gaining a connection to the train. Yet, there’s not enough ridership to justify running it into Manhattan, so terminating it at Queensboro Plaza Or Court Square would be a better allocation of resources. 
3. Neighborhoods north of QBP won’t benefit from running the QT69 Down to Hunters Point via Vernon Blvd/48th Avenue/Center Blvd. 
4. LIC does get congested, but not at the level of QBP. 

1. Yeah, he's (BM5) saying people in Woodside won't be the ones utilizing QT75's to Manhattan....
2. The MTA might believe that there isn't enough ridership to justify running Q60's to Manhattan (which is what BM5 is contesting) - but just to be clear, that's not my belief... I'm saying that there's too many Q60's running to Manhattan.... Q60 has serious reliability issues along QB, with which running over the bridge on in to Manhattan definitely contributes to.... Short turning Q60's at Sutphin/Archer helps somewhat, but it still isn't enough....
   • ...so in-turn, the trips that wouldn't run to Manhattan, would terminate at QBP.
3. I don't think it'd benefit from running there, regardless of routing... Lol.
4. 🙈..... QBP is in LIC.

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

What’d I suggest for this area would be the following:

• Run the QT60 up to 44th Drive then turn it up 23rd Street, then Queens Plaza South, then back via 27th Street. 
• The QT1 and QT79 should swap, the QT1 should run up to Rikers via 21st Street and the QT79 should be the sole Vernon Blvd Route. Preferably, I wouldn’t have any bus route run under 31st Street as that just duplicates the  and  along Astoria.
• The QT69 could run into Greenpoint Avenue and Terminate there. The only routes I’d leave at Hunters Point are the QT66 and QT79.
• The QT75 should be revised to better serve Sunnyside, Woodside and Jackson Heights. As to how, I’m not sure yet. 

1. That's more or less what the Q39 does, with the exception of taking 27th vs 28th.... Well at least that averts the congestion plaguing Queens Plaza north.
2. You may not be fond of a bus running under the Astoria line (I used to feel this way about the Q102 specifically also), but running a route like the QT1 to Rikers Island aint the answer.... Running what is essentially a commuter local to a jail complex, defeats the purpose.... You need a local route doing that (as in, one of those green colored routes)....
3. With the amount of stops they took away from the thing along 21st, they might as well run it to Greenpoint instead of Hunterspoint.... Depending on what they have in store for Brooklyn's network revamp, running the Q69 to Greenpoint (av) might be necessary....
4. Why should it run to Jackson Heights?

Edited May 6, 2020 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What I never cared for about the Q69 is the terminating of it at QBP, to then backtrack to Court sq. to run up the rest of 21st.... I would've drawn a hard line for it to either solely serve QBP or Court Sq. - but for the life of me, I can't condone running it to Hunterspoint.... I don't see Queens patrons up there in Ravenswood, Astoria, and Steinway benefiting from running QT69's down there... The problem with Hunterspoint as an up-and-coming area (unlike DUMBO & hipster Williamsburg) is that it lacks an "it" factor; while visually appealing, there's no real draw.... To me, that area around Gantry Plaza is attempting to be a carbon copy of Battery Park City.... On top of it, the restaurant scene (or what's left of it) along Vernon hasn't been the same for quite some time now....

The QT60 gains a direct connection to the , but loses a direct connection to the .... Fair trade off? Your opinion is as good as mine....

QBP isn't the only congested area in LIC by a longshot.... You still got Thomson, Van Dam, and even Jackson av at an increasing rate (which goes back to  @LaGuardia Link N Tra's point regarding the waning B62 usage in Queens).... But tying this back to the QT60, although Thomson is no lightweight when it comes to congestion, yeah - it isn't on the level of that of around QBP..... No argument there.

Care to spill it (about your gripe{s} with the QT61)?

I'd definitely choose Court Square over QBP. I think the QT69 going there was more a matter of maintaining/expanding coverage. But I do agree that the service levels of the QT69 would be a bit overkill for that area. How about this for an idea, though: If the QT60 continued to run to Hunterpoint Ferry, but via 44th Drive-Vernon Blvd-48th Avenue-Center Blvd, and then you can cut the QT69 back to Court Square. The only thing is that the options out of that portion of LIC all go to the same area (you have the QT60 which duplicates a significant portion of the  and then the QT79 which duplicates the  to the Astoria Line, whereas the QT69 goes straight north.

And for the QT61, it's just too long and a significant portion of the route has no direct alternative (if a Q32 gets delayed, many riders can take the Q60 or  train if necessary. If you're in Jackson Heights, you can use the Q33). In Jackson Heights, if there is a delay on the QT61, you're screwed. I would definitely split that route at Broadway/Roosevelt. I also don't like that it loops into the Bulova Center. All this about "direct, direct, direct" and they still have it going in there (the same way the Q47 was scheduled to go there, then they changed their mind, then they had the buses go in there). 

I originally wasn't wild about the QT75, but the Queens routing is starting to catch on for me. I still don't like the idea of backtracking through Court Square to serve QBP and go to Manhattan. I think they should have that as a Woodside/Sunnyside-Court Square shuttle, and just have a beefed up Q32 (or whatever you'd call the western split of the QT61) run into Manhattan. Though I suppose another interesting idea would be to have this be the route that serves Hunterpoint Ferry as described above (44th Drive-Vernon Blvd-48th Avenue-Center Blvd) and do something else with the QT60 (maybe send it to Manhattan, or maybe have it go up to Queensbridge the way they have the QT77 ending there)

Also, on the topic of Sunnyside, I don't like that service gap around 48th & 48th (lol) I think the QT2 should run up 48th Street to 48th Avenue in both directions to reach Steinway Street.

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Regarding the QT67, I agree with you on this, though I think Q110 section of the route should preserve the name. As for the Liberty Avenue Section I’d the route, I don’t know if I’d prefer for it to be a Ozone Park-Jamaica shuttle or to have it cover the entirety of Liberty and have it terminate at St. Albans or something. 

Do you mean all of Liberty including the portion currently covered by the Q83? Or do you just mean up to Merrick Blvd?

I think with the Linden Blvd route (QT7) being created, there's no need to divert the Q112 section away from Downtown Jamaica.

Another idea I came up with is to have a shuttle from Sutphin/Archer to Addesleigh Park via Sutphin Blvd & Brinkerhoff Avenue. That would do a better job of covering the area than the QT65, which barely penetrates the area.

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Geese, I didn’t even realize the level of duplication on QB between Forest Hills and Kew Gardens. The QT86 between QB and Cooper is fine because it’s running on Yellowstone. . (Though it’d be better if extended to Myrtle Avenue instead of the QT82). And while I understand the sentiment with what they did between Kew Gardens and Flushing, I do have to agree that the terminal choice is... strange. (At least you have the depot right there) It also makes the QT84 a strange route. The QT87 is a boondoggle and won’t help much of anyone. I remember reading on the Queens Bus Redesign Facebook Group that residents on 73rd Avenue (east of 188th) were opposed to having a bus there. IMO the QT87 needs to be revised completely. 

I don't like the idea of saying that "residents" (in general) are opposed to something. The NIMBYs came out, but that doesn't mean that a typical neighborhood resident is opposed to having bus service on that street. (I'll put it to you this way, loud motorcycles/cars without mufflers annoy the crap out of me when they go down my street and serve no practical purpse...buses at least get people where they need to go and are also nowhere near as loud. But yet where are the groups of people complaining about the noise pollution from loud motorcycles/cars?).

But in any case, NIMBYs are everywhere. I remember when I proposed a route in my neighborhood, came up with a petition of over 1500 neighborhood residents, and two people who lived on the highway service road started ranting about how the buses would cause traffic and this that and the third...I had many local community groups and residents backing me up, but at that moment, those two NIMBYs were pretty vocal just because they happened to be in the room.  

Also, I think you mean west of 188th Street. East of 188th Street has the Q88 and QM5/8 (and previously had the Q75). So if they are opposed to buses period, they've moved to the wrong neighborhood.

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Run the QT60 up to 44th Drive then turn it up 23rd Street, then Queens Plaza South, then back via 27th Street. 

As mentioned above, I think I'd prefer it go to Queensbridge rather than terminating by QBP. 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The QT1 and QT79 should swap, the QT1 should run up to Rikers via 21st Street and the QT79 should be the sole Vernon Blvd Route. Preferably, I wouldn’t have any bus route run under 31st Street as that just duplicates the  and  along Astoria.

I don't think it's an issue for the QT79 to duplicate the Astoria Line. It gets residents to ADA-accessible stations (Astoria Blvd, Queens Plaza, and Court Square). The same way the B25 gets good ridership despite running entirely above the Fulton Line (I don't think the QT79 will get anywhere near the level of ridership as the B25, but I don't think it will perform terribly either).

On a side note, I was at an Astoria bus meeting when the plan was first released. An old lady said that the QT79 is not an adequate replacement for the Q102 because it "comes all the way from Rikers" and "nobody cares about the seniors" and I'm sitting there wondering WTF she is talking about. There isn't any significant amount of traffic near Rikers Island that would delay the route and the route isn't particularly long. Then my friend/coworker (who is also a transit enthusiast) says to listen to what she is really opposed to (hint: Not any actual delays or the length of the route), and then it clicked.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

So that's what they really feel about today's Q88.... Good to know.

13 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Also, I think you mean west of 188th Street. East of 188th Street has the Q88 and QM5/8 (and previously had the Q75). So if they are opposed to buses period, they've moved to the wrong neighborhood.

I meant West. Wrote East out of confusion and my brain decided to go night -night. (Geez, I must've been half asleep for these past 2 days)

 

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

• That's more or less what the Q39 does, with the exception of taking 27th vs 28th.... Well at least that averts the congestion plaguing Queens Plaza north.
• You may not be fond of a bus running under the Astoria line (I used to feel this way about the Q102 specifically also), but running a route like the QT1 to Rikers Island aint the answer.... Running what is essentially a commuter local to a jail complex, defeats the purpose.... You need a local route doing that (as in, one of those green colored routes)....
• With the amount of stops they took away from the thing along 21st, they might as well run it to Greenpoint instead of Hunterspoint.... Depending on what they have in store for Brooklyn's network revamp, running the Q69 to Greenpoint (av) might be necessary....
• Why should it run to Jackson Heights?

Huh, I didn't realize that. Guess I'll double check on that idea. 

The QT75 should run to Jackson Heights for a better terminal and to gain more coverage. Terminating any bus on the Corners of Broadway and Northern Blvd seems more like an after thought than anything else whereas there aren't many streets within the vicinity of Broadway/Northern where buses can feasibly turn around. 

16 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't think it's an issue for the QT79 to duplicate the Astoria Line. It gets residents to ADA-accessible stations (Astoria Blvd, Queens Plaza, and Court Square). The same way the B25 gets good ridership despite running entirely above the Fulton Line (I don't think the QT79 will get anywhere near the level of ridership as the B25, but I don't think it will perform terribly either).

On a side note, I was at an Astoria bus meeting when the plan was first released. An old lady said that the QT79 is not an adequate replacement for the Q102 because it "comes all the way from Rikers" and "nobody cares about the seniors" and I'm sitting there wondering WTF she is talking about. There isn't any significant amount of traffic near Rikers Island that would delay the route and the route isn't particularly long. Then my friend/coworker (who is also a transit enthusiast) says to listen to what she is really opposed to (hint: Not any actual delays or the length of the route), and then it clicked.

Huh, I completely forgot that the Q102 helps those at the non ADA-Accessible Stations. Regarding that side note, my only reaction is "huh". Seems like this lady was opposed to having a bus run on Rikers Island while ignoring any benefits that it'll bring. 

38 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't like the idea of saying that "residents" (in general) are opposed to something. The NIMBYs came out, but that doesn't mean that a typical neighborhood resident is opposed to having bus service on that street. (I'll put it to you this way, loud motorcycles/cars without mufflers annoy the crap out of me when they go down my street and serve no practical purpse...buses at least get people where they need to go and are also nowhere near as loud. But yet where are the groups of people complaining about the noise pollution from loud motorcycles/cars?).

But in any case, NIMBYs are everywhere. I remember when I proposed a route in my neighborhood, came up with a petition of over 1500 neighborhood residents, and two people who lived on the highway service road started ranting about how the buses would cause traffic and this that and the third...I had many local community groups and residents backing me up, but at that moment, those two NIMBYs were pretty vocal just because they happened to be in the room.  

Huh, how ironic. Its crazy how one person (or a few people) can be pretty vocal about something they don't like over a majority of people who have no problem with XYZ.

 

 

[jaf0519]

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'd also argue there not being a need for 2 Utopia routes.... While the redesign does address this, IMO, it has it serving WAY too much of Utopia (QT65) - and the cutting across to get to College Point after the fact, is beyond bonkers..... They decided to prioritize the north-south coverage that the Q31 offers, over the usage the Q30 garners (over the Q31).... At least they kept the QCC - Jamaica connection with that QT33 (although it only runs as far as Jamaica/Merrick)..... You think the Q31 is bad, holy shit if that QT65 ever comes to fruition - the current Q76 will resemble the 42nd st , compared to it..... We may joke in saying that the Q76 (and the Q31) is a glorified school bus on these parts, but at least a school bus still carries....

I agree with there not being a need for 2 Utopia Pkwy routes. I assume you meant the QT64 since the QT65 is on 164 St. The main usage will definitely still be between 169 St  and Horace Harding Expwy. If the MTA was putting short turns on routes, from HHE to 165 St Terminal (even though the Remix map shows it terminating at 164 St/Hillside, which makes no sense)  would be the place to terminate most service. I think it is a little better just from the routing perspective since it doesn’t go far east from Jamaica just to go even further west after heading north compared to the Q17 and Q76. Its basically straight north and then west. 

However this brings up another point. A lot of the route combinations are based on ridership, which makes sense. The MTA took high ridership routes like the Q23 (north of Queens Blvd) and the Q46 (west of 188 St) and combined them to save money. They did the same for lower ridership routes like the QT64, which is a combination of the Q31, Q16 (Utopia Branch), and Q20B, some of the lower ridership routes in Queens. But the southern portion of the Q31 that is shared with the Q30 has a significantly high ridership than the rest of the route.

The QT64 shares this problem with the QT65. I am glad that the Q65 now longer serves both Flushing and Jamaica. But based on personal experience, the ridership on the QT65 will drop relatively significantly compared to today’s Q65 since Flushing is out. And based on that the QT65 on weekdays north of Queens Hospital seems way too frequent for the suburban areas it will serve, even at every 10-12 minutes. Same goes for the QT64. Weekdays south of HHE, I think every 15-24 min for most of the day with be too little, but north of HHE, service every 20 minutes on weekends and every 60 minutes overnight is too much. Both routes have no real ridership generators north of Kissena Park except for transfer points at 46 Ave and Northern Blvd.

Maybe for the QT65 instead of serving 160 St, since apparently their is community opposition, have it cover the QT51 from Crocheron/162 St to Bay Terrace? That would at least be a better source of ridership plus Crocheron would get daily service.

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Although unfortunate, what you're mentioning (regarding its sluggishness) is a large part of the reason why I'd truncate the Q20a/b to Briarwood subway.... The star of the show is the Q44 & IMO Downtown Jamaica can do without the BPH on the Q20a/b clogging up Archer, while virtually everyone's gunning for the Q44.... When I'd come home from work, I'd always say to myself, why do they even run these things out here with barely a seated load (and I'm being generous with that), when the dam 44's always packed to the brim.... It wasn't an anomalous ordeal either, it was literally everyday... Empty ass NB Q20's along Archer & the masses on Q44's before it turned onto Sutphin... You're right about the usage of the Q20 in relation to the Q44 though - people would bite the bullet along Main & take the Q20 to Jamaica if they couldn't get on the Q44 (when 40'-ers were ran on them)... Now that there's more capacity on the Q44 per bus, pfft - those same people stopped biting bullets & started biting the dust instead when it came to the Q20..... This is an example of where/how artics should be used, not throwing artics onto a route simply because you want to cut service.... That doesn't excuse the (apparently intentional IMO) crawling of the Q20 along Main though.....

LMAO about the Q86... The distance between Main & QB along Union Tpke may look short on the map, but it can take quite the time for Q46 to get to subway from Main st. at times..... It would have been simpler/quicker to run it down to Briarwood for the subway connection.... I'm not buying that folks along Main st. are/have clamored for a 1 seat ride to Yellowstone & (the dead mall that is) Atlas Park.... The amount of bus routes proposed to run along QB b/w Kew Gardens & Forest Hills (QT11, 14, 60, 86, 87), along with the meandering of the QT86 & QT87, are absurd.... I have often said that a turn off a given corridor can make a world of difference for a bus route, but this clearly doesn't fit the bill... Even if you wanted to give Glendale & Forest Hills a 1-seat ride to Flushing, have it take Jewel to Main, instead of QB > Union Tpke > Main.... Oh, and then there's the ending of it in the middle of nowhere on the northern end of the thing; Linden/28th? Really..... I get cutting down of the number of buses terminating in Flushing, but come on....

I don’t have that big of an issue with the number of routes using Queens Blvd between Forest Hills and Kew Gardens, simply because the only one actually stopping between 71 Ave and Union Tpke is the QT60. The QT11 won’t even be stopping in Kew Gardens heading towards Fresh Meadows, though the QT86 will. Also no one was clamoring for a one seat ride from Main St to Yellowstone. People were asking for a local bus on Yellowstone and the Q20 was almost useless the closer to Jamaica it got, so the MTA probably thought why not combine the two?

As for the lack of usage of the Q20 compared to the Q44, it is almost ridiculous. I remember when I would be heading home from high school, I could take either the Q20 or Q44. Usually I would end up catching the same Q20B every day. Students would wait for the Q44, especially since it became SBS, no matter what. There could be 30 students waiting and the nearest Q44 could be leaving Merrick Blvd and there could be 3 or 4 Q20’s between Merrick and Manton, and at most 4 or 5 would get on the local, even if they were heading somewhere south of Flushing. They would even pass up the Q20 if they were heading to Union Tpke for the Q46, and still not get a SBS ticket. The Q20 was simply less than an afterthought for them.

[B35 via Church]

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'd definitely choose Court Square over QBP. I think the QT69 going there was more a matter of maintaining/expanding coverage. But I do agree that the service levels of the QT69 would be a bit overkill for that area. How about this for an idea, though: If the QT60 continued to run to Hunterpoint Ferry, but via 44th Drive-Vernon Blvd-48th Avenue-Center Blvd, and then you can cut the QT69 back to Court Square. The only thing is that the options out of that portion of LIC all go to the same area (you have the QT60 which duplicates a significant portion of the  and then the QT79 which duplicates the  to the Astoria Line, whereas the QT69 goes straight north.

And for the QT61, it's just too long and a significant portion of the route has no direct alternative (if a Q32 gets delayed, many riders can take the Q60 or  train if necessary. If you're in Jackson Heights, you can use the Q33). In Jackson Heights, if there is a delay on the QT61, you're screwed. I would definitely split that route at Broadway/Roosevelt. I also don't like that it loops into the Bulova Center. All this about "direct, direct, direct" and they still have it going in there (the same way the Q47 was scheduled to go there, then they changed their mind, then they had the buses go in there). 

I originally wasn't wild about the QT75, but the Queens routing is starting to catch on for me. I still don't like the idea of backtracking through Court Square to serve QBP and go to Manhattan. I think they should have that as a Woodside/Sunnyside-Court Square shuttle, and just have a beefed up Q32 (or whatever you'd call the western split of the QT61) run into Manhattan. Though I suppose another interesting idea would be to have this be the route that serves Hunterpoint Ferry as described above (44th Drive-Vernon Blvd-48th Avenue-Center Blvd) and do something else with the QT60 (maybe send it to Manhattan, or maybe have it go up to Queensbridge the way they have the QT77 ending there)

Also, on the topic of Sunnyside, I don't like that service gap around 48th & 48th (lol) I think the QT2 should run up 48th Street to 48th Avenue in both directions to reach Steinway Street.

I don't feel that strongly over whether the Q69 (or the QT69) terminates at either over the other (although I would give the nod to QBP), I just don't think it should serve both.... Now the Q39, I definitively/defiantly declare that has no business running to QBP.... At least the Q69 gets above average usage at both destinations, Q39 @ QBP, not so much..... Anyway, I don't think all this running to Hunterspoint is for simple coverage - I think this is their way of making Gantry Plaza/ferry area more of an attraction; an attempt at passively advertising that area (akin to the Q52 & Arverne).... If it was about simple coverage, there wouldn't be 3 routes proposed to running there....

I wouldn't worry about it paralleling more of the ; your QT60 idea would not only be quicker, but more useful IMO.... There's too much of a disconnect between Vernon blvd (in general) & the rest of Queens.... When Jackson av gets built up, I don't see people really resorting/relying on bus service in the future along that corridor - hell, the trend's already happening with the B62.....  I have a similar sentiment when it comes to the B32 Williamsburg portion (outside of WBP itself)... Folks are going to be more apt to taking taxi's directly to Manhattan from those high-rises, or walking to Court Sq./Queens Plaza/Vernon-Jackson (depending on whichever of the 3 is more proximate) for the subway.... As a transit enthusiast, while I would like for the ferry to be more of a viable option for commuters, the subway is simply too attractive for most folks.... As for the QT79, so it'd be akin to the Bx4/a where it'd parallel 2 subway lines - no qualms here....

Yeah, the QT61 does too much.... The outer portions of the route I don't particularly care for.... IDK about splitting it, but at minimum, I would completely do away with the 23rd av segment & stop it dead at Astoria blvd (without serving Bulova)..... I also wouldn't run buses all the way to Columbus Circle; although 3rd would be ideal, I'd stop them dead at 60th/5th & call it a day....

Neither do I (about the QT75's backtracking) - but short of using the upper roadway of the Queensboro bridge, there's no other way for it to get to Manhattan via the bridge.... Unless you have buses taking the QMT to get to Manhattan ? In any event, if not for running to Manhattan, I'd have it running along the QT1's course b/w Jackson av & (Brooklyn's) Broadway, then turn off towards WBP (making local stops).... I wouldn't bother with having the QT75 act as a shuttle, nor would I bother with having QT76's running to Brooklyn.....

11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Also, I think you mean west of 188th Street. East of 188th Street has the Q88 and QM5/8 (and previously had the Q75). So if they are opposed to buses period, they've moved to the wrong neighborhood.

If it were actually those living east of 188th that said that, it would make them hypocrites..... Even if the QT87 wouldn't cater to their needs, the counterargument for that wouldn't be opposition to buses running along that stretch in general....

11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

On a side note, I was at an Astoria bus meeting when the plan was first released. An old lady said that the QT79 is not an adequate replacement for the Q102 because it "comes all the way from Rikers" and "nobody cares about the seniors" and I'm sitting there wondering WTF she is talking about. There isn't any significant amount of traffic near Rikers Island that would delay the route and the route isn't particularly long. Then my friend/coworker (who is also a transit enthusiast) says to listen to what she is really opposed to (hint: Not any actual delays or the length of the route), and then it clicked.

Yeah, with age, you'll become more privy to & learn to decode code.....

The QT76 not being proposed to running to Rikers isn't coincidental... 

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I meant West. Wrote East out of confusion and my brain decided to go night -night. (Geez, I must've been half asleep for these past 2 days)

 

The QT75 should run to Jackson Heights for a better terminal and to gain more coverage. Terminating any bus on the Corners of Broadway and Northern Blvd seems more like an after thought than anything else whereas there aren't many streets within the vicinity of Broadway/Northern where buses can feasibly turn around. 

You alright over there? Lol...

Anyway, AFAIC, ending it at the mall would've sufficed.... Running it to Northern blvd is somewhat of a bonus..... The current Q66 short turns end at the subway station, so I don't see the problem in doing that..... Considering the rest of the network, I'm not sure where in Jackson Hgts. something like this should even be sent.....

11 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

.....However this brings up another point. A lot of the route combinations are based on ridership, which makes sense. The MTA took high ridership routes like the Q23 (north of Queens Blvd) and the Q46 (west of 188 St) and combined them to save money. They did the same for lower ridership routes like the QT64, which is a combination of the Q31, Q16 (Utopia Branch), and Q20B, some of the lower ridership routes in Queens. But the southern portion of the Q31 that is shared with the Q30 has a significantly high ridership than the rest of the route.

 

.....I don’t have that big of an issue with the number of routes using Queens Blvd between Forest Hills and Kew Gardens, simply because the only one actually stopping between 71 Ave and Union Tpke is the QT60. The QT11 won’t even be stopping in Kew Gardens heading towards Fresh Meadows, though the QT86 will. Also no one was clamoring for a one seat ride from Main St to Yellowstone. People were asking for a local bus on Yellowstone and the Q20 was almost useless the closer to Jamaica it got, so the MTA probably thought why not combine the two?

Don't know if it's the case or not, but this sounds like you're giving the MTA a pass for saving money off the backs of riders like this; I flat out refuse to..... Have this rendition of the entire proposal become finalized & eventually implemented, I don't want to hear any commentaries expressing any befuddlement on why bus ridership is still declining, emanating from this agency.... For too many corridors, commensurate service isn't being proposed..... I'm looking at these proposed frequencies & they are downright appalling.... To me, it's a promotion of packing bus riders in like sardine cans & quite frankly, inducing flagging - for the more useful routes in this proposal, that is.....

Buses still take up road space, regardless if they're making stops along it or not.... Having all those routes utilize QB like that is excessive & serves as an example that these planners are out to lunch, when it comes to communal needs.... I know no one was clamoring for a combination of the two corridors in question (which was the point), so to concoct a bus route going out of the way to serve those two corridors, is clearly unjustified....

[NY1635]

I wonder how the MTA will sell the new Queens Bus Network because sub chat has been painting a less than colorful picture of the Private Bus Lines. Queens Bus Lines were funded by the city to cover the areas not served by the MTA and Bloomberg handed control over to the state when he was mayor. Sub Chat went into specifics where I think Green Bus Lines had the most beaten down buses and colorful bus drivers.  In fact what brought the Queens Bus Lines down was focusing more on fare box recovery and they didn't get federal subsidies until they were made part of the MTA. I left out Queens Surface, Triboro Coach, and Jamaica Bus Lines because they have less colorful histories.

Edit: Sorry, I have been practicing Social Distancing and aside from some recorded meeting from February at Jamaica showing the MTA admitting to working closely with NICE on one of the routes, I have nothing to contribute. Truth is they get verbally ripped by angry bus riders at the Private Meeting in February. It was low audio and uploaded on Youtube by Passangers United. Stumbled upon it a few days ago.

Edited May 7, 2020 by NY1635

[bobtehpanda]

Is this supposed to be like a bot simulating what people say here?

[B35 via Church]

18 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Is this supposed to be like a bot simulating what people say here?

Artificial intelligence & mental retardation are two very different things.

[Deucey]

14 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Artificial intelligence & mental retardation are two very different things.

I laughed at that but feel bad about it. Oh well.

[checkmatechamp13]

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Huh, I completely forgot that the Q102 helps those at the non ADA-Accessible Stations. Regarding that side note, my only reaction is "huh". Seems like this lady was opposed to having a bus run on Rikers Island while ignoring any benefits that it'll bring.

Not that she is opposed to Rikers Island having bus service. She just doesn't want her route to go there. She doesn't want to share a route with "those" people if you catch my drift.

@B35 via Church That's an interesting idea of running the QT75 to Brooklyn. I'd prefer that over having it backtrack (using the upper level is an interesting idea, though, but of course the disadvantage is missing Court Square). I guess the 800 lb gorilla in the room is how exactly the MTA plans to restructure the Brooklyn routes to account for the Queens routes that were extended there.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Not that she is opposed to Rikers Island having bus service. She just doesn't want her route to go there. She doesn't want to share a route with "those" people if you catch my drift.

Well too bad for her. If adding the route is going to improve overall service and reliability, then so be it. The argument of opposing a transit proposal because one does not want to ride with “those” people (depending on the context) has always struck out to me as a weak excuse to not implement a proposal. 

[Lawrence St]

8 hours ago, NY1635 said:

I wonder how the MTA will sell the new Queens Bus Network because sub chat has been painting a less than colorful picture of the Private Bus Lines. Queens Bus Lines were funded by the city to cover the areas not served by the MTA and Bloomberg handed control over to the state when he was mayor. Sub Chat went into specifics where I think Green Bus Lines had the most beaten down buses and colorful bus drivers.  In fact what brought the Queens Bus Lines down was focusing more on fare box recovery and they didn't get federal subsidies until they were made part of the MTA. I left out Queens Surface, Triboro Coach, and Jamaica Bus Lines because they have less colorful histories.

Edit: Sorry, I have been practicing Social Distancing and aside from some recorded meeting from February at Jamaica showing the MTA admitting to working closely with NICE on one of the routes, I have nothing to contribute. Truth is they get verbally ripped by angry bus riders at the Private Meeting in February. It was low audio and uploaded on Youtube by Passangers United. Stumbled upon it a few days ago.

Do you ever say anything idk, sensible?

[LGA Link N Train]

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

In any event, if not for running to Manhattan, I'd have it running along the QT1's course b/w Jackson av & (Brooklyn's) Broadway, then turn off towards WBP (making local stops).... I wouldn't bother with having the QT75 act as a shuttle, nor would I bother with having QT76's running to Brooklyn.....

I had to read this a few times to understand it. So you're saying that the QT75 should go to Williamsburg Plaza in Place of the QT76. Via 48th Street/Avenue > Van Dam > Thompson > 44th Drive > 11th Street then continue to Brooklyn? Ehh, I can see this doing better than the QT1 and QT76 combined. (And it would better enhance Brooklyn-Queens Connections). But then where would the QT76 go?

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well too bad for her. If adding the route is going to improve overall service and reliability, then so be it. The argument of opposing a transit proposal because one does not want to ride with “those” people (depending on the context) has always struck out to me as a weak excuse to not implement a proposal. 

I will say this, you'd be surprised at how often the MTA listens to those types of people. A good chunk of the reason the off-peak Staten Island express bus network is set up the way it is, is because of the people who felt they were too good to take the subway with "those people". (That isn't the only reason. Some people had disabilities and couldn't stand, use the stairs, or handle the crowds or things like that, or time-wise it wouldn't make sense to transfer for their particular commute). But there were specifically people who mentioned socioeconomic reasons for avoiding the subway (or as one woman called it, the "scumway"). To a lesser extent, the attitude was also shown for the local bus (talking about taking the bus with the "skells").

Most of it is the MTA's fault for not being transparent and showing their calculations and alternatives considered, but my point is that these people get what they want in the resulting chaos.

Another example is the MTA cutting the off-peak SIM2 (primarily due to low ridership, but also partially because Tottenville residents complained about too many buses down Craig Avenue, being the final "nail in the coffin" so to speak). I managed to get a group of SIM2 riders together at a Community Board 3 meeting, but it was too little too late (also, I was only able to get them at one meeting, and that was after the service had already been cut. They sent a bunch of emails and stuff beforehand but the in-person meeting was about a month after the service was cut). Not quite the same as a "those people" argument, but a similarly selfish one. (But boy, the look on those board members' faces when I had a bunch of SIM2 riders in that meeting...wow...)

Edited May 8, 2020 by checkmatechamp13