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

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The QT64 in College Point isn't much more than a substitute/compromise for maintaining some sort of direct link to Jamaica (that was lost by severing the Q25 & Q65).... Even if you wanted to argue that the Q25 doesn't carry as much as the Q65 in College Point, either one of those routes are more direct from end to end than this QT64... I see the thing carrying more air than the Q76 in NE Queens; streamlining those specific portions of the Q65, Q20b, Q76, and Q16 in NE Queens can't be all that advantageous for folks up there....

I don't have a problem with streamlining College Pt. Blvd service up there, nor do I have a problem with doing away with the current Q20a/b terminal, not even necessarily the concept of serving the College Pt. Mall through more of College Point (the neighborhood).... The problem I have routing-wise is that they left that area north of 20th av/130th st with nothing more than that practically useless QT64 along 14th.... North of Flushing, I'd have the QT86 fill that service gap in question via the current Q25 up to 7th av... However, I would continue it along 127th until Powell's Cove - where it would terminate.... 

I would have the QT84 be the 20th av route & I'd do away with the QT48 (which is only a rush hour route) to do it..... The QT84 instead would be a route running from Ft. Totten to College Pt. Blvd/58th rd.... The QT85 (instead of running down to Avery/College Pt. Blvd) would be cut back to Downtown Flushing... Avery isn't enough coverage for that part of College Pt. Blvd the Q58 serves & the QT6 only makes one stop along that part of College Pt. Blvd. (at 59th av) before gunning straight to Downtown Flushing....

I'm guessing their banking on whatever Q76 and current workers in the industrial section there to be the main ridership base there (since it's the only thing going that far out). Like I said, I don't agree with the route being 24/7 (especially since they basically took the service from the Q65, which wouldn't run during overnight hours under the new plan). 

I would truncate the QT64 to the existing Q20A/B terminal, and have the QT86 run up there (like you said). However, I would have the QT86 extended up there. I would do slightly different, with it taking 130th Street, 14th Avenue/15th Avenues to 110th Street. Now, the thing is that I would have whatever route goes out there operating 24/7 for the industrial workers that need to get to/from there. During late nights, the QT86 can be operated as far south as Flushing (or maybe the Union Turnpike (E)(F) station if the Q44 will continued to be an SBS route at night). 

The other option would be for the QT86 to take the current Q25 route north of Flushing (similar to what you're suggesting), with the QT15 operating the current Q65 route north of Flushing (and run QT86 service to Union Tpke or Flushing at night). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Just to understand the Q76's ridership basis better, are a majority of Q76 riders within the vicinity of Francis Lewis Blvd itself?

I agree with you on the QT16 and QT65 (mainly due to the opposition of having a bus along 160th, though I'm not sure if the QT30 should be the route to serve Union/Parsons.

Personally, I'd have the QT30 cover the entirety of 188th Street. I think should start like the current Q30 does in Jamaica, but divert to 188th up until Utopia Parkway/46th Avenue, then continue its proposed route to Flushing. 

So if you move the QT84 to 14th Avenue, then whats serving 20th Avenue? 

From what I’ve noticed with the route, most of its core ridership come from Jamaica. Then you have the students who use it from the various schools along its route. Other than that you have a few people who board and get off the bus along Francis Lewis. I find north of Northern Blvd that’s when the route tends to die down in ridership. There are a few people who use it to access the mall on 20th Ave, but nowhere near as many who use the Q20A. I personally think the grid system that the MTA is trying to propose will fail because once again I think that most people are trying to avoid making multiple transfers. The Q76 is the only true north to south grid route and we already see how it does. I can’t expect these routes to be frequent at all and I expect them to have service every 20 minutes throughout the whole day. If they are expecting people to use it to transfer to another route, good luck with that. 

I did at one point propose the Q31 to run from Jamaica to Flushing via Utopia as I felt the route will become more useful in comparison to the Q31 turning east onto 46th Ave and running to Bayside. As it is now the Q31 is just a gloried school route and outside of rush hours you won’t find too many on it. I do like what the MTA did by proposing routes that serve specific areas and then run non stop to the subway and I feel that’s what the MTA should do with northern Queens instead of these long grid routes coming from Jamaica.

I felt like the QT30 as it is proposed by the MTA will not much of anyone so I feel the MTA should make it run the Q17 route as a way to keep that connect to Flushing along the Horace Harding and supplement the QT16 which will be all alone on Kissena Blvd which will be a disaster. As the MTA proposed the Q65 will lose its connection to Flushing so if anyone wanted to go to Flushing they would have to make an extra unnecessary transfer. So just have the QT30 run the Q17 route and then take over on Union Street once it passes Roosevelt Ave.

 

The QT84 will basically follow the Q20A route  with a little twist. After it passes the shopping area on 20th Ave, it will go up 132nd street to 14th street and then make a left on 14th street to College Point Blvd. It could go up to 119th & 5th to give people over their access to the shopping area. My idea to divert the QT84 from traveling just on 20th Ave to College Point Blvd is to provide access to the shopping plaza on 14th Ave and 20th Ave.

7 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

I do have to admit that outside of Jackson Heights, the College Point area was done pretty badly by the MTA. The main problem I have in the area is with the QT84, as it is literally just to fill the areas not served by other routes. 20 Ave needed service and so did Francis Lewis Blvd north of Northern Blvd, but this combination the MTA made is just bad. 

While there is probably nothing that will get me to support the QT65 heading to Flushing over it not, if it were to terminate in Flushing, what would be the routing you would have it take? My main concern would be reliability, so I would rather have it operate via Northern Blvd to Main St over serving 45 or 46 Ave and Parsons Blvd, and having to deal with the approach to Roosevelt from the southeast on Kissena.

Yeah that’s why the QT84 will flop. I get that they are trying to provide access to the shopping mall over there on 20th Ave but it’s just a weird route, that I doubt will be successful. The only part I see doing alright is the part between Flushing and 20th Ave. Afterwards I can’t see anyone really taking that route and they may even provide a short turn between Flushing and the shopping area.

I was thinking the Q65 could travel on 46th Ave to Parsons Blvd, head north on Parsons Blvd to Roosevelt Ave and terminate it where the current Q12, Q15, Q26 and N20 terminate at. That way you don’t have buses making hundreds of turns over there in the east part of Flushing and Flushing hospital is still served. This is one of those minor tweaks that the MTA should have been done. It seems like the MTA doesn’t even care to fix these routes and instead wants to resort to a massive redesign that will make service more crappy and unattractive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Personally, I'd have the QT30 cover the entirety of 188th Street. I think should start like the current Q30 does in Jamaica, but divert to 188th up until Utopia Parkway/46th Avenue, then continue its proposed route to Flushing. 

I don't see the point in that. The QT33 provides the link from the southern part of 188th Street to Jamaica, and the QT64 provides the link from the northern part of 188th Street (on Utopia Parkway a few blocks away) to Jamaica.

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The QT64 in College Point isn't much more than a substitute/compromise for maintaining some sort of direct link to Jamaica (that was lost by severing the Q25 & Q65).... Even if you wanted to argue that the Q25 doesn't carry as much as the Q65 in College Point, either one of those routes are more direct from end to end than this QT64... I see the thing carrying more air than the Q76 in NE Queens; streamlining those specific portions of the Q65, Q20b, Q76, and Q16 in NE Queens can't be all that advantageous for folks up there....

I don't have a problem with streamlining College Pt. Blvd service up there, nor do I have a problem with doing away with the current Q20a/b terminal, not even necessarily the concept of serving the College Pt. Mall through more of College Point (the neighborhood).... The problem I have routing-wise is that they left that area north of 20th av/130th st with nothing more than that practically useless QT64 along 14th.... North of Flushing, I'd have the QT86 fill that service gap in question via the current Q25 up to 7th av... However, I would continue it along 127th until Powell's Cove - where it would terminate.... 

I would have the QT84 be the 20th av route & I'd do away with the QT48 (which is only a rush hour route) to do it..... The QT84 instead would be a route running from Ft. Totten to College Pt. Blvd/58th rd.... The QT85 (instead of running down to Avery/College Pt. Blvd) would be cut back to Downtown Flushing... Avery isn't enough coverage for that part of College Pt. Blvd the Q58 serves & the QT6 only makes one stop along that part of College Pt. Blvd. (at 59th av) before gunning straight to Downtown Flushing....

It's more direct routing-wise, but I think a lot of that might be negated by the fact that those routes have to deal with the congestion and passenger loads in Downtown Flushing. (I think that's also part of the reason they sent the QT15 east from Downtown Flushing: They want as many people as possible to take the QT64 for points south, so they don't have to run as much service on the QT15)

I do agree with having a local route run down to the HHE rather than just stopping at Avery Street (I don't really care which route gets extended south from Downtown Flushing, though I think they picked the QT85 because of the 24/7 service)

Modifying my earlier idea, I'd swap my proposed QT64 & QT86 ideas (so QT86 goes up 130th Street-20th Avenue-132nd Street-14th Avenue-127th Street to end at the waterfront, and the QT64 keeps its current route). It sucks that the wider street (130th) is on the edge of the neighborhood, while the super-narrow 127th Street is more centrally located.

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

 

I did at one point propose the Q31 to run from Jamaica to Flushing via Utopia as I felt the route will become more useful in comparison to the Q31 turning east onto 46th Ave and running to Bayside. As it is now the Q31 is just a gloried school route and outside of rush hours you won’t find too many on it. I do like what the MTA did by proposing routes that serve specific areas and then run non stop to the subway and I feel that’s what the MTA should do with northern Queens instead of these long grid routes coming from Jamaica.

I felt like the QT30 as it is proposed by the MTA will not much of anyone so I feel the MTA should make it run the Q17 route as a way to keep that connect to Flushing along the Horace Harding and supplement the QT16 which will be all alone on Kissena Blvd which will be a disaster. As the MTA proposed the Q65 will lose its connection to Flushing so if anyone wanted to go to Flushing they would have to make an extra unnecessary transfer. So just have the QT30 run the Q17 route and then take over on Union Street once it passes Roosevelt Ave.

The QT84 will basically follow the Q20A route  with a little twist. After it passes the shopping area on 20th Ave, it will go up 132nd street to 14th street and then make a left on 14th street to College Point Blvd. It could go up to 119th & 5th to give people over their access to the shopping area. My idea to divert the QT84 from traveling just on 20th Ave to College Point Blvd is to provide access to the shopping plaza on 14th Ave and 20th Ave.

Yeah that’s why the QT84 will flop. I get that they are trying to provide access to the shopping mall over there on 20th Ave but it’s just a weird route, that I doubt will be successful. The only part I see doing alright is the part between Flushing and 20th Ave. Afterwards I can’t see anyone really taking that route and they may even provide a short turn between Flushing and the shopping area.

I was thinking the Q65 could travel on 46th Ave to Parsons Blvd, head north on Parsons Blvd to Roosevelt Ave and terminate it where the current Q12, Q15, Q26 and N20 terminate at. That way you don’t have buses making hundreds of turns over there in the east part of Flushing and Flushing hospital is still served. This is one of those minor tweaks that the MTA should have been done. It seems like the MTA doesn’t even care to fix these routes and instead wants to resort to a massive redesign that will make service more crappy and unattractive. 

The QT64 will do fine south of HHE. Anyway, you could kill two birds with one stone and have the QT64 head east to Flushing via Sanford Avenue (instead of the QT73), and have the QT84 run down Francis Lewis Boulevard to HHE, and continue to 188th and 64th Avenue. The only problem you may see is schoolkids going to Cardozo and Bayside from SE Queens who might have a more difficult time traveling. Many might be able to take a bus that gets them to the QT71, but a few may be going from east of Merrick Boulevard. The QT73 would be relegated to a Jamaica-Cambria Heights service, taking Hillside Ave to Jamaica Bus Terminal (The QT41 would operate to Laurelton instead).

You can then use resources saved up to retain the existing Q17 between Flushing and Fresh Meadows. You could have service either make either limited stops only on Kissena , or just run non stop from Kissena Blvd/HHE to Roosevelt Avenue. A non-stop option would be popular for those coming from Flushing in the AM to Queens College, and useful for current Q17 commuters going for the (7) (and the reverse in the PM). 

In a similar situation, the QT65 could operate on the existing Q65 route between Jamaica Ctr and Flushing (preserving access to Flushing Hospital) for those along 164th, and then operate into College Point, doing some variant of what you're proposing with the QT84 (that would be better than having the less frequent QT86 there.

Overall, the proposed NE Queens network has a lot more negatives than positives. Several areas will lose off peak service to Flushing, and a lot of routes will operate less frequent than they used to. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I'm guessing their banking on whatever Q76 and current workers in the industrial section there to be the main ridership base there (since it's the only thing going that far out). Like I said, I don't agree with the route being 24/7 (especially since they basically took the service from the Q65, which wouldn't run during overnight hours under the new plan). 

I would truncate the QT64 to the existing Q20A/B terminal, and have the QT86 run up there (like you said). However, I would have the QT86 extended up there. I would do slightly different, with it taking 130th Street, 14th Avenue/15th Avenues to 110th Street. Now, the thing is that I would have whatever route goes out there operating 24/7 for the industrial workers that need to get to/from there. During late nights, the QT86 can be operated as far south as Flushing (or maybe the Union Turnpike (E)(F) station if the Q44 will continued to be an SBS route at night). 

The other option would be for the QT86 to take the current Q25 route north of Flushing (similar to what you're suggesting), with the QT15 operating the current Q65 route north of Flushing (and run QT86 service to Union Tpke or Flushing at night).

Of course I would supply these routes with more service than they're giving them in general, but I would have some amount of QT15 trips serving the Q65 portion west of College Pt. Blvd.... IDK if it was the intent or not, but if it was, I wholeheartedly agree with doing away with College Pt. Blvd./15th av as a bus terminal.... Too much turning of buses up along that part of (narrow) College Pt. blvd...

I admit I'm cavalier when it comes to serving 14th av. - I never cared for the Q20b & the Q76 would be straight up useless up there if it didn't go to College Pt. Mall...  I mean, the QM2 up there, I have no problem with.... As far as local services, the only way you can get me to side with running buses along 14th av. for any significant duration (and this is not something I'm proposing btw) if it's something that ran between (somewhere in) The Bronx & Flushing [via College Point (the neighborhood)].... Otherwise, No.

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

It's more direct routing-wise, but I think a lot of that might be negated by the fact that those routes have to deal with the congestion and passenger loads in Downtown Flushing. (I think that's also part of the reason they sent the QT15 east from Downtown Flushing: They want as many people as possible to take the QT64 for points south, so they don't have to run as much service on the QT15)

I do agree with having a local route run down to the HHE rather than just stopping at Avery Street (I don't really care which route gets extended south from Downtown Flushing, though I think they picked the QT85 because of the 24/7 service)

Modifying my earlier idea, I'd swap my proposed QT64 & QT86 ideas (so QT86 goes up 130th Street-20th Avenue-132nd Street-14th Avenue-127th Street to end at the waterfront, and the QT64 keeps its current route). It sucks that the wider street (130th) is on the edge of the neighborhood, while the super-narrow 127th Street is more centrally located.

The congestion & passenger loads the Q25 & Q65 experience are well worth it, if it's serving the areas where the lion's share of people along the route are trying to get to.... If that's the rationale they're using, then that would expose that they're not coming up with these routes for the benefit of riders.... In terms of demand, you can't compare the areas the Q25 & Q65 serve, to 14th av & Utopia Pkwy (QT64).... Stark difference.... I mean, we're on here giving our analyses about these proposed routes with the mindset of benefiting riders - whereas they're proposing these routes to pocket a dollar, under the guise of benefiting riders..... Yeah, they would rather run a route with a minimal amount of BPH along a certain corridor{s} for basic coverage, over running (the way they likely see it) too many BPH along high(er) demand corridors....

Quite honestly, while their serving of College Pt. Blvd south of Roosevelt is sorely lacking, I don't think it should be covered with a 24/7 route...... The reason they're stopping QT85's dead at Avery, could be the same reason I would eliminate anything from running along Van Dam (traffic not being worth providing coverage along it).... Difference is though, Van Dam is mostly light industrial & commercial - whereas that part of College Pt. Blvd is a mix of commercial & residential (and the residential portion is pretty dense).... To have those people walk over to Main for bus service is ridiculous..... I can only imagine how many times those people have gotten flagged by crushloaded Q58's....

5 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The QT64 will do fine south of HHE. Anyway, you could kill two birds with one stone and have the QT64 head east to Flushing via Sanford Avenue (instead of the QT73), and have the QT84 run down Francis Lewis Boulevard to HHE, and continue to 188th and 64th Avenue. The only problem you may see is schoolkids going to Cardozo and Bayside from SE Queens who might have a more difficult time traveling. Many might be able to take a bus that gets them to the QT71, but a few may be going from east of Merrick Boulevard. The QT73 would be relegated to a Jamaica-Cambria Heights service, taking Hillside Ave to Jamaica Bus Terminal (The QT41 would operate to Laurelton instead).

You can then use resources saved up to retain the existing Q17 between Flushing and Fresh Meadows. You could have service either make either limited stops only on Kissena , or just run non stop from Kissena Blvd/HHE to Roosevelt Avenue. A non-stop option would be popular for those coming from Flushing in the AM to Queens College, and useful for current Q17 commuters going for the (7) (and the reverse in the PM). 

In a similar situation, the QT65 could operate on the existing Q65 route between Jamaica Ctr and Flushing (preserving access to Flushing Hospital) for those along 164th, and then operate into College Point, doing some variant of what you're proposing with the QT84 (that would be better than having the less frequent QT86 there.

Overall, the proposed NE Queens network has a lot more negatives than positives. Several areas will lose off peak service to Flushing, and a lot of routes will operate less frequent than they used to. 

Yeah, Utopia Pkwy. south of HHE isn't the issue... Be there as it may though, I would not run the QT64 past Northern blvd.... You'd have a hard time selling demand for "through service" (from points south of Northern) along Utopia over Francis Lewis for NE Queens patrons.... Francis Lewis on the Q76 doesn't tank at Northern Blvd from either end of the route to justify segmenting service along it with the QT73 & QT84 up there.... With the QT84, a Q38 or B24 type of routing simply wont work in NE Queens because College Pt. Mall, or anything else along 20th av. isn't that high in demand from either end of the route....

One thing about the QT73, is that it serves too much of Francis Lewis on the southern end of the route, before cutting across Northern & Sanford to get to Flushing.... I think Sanford deserves its own route quite honestly (as in, a route dispersing from Downtown Flushing, that simply goes Main → Kissena → Sanford, to end at Northern) - a B74 type routing, if you will.... I'd take what you're dubbing a relegation 101 times out of 100 if it means not having to hoof it out to the QT38/39/40/41 (depending on where along Francis Lewis you're more proximate to) for direct service to Jamaica proper - and I'm fairly certain SE Queens patrons down there would also..... Linking neighborhoods means much of nothing if the neighborhoods being linked don't want/need.... linking.

I can understand wanting to keep the Fresh Meadows - Flushing portion of the Q17 intact.... At the same time though, I don't see the QT30 as much of a problem as NewFlyer 230 does.... If I lived in Fresh Meadows & wanted to get to the (7) during the rush, I'd take a route like that QT30 over the Q17 LTD..... Instead of 73rd, I'd run it down to Union Tpke/188th....

As main hubs for the Queens bus network, they've exacerbated the routes going in/out of Flushing way worse than they did in Jamaica & in LIC.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@B35 via Church For College Point Blvd south of Roosevelt, all they'd have to do is run the QT6 local overnight if serving those stops was an issue (the same way the Q44 used to run local overnight). While I can sort of understand the congestion argument, they seem to have missed one major thing: Where are those buses going to turn around at Avery Street? At 58th Road there is a little loop road in the park that provides for an easy turnaround whereas at Avery Street you need to use residential side streets.

Also for your earlier point about the QT84, I would also send it to Fort Totten but only off-peak. During rush hours I would just terminate it Francis Lewis Blvd & Willets Point Blvd. No point in having those Q16 riders loop through College Point en route to Flushing when there is sufficient demand during rush hour for a more direct route (I also like the idea of filling the gap on Willets Point Blvd even if it is rush hour only)

On a side note do you think it would be beneficial to have the QT6 run down Eliot Avenue instead of Grand Avenue? (Assuming sufficient service levels, since I assume it would make demand for the QT58 slightly higher and demand for the QT6 slightly lower) It would definitely be faster for riders between Ridgewood & Flushing, but would it screw too many intermediate riders? (For Maspeth-Flushing riders in particular, they would have to take the slower route through Corona, rather than the quicker QT6 route). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church For College Point Blvd south of Roosevelt, all they'd have to do is run the QT6 local overnight if serving those stops was an issue (the same way the Q44 used to run local overnight). While I can sort of understand the congestion argument, they seem to have missed one major thing: Where are those buses going to turn around at Avery Street? At 58th Road there is a little loop road in the park that provides for an easy turnaround whereas at Avery Street you need to use residential side streets.

Also for your earlier point about the QT84, I would also send it to Fort Totten but only off-peak. During rush hours I would just terminate it Francis Lewis Blvd & Willets Point Blvd. No point in having those Q16 riders loop through College Point en route to Flushing when there is sufficient demand during rush hour for a more direct route (I also like the idea of filling the gap on Willets Point Blvd even if it is rush hour only)

On a side note do you think it would be beneficial to have the QT6 run down Eliot Avenue instead of Grand Avenue? (Assuming sufficient service levels, since I assume it would make demand for the QT58 slightly higher and demand for the QT6 slightly lower) It would definitely be faster for riders between Ridgewood & Flushing, but would it screw too many intermediate riders? (For Maspeth-Flushing riders in particular, they would have to take the slower route through Corona, rather than the quicker QT6 route). 

The amount of ridership you would get by running it along Grand would be much higher than if you route it via Eliot Avenue, because you hit more potential riders and certain groups. The QT6 would be a more attractive option over the Q59 to get to QCM. Even though the Q59 will be streamlined in Williamsburg, I don't know how much more reliable that'll make the route, if it does.  A lot of Middle Village isn't trying to get to Flushing like that. The QT77 needs to be more frequent to/from Woodhaven Boulevard (M)(R) though, because 15 minute headways during peak hours will not cut it.

With that being said though, I would look into the QT6 making more stops along Grand Avenue (the proposed stop selection is way too drastic, I just don't see buses carrying a lot of people during off peak hours, especially with the headways proposed. The existing LTD stops on Grand Avenue should be made (3 additional stops would be made). The rest of the stop selection I'm more or less okay with (perhaps add a stop at Avery Avenue). I would also flip the service pattern so that the QT58 is the 24/7 route, and the QT6 is the 19/7 route or whatever equivalent they gave the Q58. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church For College Point Blvd south of Roosevelt, all they'd have to do is run the QT6 local overnight if serving those stops was an issue (the same way the Q44 used to run local overnight). While I can sort of understand the congestion argument, they seem to have missed one major thing: Where are those buses going to turn around at Avery Street? At 58th Road there is a little loop road in the park that provides for an easy turnaround whereas at Avery Street you need to use residential side streets.

Also for your earlier point about the QT84, I would also send it to Fort Totten but only off-peak. During rush hours I would just terminate it Francis Lewis Blvd & Willets Point Blvd. No point in having those Q16 riders loop through College Point en route to Flushing when there is sufficient demand during rush hour for a more direct route (I also like the idea of filling the gap on Willets Point Blvd even if it is rush hour only)

I understand wanting to end buses short of the interchange (and I also question what the layover & turnaround scenario would be in that area), but College Pt. Blvd. north of the Botanic Garden is proximate enough to Main st.... South of it however, not so much..... I mean, wanting to limit the number of routes ending in Downtown Flushing shouldn't mean arbitrarily (or half-ass) serving the general area you're terminating these things either.... That's clearly the case with the QT85 over there by the Home Depot & the QT86 at the movie theater....

In light of me not wanting to have that (altered) QT84 run 24/7, having QT6's serve local stops along College Pt. Blvd during overnight hours is a good compromise.... However, the reason I'd have it supplanting that QT48 is two-fold: the QT48 being rush hours only & I don't really see a need for local service of any sort along both 20th av and Willets Pt. blvd. between Parsons & Francis Lewis.... I'd leave that part of Willets Pt. blvd for the QM20.... That said, I would still run buses to Ft. Totten during the rush - but as an alternative to the QT48, I'd simply have a rush hour variant (QT84x or w/e) run b/w Ft. Totten & 20th av/Parsons before gunning straight to the (7) (updated map)... South of Roosevelt, the 'x' trips would make local stops to College Pt. Blvd/58th rd.... There's your College Point rush hour bypass.

The basic concept of commuter locals (to/from the subway) during the rush, is a good one - However, subjecting corridors to only rush hour local service.... Not so much.

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

On a side note do you think it would be beneficial to have the QT6 run down Eliot Avenue instead of Grand Avenue? (Assuming sufficient service levels, since I assume it would make demand for the QT58 slightly higher and demand for the QT6 slightly lower) It would definitely be faster for riders between Ridgewood & Flushing, but would it screw too many intermediate riders? (For Maspeth-Flushing riders in particular, they would have to take the slower route through Corona, rather than the quicker QT6 route). 

In terms of overall ridership, it wouldn't (be beneficial) - that was always the thing with the *run the Q58 LTD along Eliot* sentiment... Although Grand & Eliot are fairly proximate to each other, the riderbases are stark..... As was alluded to, there are far more people around/along Grand seeking Flushing... What screws intermediate riders (along Grand) is having the QT59 be a defacto local to the QT58 (and the QT6).... They pretty much had to create another layer of service with the QT6 - being that the QT58 is being diverted from dealing with the myriad of motorists seeking/getting off I-495, I-678, and the GCP.... Whether the proposed QT58 routing between Corona (av)/108th is a better tradeoff than the current Q58 routing b/w HHE/108th, IDK - flip a coin, I guess?

The QT77 has no business running along Eliot, IMO... It's basically telling all those riders to ride up to QB for their (M) service (of the ones that currently don't), because much of nobody will take 2 buses to get to Metropolitan av (M)... Hell, I'd run an Eliot route over to Queens College or down to Ridgewood, before I'd run it to LIC.... As mentioned in a previous post, I would also supply bus service in industrial Maspeth much differently...

 

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

With that being said though, I would look into the QT6 making more stops along Grand Avenue (the proposed stop selection is way too drastic, I just don't see buses carrying a lot of people during off peak hours, especially with the headways proposed. The existing LTD stops on Grand Avenue should be made (3 additional stops would be made). The rest of the stop selection I'm more or less okay with (perhaps add a stop at Avery Avenue). I would also flip the service pattern so that the QT58 is the 24/7 route, and the QT6 is the 19/7 route or whatever equivalent they gave the Q58. 

I agree with making the QT58 the 24/7 route (though since the QT6 is every 30 minutes, maybe just split the frequency and have each one run once per hour).

On the fence about adding the extra stops on Grand Avenue during the day. I do agree the off-peak frequencies of the QT6 are a bit overkill so maybe adding the stops will boost ridership enough ro justify them (Overnight, I think it might just be easiest to have everything run local)

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

In light of me not wanting to have that (altered) QT84 run 24/7, having QT6's serve local stops along College Pt. Blvd during overnight hours is a good compromise.... However, the reason I'd have it supplanting that QT48 is two-fold: the QT48 being rush hours only & I don't really see a need for local service of any sort along both 20th av and Willets Pt. blvd. between Parsons & Francis Lewis.... I'd leave that part of Willets Pt. blvd for the QM20.... That said, I would still run buses to Ft. Totten during the rush - but as an alternative to the QT48, I'd simply have a rush hour variant (QT84x or w/e) run b/w Ft. Totten & 20th av/Parsons before gunning straight to the (7) (updated map)... South of Roosevelt, the 'x' trips would make local stops to College Pt. Blvd/58th rd.... There's your College Point rush hour bypass.

The basic concept of commuter locals (to/from the subway) during the rush, is a good one - However, subjecting corridors to only rush hour local service.... Not so much.

In terms of overall ridership, it wouldn't (be beneficial) - that was always the thing with the *run the Q58 LTD along Eliot* sentiment... Although Grand & Eliot are fairly proximate to each other, the riderbases are stark..... As was alluded to, there are far more people around/along Grand seeking Flushing... What screws intermediate riders (along Grand) is having the QT59 be a defacto local to the QT58 (and the QT6).... They pretty much had to create another layer of service with the QT6 - being that the QT58 is being diverted from dealing with the myriad of motorists seeking/getting off I-495, I-678, and the GCP.... Whether the proposed QT58 routing between Corona (av)/108th is a better tradeoff than the current Q58 routing b/w HHE/108th, IDK - flip a coin, I guess?

The QT77 has no business running along Eliot, IMO... It's basically telling all those riders to ride up to QB for their (M) service (of the ones that currently don't), because much of nobody will take 2 buses to get to Metropolitan av (M)... Hell, I'd run an Eliot route over to Queens College or down to Ridgewood, before I'd run it to LIC.... As mentioned in a previous post, I would also supply bus service in industrial Maspeth much differently...

The QT84X makes sense. 

I have an idea (while we're on the topic of commuter locals to the subway), how about they have the QT64 run up Utopia-Francis Lewis-CIP Service Road-14th Avenue, make the QT49 (and ideally the QT51) a full-time route, and cut the QT65 back to the Broadway LIRR station? That would be a much better way to serve Francis Lewis Blvd, and Q16 riders on Utopia Parkway get to keep their full-time direct service to Flushing. 

I think the QT58 routing is better for the simple reason that, worse-case scenario, you can get off and take the (7) train, compared to being forced into a roundabout route with no alternatives.

Yeah honestly I was thinking they would've sent the Eliot Avenue portion down into Ridgewood. Funny enough one of my coworkers would actually benefit from the way they laid it out (currently he either takes the subway and Q38 or the Q67 and a walk home to get from our office in LIC). According to him, ridership patterns in Middle Village are that people north of Juniper Valley Park take the bus to/from the QBL while south of the park, they head to/from the (M) train at its terminal. But he wasn't particularly vocal about the QT77 benefits for himself (It was more "Oh nice" (**shrugs**))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2020 at 7:04 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I have an idea (while we're on the topic of commuter locals to the subway), how about they have the QT64 run up Utopia-Francis Lewis-CIP Service Road-14th Avenue, make the QT49 (and ideally the QT51) a full-time route, and cut the QT65 back to the Broadway LIRR station? That would be a much better way to serve Francis Lewis Blvd, and Q16 riders on Utopia Parkway get to keep their full-time direct service to Flushing.

I'll say this.... Instead of having the QT64 (from Jamaica) continuing all the way up Utopia to the CIP, it could serve Francis Lewis b/w Northern & the CIP (instead of the QT84 serving Francis Lewis b/w Northern & 20th av, leaving the rest of Francis Lewis w/ that gap north of 20th) to go on to serve 14th av.... Basically, I wouldn't just stop at Utopia/Francis Lewis in serving that gap on Francis Lewis north of 20th (like what you're inquiring the QT64 do).... Even if they didn't want to have a route like the current Q76 covering Francis Lewis down from Hillside all the way to the CIP, at minimum, I would cover it from Northern to the CIP.... The mileage the (MTA proposed) QT64 would rack up b/w Utopia/Francis Lewis & CIP/Francis Lewis is not worth it IMO....

In doing either (what you're inquiring about with the QT64, or my spin/take on what you're inquiring), yeah, the QT49 would have to be a full-time route.... The QT51 should be a full time route, regardless (even though that would also be a route I'd have a rush hour 'X' variant of)....

As far as the QT65, I'd have that route serve Flushing Hospital (Parsons side), en route to serving the (7) (via 164th > Pidgeon Meadow > Parsons > Roosevelt).... LIRR Broadway itself is a poor area to end a bus route.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@B35 via Church I believe we're both on the same page that the QT64 should run up Francis Lewis all the way to the CIP (instead of just 20th Avenue). So if I understand correctly, your twist on it is having it take Utopia-Northern-Francis Lewis instead of Utopia-Francis Lewis (which is what I'm proposing)?

And what routing would the QT51X take? The route already seems pretty direct so it doesn't seem like you could do much besides have it run nonstop west of Utopia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church I believe we're both on the same page that the QT64 should run up Francis Lewis all the way to the CIP (instead of just 20th Avenue). So if I understand correctly, your twist on it is having it take Utopia-Northern-Francis Lewis instead of Utopia-Francis Lewis (which is what I'm proposing)?

And what routing would the QT51X take? The route already seems pretty direct so it doesn't seem like you could do much besides have it run nonstop west of Utopia.

Yep, we're both addressing that gap along Francis Lewis, north of 20th av.... Only difference is that your QT64 alteration would use more of Utopia (north of Northern), whereas my twist on it, would have QT64's use more of Francis Lewis & not using Utopia (north of Northern) at all....

A QT51x of sorts would have the same routing as the proposed QT51.... What I should have mentioned, was that I would make the QT51 a full time local route (as in, making local stops on Northern as well)... So if we were to have the QT51 be a full time route in our little scenario, the QT51x would act as the (MTA proposed) QT51....

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@B35 via Church Cool (regarding the QT51/64). Going back to the QT65, what do you think of their proposed routing on the southern end? (To me I think if you're not going to bother serving the part of the Q42 furthest from Merrick Blvd you might as well not try at all). I do find it interesting that they are trying to through-route it in Jamaica (so people can get from those portions of SE Queens to NE Queens without physically getting off the bus in Jamaica) but I don't think it will catch on.

As I mentioned before, to serve Addesleigh Park, I think the best way would be a route running straight across Brinkerhoff to Sutphin (so you can have connections to the QT20 to the airport, and the QT47/67 heading towards South Ozone Park/Ozone Park without having to go all the way to Jamaica)

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church Cool (regarding the QT51/64).

Going back to the QT65, what do you think of their proposed routing on the southern end? (To me I think if you're not going to bother serving the part of the Q42 furthest from Merrick Blvd you might as well not try at all). I do find it interesting that they are trying to through-route it in Jamaica (so people can get from those portions of SE Queens to NE Queens without physically getting off the bus in Jamaica) but I don't think it will catch on.

As I mentioned before, to serve Addesleigh Park, I think the best way would be a route running straight across Brinkerhoff to Sutphin (so you can have connections to the QT20 to the airport, and the QT47/67 heading towards South Ozone Park/Ozone Park without having to go all the way to Jamaica)

Has no business running past 165th bus terminal AFAIC...

Serving Addisleigh Park via 174th makes more sense if you're descending from Liberty..... Speaking of which, the folks more proximate to that end of the neighborhood would have to put up with that god-awful QT68 route..... But yeah, having buses turn off Merrick to serve 174th, to end up swinging back on Merrick (at Linden) to terminate, doesn't do that neighborhood much justice.... Having buses go Merrick → 111th av → Sayres would have sufficed, if you're going to serve the neighborhood from the Merrick side....

As for what you've brought up at the end there, it does make me wonder how a Q60 to Addisleigh Park would've performed usage-wise.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting you bring that up. I think the Q60 would have done well to Sayres and 180. Possibly eliminate the Q42. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I made a quick blog post that summarizes my thoughts (some of which have been revised after discussion on this thread)

http://checkmatechamp1.blogspot.com/2020/05/thoughts-about-queens-bus-redesign.html

@B35 via Church Taking a second look, I agree with you about running down Francis Lewis Blvd vs. Utopia (in the area between Francis Lewis/Utopia & Northern/Utopia), since Francis Lewis is significantly more commercial than Utopia in that area)

Edited by checkmatechamp13
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 7:29 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I made a quick blog post that summarizes my thoughts (some of which have been revised after discussion on this thread)

http://checkmatechamp1.blogspot.com/2020/05/thoughts-about-queens-bus-redesign.html

@B35 via Church Taking a second look, I agree with you about running down Francis Lewis Blvd vs. Utopia (in the area between Francis Lewis/Utopia & Northern/Utopia), since Francis Lewis is significantly more commercial than Utopia in that area)

Speaking of taking second looks, I just realized something else about the QT65..... At 164th/Hillside, only right turns onto Hillside are allowed.... DOT would have to change the traffic rules in the general vicinity of that area (outside of simply making an exemption for buses)......

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Speaking of taking second looks, I just realized something else about the QT65..... At 164th/Hillside, only right turns onto Hillside are allowed.... DOT would have to change the traffic rules in the general vicinity of that area (outside of simply making an exemption for buses)......

I just remembered that. Instead of it going to St Albans arbitrarily, I would just have go to Jamaica station. Let the revised QT60 go to Sayres and 180

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Speaking of taking second looks, I just realized something else about the QT65..... At 164th/Hillside, only right turns onto Hillside are allowed.... DOT would have to change the traffic rules in the general vicinity of that area (outside of simply making an exemption for buses)......

And something else I just realized, technically the QT65 wouldn't directly connect with any subway station (the closest would be 169th Street)

5 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I just remembered that. Instead of it going to St Albans arbitrarily, I would just have go to Jamaica station. Let the revised QT60 go to Sayres and 180

Is there a lot of through-riding on the current Q60 between South Jamaica and areas north/west of Jamaica?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And something else I just realized, technically the QT65 wouldn't directly connect with any subway station (the closest would be 169th Street)

Anyone riding down towards Jamaica (from areas north of Hillside av - which we can safely assume would be the masses) would be screwed either way.... However, if they placed the Hillside/Merrick stop where the current NB Q17 stops at (168th/Hillside, before the turn), those riding up towards Hillside would have direct access to 169th (F).... The remix map has the stop (unnecessarily) along Hillside at 167th... That's just making things difficult for the sake of being difficult....

14 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I just remembered that. Instead of it going to St Albans arbitrarily, I would just have go to Jamaica station. Let the revised QT60 go to Sayres and 180

Using the blank Queens bus map that dude Gorgor back in the day made/extracted, I'm drawing up my alterations to this proposal in Paint shop pro... Instead of cutting it short at 165th bus terminal, I just have it (QT65) running to Jamaica Center (via 164th → Hillside → Parsons)....

As for the QT60, well since they've freed up the amt. of buses ending at LIRR Jamaica (they only have the QT16 & the QT24 ending there), I'd have it end there.... I'm not so sure that it needs to run to Jamaica Center (esp. like they're proposing)... Although I'd like to see how the Q60 would perform along Brinkerhoff (towards Addisleigh Park), I wouldn't actually run the QT60 there....

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Is there a lot of through-riding on the current Q60 between South Jamaica and areas north/west of Jamaica?

Nope..... Most folks south of Archer bolt for Sutphin Blvd. (E)(J).... I'd say that anyone taking Q60's in S. Jamaica that don't get off at Archer, barely ride past Union Tpke.... There is a relatively decent amt. of ppl. boarding NB/WB buses at Archer itself though; look for most of those folks to disembark at either Union Tpke. or Woodhaven Blvd..... The folks that I find take it over the bridge, are those boarding as far east as Forest Hills (but it's not all that potent)...

While I understand terminating QT44's at Jamaica Center, I wouldn't have QT60's going there.... Wasted mileage IMO.

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this about the current Q60:

There's not a lot through riding past Jamaica station. Unless the (E) is knocked out from Jamaica Center. 

Share this post


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

Nope..... Most folks south of Archer bolt for Sutphin Blvd. (E)(J).... I'd say that anyone taking Q60's in S. Jamaica that don't get off at Archer, barely ride past Union Tpke.... There is a relatively decent amt. of ppl. boarding NB/WB buses at Archer itself though; look for most of those folks to disembark at either Union Tpke. or Woodhaven Blvd..... The folks that I find take it over the bridge, are those boarding as far east as Forest Hills (but it's not all that potent)...

Well, that's slightly worse than I expected, but not really surprising. (I really can't imagine South Jamaica residents using the bus past QCM...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And something else I just realized, technically the QT65 wouldn't directly connect with any subway station (the closest would be 169th Street)

Is there a lot of through-riding on the current Q60 between South Jamaica and areas north/west of Jamaica?

No not really, at most maybe two or three people ride past Jamaica Sutphin/Archer. A lot of people tend to ride the Q60 to and from South Jamaica as an alternative to the Q6 which tends to suffer from reliability issues and overcrowding. I think back in 2013 maybe before that the MTA made it where every other Q60 runs past Archer Ave. I’m surprised they didn’t continue to strip service away from South Jamaica. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 9:33 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

No not really, at most maybe two or three people ride past Jamaica Sutphin/Archer. A lot of people tend to ride the Q60 to and from South Jamaica as an alternative to the Q6 which tends to suffer from reliability issues and overcrowding. I think back in 2013 maybe before that the MTA made it where every other Q60 runs past Archer Ave.

I’m surprised they didn’t continue to strip service away from South Jamaica. 

Couldn't have any significant influx of buses ending at Archer/Sutphin.... Outside of cutting service period, they would have to find another short turn terminal for the thing..... Possibly truncating 'em all the way back to Kew Gardens, if not at Jamaica av/QB.....

On the flipside of the matter, I think the overall redesign/proposal goes too far with decongesting Archer av....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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