Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church So I would either have it as follows

QT83: QCM - 164th/Cross Bay

QT88A/B: Rego Park - Hamilton/Old Howard Beach

or

QT83: Rego Park - 164th/Cross Bay

QT88A/B: QCM - Hamilton/Old Howard Beach

In other words, the QT83 is the Q21 and the QT88A/B is the Q11. And the routing to 164th/Cross Bay would be the proposed QT88 routing straight down 84th Street in Howard Beach.

I would also allocate slightly more service to the Lindenwood/Howard Beach branch, so that would be the one going to the busier northern terminal. (If it's a wash, I'd send it to Rego Park, since it's a standalone route on that portion, whereas QCM has the SBS going there)

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church So I would either have it as follows

QT83: QCM - 164th/Cross Bay

QT88A/B: Rego Park - Hamilton/Old Howard Beach

or

QT83: Rego Park - 164th/Cross Bay

QT88A/B: QCM - Hamilton/Old Howard Beach

In other words, the QT83 is the Q21 and the QT88A/B is the Q11. And the routing to 164th/Cross Bay would be the proposed QT88 routing straight down 84th Street in Howard Beach.

I would also allocate slightly more service to the Lindenwood/Howard Beach branch, so that would be the one going to the busier northern terminal. (If it's a wash, I'd send it to Rego Park, since it's a standalone route on that portion, whereas QCM has the SBS going there)

I like the idea of having a Woodhaven local Serve 63rd Drive as that would have a lot of ridership potential. It would've save me a 10 minute walk especially during the winter.

Although, since the topic of the Q38 was brought up, I still don't like how they handled the QT82. One day (right before the pandemic got bad), I was taking the Q38 to Metro for the . I passed by the corner of Penelope and Dry Harbor Road where the  proposed to have the QT82 turn to go to ..Atlas Mall or Myrtle (forgot which one). I observed the corner for a bit to realize that its way too narrow for buses to make that turn. Then again, I don't know how people put up with that tight curve at 77th Place and Furmanville Avenue. If it were up to me, I'd have the QT82 go straight down 77th Place (and straight up 78th Street) to/from Juniper Valley Road, and then just end near Metropolitan Avenue. 

 

[checkmatechamp13]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra The QT82 is advertised as the old Q29 & Q38 (though it also takes a portion of the Q23 in Corona). So it runs down to Myrtle to replace the Q29.

In any case, for 77th Place, consider that it doesn't directly run straight through Furmanville Avenue (you have to make a weird S-curve to get through that intersection). Maybe the best thing is to have a Woodhaven local cover 63rd Drive, have the QT82 either run up 80th Street to Grand Avenue or run up Dry Harbor Riad like the current Q29, and just leave that portion of Middle Village with bus service on 80th Street and Metropolitan Avenue and call it a day. (If the Q67 is routed down Metropolitan then at least they have more options on that street once they get there to compensate for the longer walk)

[LGA Link N Train]

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra The QT82 is advertised as the old Q29 & Q38 (though it also takes a portion of the Q23 in Corona). So it runs down to Myrtle to replace the Q29.

In any case, for 77th Place, consider that it doesn't directly run straight through Furmanville Avenue (you have to make a weird S-curve to get through that intersection). Maybe the best thing is to have a Woodhaven local cover 63rd Drive, have the QT82 either run up 80th Street to Grand Avenue or run up Dry Harbor Riad like the current Q29, and just leave that portion of Middle Village with bus service on 80th Street and Metropolitan Avenue and call it a day. (If the Q67 is routed down Metropolitan then at least they have more options on that street once they get there to compensate for the longer walk)

Fore the part in bold, I see your point there. But looking at the route from the eyes of any commuter who use the Q23 to get to the Q38 would look at the QT82 and wonder why it diverts from Metro. 

I do like your idea of sending the QT82 up either via Dry Harbor Road or 80th Street/Grand Avenue from Myrtle as opposed to 63rd Drive. I prefer Dry harbor Road because it wouldn't alter the route too much. Also, I'm assuming that you'd have nothing on Penelope which makes sense according to 's standards of not having buses on Narrow Streets in the redesign. 

As for the Q67, I agree with having it go east on Metro (which seems to be a general consencus here on this thread). I didn't jump into the Q39/Q67 discission up thread and a few pages ago as I spent that time observing, but I would have the Q67 start at Queensboro Plaza (or Court Square if congestion is a really bad issue at QBP), have it do its current route until Greenpoint Avenue, where it'd operate as a commuter express (similar to the B103) up until Maurice Avenue. The Q39 IMO should handle industrial Maspeth. From there, I'd still have the Q67 serve Residential Maspeth and 69th Street before going east on Metro/80th and ending at Atlas Park Mall. 

[jaf0519]

45 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Fore the part in bold, I see your point there. But looking at the route from the eyes of any commuter who use the Q23 to get to the Q38 would look at the QT82 and wonder why it diverts from Metro. 

I do like your idea of sending the QT82 up either via Dry Harbor Road or 80th Street/Grand Avenue from Myrtle as opposed to 63rd Drive. I prefer Dry harbor Road because it wouldn't alter the route too much. Also, I'm assuming that you'd have nothing on Penelope which makes sense according to 's standards of not having buses on Narrow Streets in the redesign. 

As for the Q67, I agree with having it go east on Metro (which seems to be a general consencus here on this thread). I didn't jump into the Q39/Q67 discission up thread and a few pages ago as I spent that time observing, but I would have the Q67 start at Queensboro Plaza (or Court Square if congestion is a really bad issue at QBP), have it do its current route until Greenpoint Avenue, where it'd operate as a commuter express (similar to the B103) up until Maurice Avenue. The Q39 IMO should handle industrial Maspeth. From there, I'd still have the Q67 serve Residential Maspeth and 69th Street before going east on Metro/80th and ending at Atlas Park Mall. 

How about adding a route to cover gaps while rerouting the QT82? 

Instead over covering the Q29 to Myrtle, the QT82 could continue down Penelope Ave to either 74 St (SB) or 75 St (NB), turn onto Juniper Valley Rd, and follow the current Q38 route to the Metropolitan Ave  

Then I would propose two routes to cover the Q29 south of Penelope and the gaps left in the area.

• QT23: Operates between Glendale-Myrtle Ave and Woodside-61 St  (LIRR), operates weekdays only every 20-30 minutes
  • 80 St via Q29, continues via Q47 route
  • Turns onto Grand Ave
  • Turns onto Hamilton Pl/65 Pl
  • Turns onto Woodside Ave
  • Turns onto 61 St and terminates. Returns to Woodside Ave via 61 St, 39 Ave, 58 St, Roosevelt Ave, and Woodside Ave
• QT25: Operates between Glendale-Myrtle Ave and Rego Park-63 Dr  , operates daily every 20-30 minutes
  • 80 St via Q29, continues via Q47 route
  • Turns onto 57 Ave, providing coverage to areas between Eliot Ave, Queens Midtown Expressway, and Grand Ave
  • Turns onto Queens Blvd and terminates with QT10, QT59, and QT63

As for the Q39 issue, one of the big reasons why it isn’t kept in the network is due to the amount of turns. Early on in the redesign idea, the MTA noted that routes like the Bx8, S57, and Q39 had too many turns. Now the Q39 is straighter, albeit broken.

[checkmatechamp13]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Actually, I just realized that they emphasized the Q23 & Q29 (but obviously we can all tell it's meant to include a portion of the Q38). Just like them to ignore the middle portion of the route (**shudders at the thought of the initial SIM schedules that left huge gaps Downtown with that exact attitude**)

But yeah, I wouldn't have anything on Penelope (that's why I was tossing out Juniper Blvd South and Juniper Valley Road as alternatives). If the Q67 doesn't make much sense on one of those streets, then the only remaining idea that might be able to cover that area is to do whatever the QT82 doesn't do in the above proposal (so if you send the QT82 down Dry Harbor, have the new route take 80th Street. If you have the QT82 take 80th Street, send the route down Dry Harbor Road).

With all of this, I do agree with the QT82 north of Queens Blvd (I wish they could've straightened it out a bit in the Corona area, but with the street network, there's only so much you can do).

@jaf0519 I think the main issue is the narrowness of Penelope Avenue in general. And I don't think there would be demand for two routes running down (pretty much) the full length of 80th Street. Given a choice, I think the QT25 is the stronger route, but I still believe the better solution for connecting to both the QBL and (7) is to run down 80th-Grand-Broadway.

[B35 via Church]

11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church So I would either have it as follows

QT83: QCM - 164th/Cross Bay

QT88A/B: Rego Park - Hamilton/Old Howard Beach

or

QT83: Rego Park - 164th/Cross Bay

QT88A/B: QCM - Hamilton/Old Howard Beach

In other words, the QT83 is the Q21 and the QT88A/B is the Q11. And the routing to 164th/Cross Bay would be the proposed QT88 routing straight down 84th Street in Howard Beach.

I would also allocate slightly more service to the Lindenwood/Howard Beach branch, so that would be the one going to the busier northern terminal. (If it's a wash, I'd send it to Rego Park, since it's a standalone route on that portion, whereas QCM has the SBS going there)

In regards to what you're explaining, I'm not looking at it in terms of what's the Q11 & what's the Q21.... That's why (and how) I asked where the Woodhaven local via 63rd dr. would terminate on the south end...

Quite honestly, if I were to maintain the 4 route setup (meaning 2 SBS' & 2 locals, not counting express routes) along Woodhaven/Cross Bay, with one of the locals doing the Q38 route north/east of Woodhaven, I'd do the following:

• local route (primarily running between Rego Park & Pitkin/Cross Bay (with some coverage trips going on to serve both Old Howard & Hamilton Bch's. - terminating in the former)
• local route (running between QCM & Lindenwood)
• SBS route (current Q53)
• SBS route (SBS version of the local route running between QCM & Lindenwood)

So basically, I would do away with what the NB Q21/41 does to get out of Howard Beach (the whole 164th → 84th → 160th bit) - it's a waste of time & virtually nobody patronizes the bus along that segment.... Hell, TBH, the SB buses tend to tank when it hits 157th/Cross Bay).... Being that there's no bus loop (no other way to turn around) around 165th/Cross Bay, I wouldn't have any of the locals running south of 157th along Cross Bay... One more SBS stop would be added to the Q53 alongside the McDonalds at 160th due to this....

* For specificity purposes, when I say "between QCM & Lindenwood", buses would terminate in Lindenwood (not on the fringe of it, like they got the QT83 doing).... Buses would "backdoor" their way into Lindenwood, like this.... The turnaround scenario would be the rest of the perimeter of that shopping plaza, thus spilling back into 151st....

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

As for the Q67, I agree with having it go east on Metro (which seems to be a general consencus here on this thread). I didn't jump into the Q39/Q67 discission up thread and a few pages ago as I spent that time observing, but I would have the Q67 start at Queensboro Plaza (or Court Square if congestion is a really bad issue at QBP), have it do its current route until Greenpoint Avenue, where it'd operate as a commuter express (similar to the B103) up until Maurice Avenue. The Q39 IMO should handle industrial Maspeth. From there, I'd still have the Q67 serve Residential Maspeth and 69th Street before going east on Metro/80th and ending at Atlas Park Mall. 

The general consensus with the Q67 overall though is to have it maintain the connection with the at Metropolitan.... While it does see a lot of riders getting on/off there, I still think the route overall should be repurposed (the connection there to the would be sacrificed).... I do get the sense that Middle Village & Glendale residents (down around Myrtle/Cooper) would appreciate/patronize something directly connecting them to LIC (whether it be for Hunterspoint into Manhattan itself, or up to Court Sq. (for various reasons)....

As is, the Q67 is an industrial route that goes on to serving as a gap filler along 69th st.... Since the MTA is so focused on keeping routes straighter & what not, I'm somewhat surprised that they didn't have that QT78 running up to LGA via 69th & the BQE....

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

....But yeah, I wouldn't have anything on Penelope (that's why I was tossing out Juniper Blvd South and Juniper Valley Road as alternatives).

I wouldn't have had/considered my proposed Q67 use Penelope either; it doesn't connect to 69th st (Penelope ends just short of it, at 69th pl. I believe)..... Penelope is narrower than Juniper Blvd. South & Juniper Blvd. South itself connects with 69th - so for all of that, I may as well have it taking Juniper Blvd. South over Penelope....

[checkmatechamp13]

To veer from the discussion slightly, there is a Zoom meeting regarding the Main Street busway that some of you might be interested in:

Subject: NYC DOT will host a public information session in English, Korean and Spanish about the Main Street Busway Pilot.

Date / Time: Monday, September 14, from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Location: Meeting will be held via video at zoom.us/j/92808395340 . Participants joining on the Zoom app may submit questions via Q&A. Attendees may also dial-in by phone 929.205.6099 with webinar ID: 928 0839 5340 for English audio (only), but will not be able to submit questions.

Contact: Queens Borough Commissioner’s office at 212.839.2510 (aarcese@dot.nyc.gov). To request accessibility accommodations, please contact the Queens Borough Commissioner’s office by Wednesday, September 9.

 

[checkmatechamp13]

Maybe I should've put the Main Street busway in the Bus-Random Thoughts thread (I didn't quite believe it merited its own thread). My apologies for the interruption.

Anyway @B35 via Church the one thing that stands out with that proposal is that Lindenwood is getting both a local and SBS, but there are still locals terminating at Pitkin Avenue (I get that it's to try to provide an adequate level of service to Rego Park while avoiding overserving Old Howard/Hamilton Beach). In that case, I'd probably cut the SBS and just run more QCM - Lindenwood locals (how much time would you say the SBS saves between say Pitkin & QCM?)

In any case, I do agree with providing a bit more coverage in Lindenwood (running via 151st vs. 155th), but I don't see how residential Howard Beach should be left with nothing, while Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach still keep some sort of service. The way I see it, considering that the Q21/41 only serve the area in one direction, and on top of that, they divert to Cross Bay and then back through Lindenwood, it's no wonder there's barely any ridership. At worst, I'd give it the same treatment as Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach (most buses end in Lindenwood with a few continuing to Howard Beach), but I'm not wild about that practice in general of having the short-turn terminal so close to the full-length terminal. We all saw how it worked out for the B3 in 2010)

For the Q67 to the I guess it all depends how everyone feels about the QT78. Especially if it ran down 65th Place (slightly further into residential Maspeth) then it is pretty much covering the Maspeth riders looking to connect to the while the Q67 is free to connect that general part of Queens to LIC. (Plus if it runs down Metropolitan, then worse-case, someone could always just walk to/from Metropolitan & 69th)

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Anyway @B35 via Church the one thing that stands out with that proposal is that Lindenwood is getting both a local and SBS, but there are still locals terminating at Pitkin Avenue (I get that it's to try to provide an adequate level of service to Rego Park while avoiding overserving Old Howard/Hamilton Beach). In that case, I'd probably cut the SBS and just run more QCM - Lindenwood locals (how much time would you say the SBS saves between say Pitkin & QCM?)

In any case, I do agree with providing a bit more coverage in Lindenwood (running via 151st vs. 155th), but I don't see how residential Howard Beach should be left with nothing, while Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach still keep some sort of service. The way I see it, considering that the Q21/41 only serve the area in one direction, and on top of that, they divert to Cross Bay and then back through Lindenwood, it's no wonder there's barely any ridership. At worst, I'd give it the same treatment as Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach (most buses end in Lindenwood with a few continuing to Howard Beach), but I'm not wild about that practice in general of having the short-turn terminal so close to the full-length terminal. We all saw how it worked out for the B3 in 2010).

Yeah, the other way to go about something of the sort, is to scrap the SBS within Lindenwood & run more locals instead.... Separate of anything I mentioned in relation to your idea of having the locals diverge to serve 2 separate areas on the NB end, I would only have the Q53 as the lone SBS along Woodhaven/Cross Bay.... To opine on the question though, the SBS b/w those 2 points probably saves about 15-20 minutes.

I get that you concur with that part of the QT88 proposal, but I don't see there being any significant difference (in terms of patronage) if a route ran bi-directionally along the rest of 84th st in Howard Beach... I could see you posing the argument you're posing if I brought up only giving Hamilton Bch. coverage, while leaving that part of Howard Beach in question with nothing... I'm getting the sense that you're trying to equate the demand for (residential) Howard Beach, with that of Old Howard & Hamilton Bch's.... You say at absolute worst, you'd give both sides of the basin the same treatment & what not... Well at absolute worst, I would only have local service covering Old Howard Beach.... Howard Beach certainly has pull, so if those residents really wanted bus service like that, buses would have been serving 84th in a bi-directional fashion before either of us were born....

Pitkin isn't that close to 165th to make the point regarding the proximities of the short turn terminal & the full time terminal.... I know you're giving an example, but I see folks east of Cross Bay in that immediate area raising far more hell than that part of Bergen Beach did, if the MTA were to completely eliminate bus service between the train el/causeway & Cross Bay Blvd....

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

For the Q67 to the I guess it all depends how everyone feels about the QT78. Especially if it ran down 65th Place (slightly further into residential Maspeth) then it is pretty much covering the Maspeth riders looking to connect to the while the Q67 is free to connect that general part of Queens to LIC.

(Plus if it runs down Metropolitan, then worse-case, someone could always just walk to/from Metropolitan & 69th)

If you're referring to the affected residents (QT78), well I guess most folks on that half of the route (Middle Village & Maspeth) wouldn't have too much of a use for it past Roosevelt.... As it relates to the Q67, it's basically sacrificing taking a bus through industrial Maspeth (for Middle Village residents), to connect them to the for that access to LIC instead....

I don't necessarily care for either route, but the QT78 has far more overall/total ridership potential than that QT80.... I would be shocked if much of anyone from Ridgewood would use it past Grand.... The QT80 IMO would be much better off running to Brooklyn (along Grand, to the like you said IINM)... The QT78 would be better off running to Ridgewood, compared to the QT80.... You could then perhaps have that QT63 running to Roosevelt Island (instead of the QT78) & have the QT78 itself turned down to ending at 21st (instead of the QT77) or ending around the Costco's on Vernon... → ((quick map of the talking point I'm making in this paragraph))

Edited September 10, 2020 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't think it's worth having the QT78 go into Ridgewood for the simple reason that the is available and saves the bus from a lot of meandering (to be honest, I'm not thrilled about the Q58 going past the Fresh Pond Road subway station, though I understand the need since it's such a major route, it makes sense to go to the Myrtle/Wyckoff hub)

For the QT80, yup I would send it to the at Grand Street. For the QT78, the way I see it, if it's not going to Roosevelt Island you might as well send alternating QT66 buses to Queensbridge and terminate the QT78 at Northern & Broadway)

Adding to this discussion, now that the Aqueduct Casino/Racetrack opened up, I was actually surprised at how busy it is. (Long story short, I work at a COVID testing site on the property). I still don't think it's worth having the Q37 loop through there, but I do see the value of having some local bus service through there (the casino actually runs some buses/vans to Chinatown, Elmhurst, Flushing, Jamaica and various points in southern Brooklyn)

Anyway, since we both agree that the B14 should be rerouted/extended to Cross Bay, how about if we take it a step further and run it down Aqueduct Road and end it at the Lefferts Blvd AirTrain station? It would provide Woodhaven/Cross Bay with a connection to the AirTrain (right now if you live on Woodhaven you're pretty much better off making your way to the Q10 if you want access to JFK) without having to divert the B15. (It also provides a connection into ENY but it obviously still does that by ending at Cross Bay)

And while we're on the topic, if the B14 were to be extended to Lefferts Blvd AirTrain (assuming you think it's a reasonable idea) would it be better to run down Pitkin-Cross Bay-Conduit or run through Aqueduct as I described above?

[LGA Link N Train]

Welp, I completed my own version at what the Queens Bus Redesign should look like. Added some changes that were the result of the ongoing discussion and I plan to tweak a few things here and there:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1TFLioK_1NnV15T-J0gOIR7WFRvp2GKz3&usp=sharing

 

[checkmatechamp13]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra I'll make some more thorough comments later on (since I'm on my phone now and it's a bit hard to see which lines go where, especially on corridors with overlap)

Right offhand, it seems obvious to me that your proposed QT75 should run down Greenpoint Avenue instead of through LIC. The Northern Blvd and Queens Blvd routes (not to mention the subway of course) already connect that part of Queens to LIC, and the connects from points south. Worse-case leaving Thomson Avenue without bus service isn't as bad as leaving Greenpoint without bus service (especially near the Brooklyn-Queens border)

And the QT12 is a stub in your proposal. Trying to go a little deeper into Fresh Meadows is creating a noticeable gap in east-west service.

Also, really quickly going back to my idea, perhaps if the B14 isn't a good candidate to go to JFK (either via Aqueduct or Conduit) then a branch of the Woodhaven local might be a good option (there would pretty much be no need to short-turn at Pitkin with Lindenwood/Howard Beach, Old Howard Beach, Hamilton Beach, and JFK needing to be served)

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't think it's worth having the QT78 go into Ridgewood for the simple reason that the is available and saves the bus from a lot of meandering (to be honest, I'm not thrilled about the Q58 going past the Fresh Pond Road subway station, though I understand the need since it's such a major route, it makes sense to go to the Myrtle/Wyckoff hub)

For the QT80, yup I would send it to the at Grand Street. For the QT78, the way I see it, if it's not going to Roosevelt Island you might as well send alternating QT66 buses to Queensbridge and terminate the QT78 at Northern & Broadway)

Aside from anything demand related, there simply isn't enough space to terminate all those Q58's in the general vicinity of Fresh Pond , that's the problem with that... It was onerous/stupid enough when they used to have buses (B20's) on layover, on that corner of 67th/Fresh Pond... Last dropoff stop was at Putnam/Forest, but the first pickup stop was way over on 67th/Fresh Pond....

As far as the rest of this, a Q66 cutback to Northern Blvd subway (the QT66) is one of the few changes in this entire plan I can wholly agree with.... The most nonsensical part of the QT78 is that it even runs to Roosevelt Island, so I'm not going to bother making a case for that.... As far as having a route from LIC running to Ridgewood (via Hunters Point , via Forest) vs. a 69th st route running to Ridgewood (via Forest), I don't have a definitive opinion on for one over the other.... Current service along Forest (Q39) is the pits, but at the same time, ending a bus route on Fresh Pond/Metropolitan (Q67) is a stub.... Separate from anything pertaining to this particular (Q39/Q67) side discussion, I do think a route running b/w Moore Terminal & Ridgewood Terminal via 69th st. would fare rather well....

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Adding to this discussion, now that the Aqueduct Casino/Racetrack opened up, I was actually surprised at how busy it is. (Long story short, I work at a COVID testing site on the property). I still don't think it's worth having the Q37 loop through there, but I do see the value of having some local bus service through there (the casino actually runs some buses/vans to Chinatown, Elmhurst, Flushing, Jamaica and various points in southern Brooklyn)

Anyway, since we both agree that the B14 should be rerouted/extended to Cross Bay, how about if we take it a step further and run it down Aqueduct Road and end it at the Lefferts Blvd AirTrain station? It would provide Woodhaven/Cross Bay with a connection to the AirTrain (right now if you live on Woodhaven you're pretty much better off making your way to the Q10 if you want access to JFK) without having to divert the B15. (It also provides a connection into ENY but it obviously still does that by ending at Cross Bay)

And while we're on the topic, if the B14 were to be extended to Lefferts Blvd AirTrain (assuming you think it's a reasonable idea) would it be better to run down Pitkin-Cross Bay-Conduit or run through Aqueduct as I described above?

You know what they say about ideas looking good on paper.... Well AFAIC, Q37 serving the Casino fits that bill.

I wouldn't run the B14 to Lefferts AIRTrain, even if I didn't/wouldn't already have an [extended Q9] & [(an altered) B20 doing that (in supplementation of the B15; I don't think anything should be terminating inside the Mail Facility - which was one reason I started that B14 to Rockaway Blvd. wave on these forums way back when].... What I would constitute as taking the step further, would be to even have the B14 serve the Casino.... Someone on here (can't remember who) relatively recently inquired about that....

Speaking of diverting the B15, I remember AE Moreira a good while back suggesting that very thing - having it briefly come up off the Conduits at Cross Bay, to give Woodhaven/Cross Bay access to JFK via such an xfer...

35 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

....Also, really quickly going back to my idea, perhaps if the B14 isn't a good candidate to go to JFK (either via Aqueduct or Conduit) then a branch of the Woodhaven local might be a good option (there would pretty much be no need to short-turn at Pitkin with Lindenwood/Howard Beach, Old Howard Beach, Hamilton Beach, and JFK needing to be served)

Now that I can definitely concur with, over having the B14 running to Lefferts AIRTrain.... Question then becomes, who (or which branch) gets the direct service.....

Edited September 11, 2020 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church Since you'd have the 63rd Drive branch have Pitkin short-turns, then I suppose that would be the best one to extend to Lefferts AirTrain. Do you think it would be better to travel via Aqueduct or via Conduit?

[Lawrence St]

I was looking at the current Q10 schedule and I'm surprised the Q10 Limited is even called a Limited since it takes almost the same amount of time to get to each terminal like the local Q10.

And with the new Q10 (QT14) do they really think combining the Q10 and Q64 is a good idea, considering the fact that the Q10 is a highly used route to get to JFK airport? All that's going to do is make the route even worse then it is now. And what about a QT14 LTD?? 

[checkmatechamp13]

9 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I was looking at the current Q10 schedule and I'm surprised the Q10 Limited is even called a Limited since it takes almost the same amount of time to get to each terminal like the local Q10.

And with the new Q10 (QT14) do they really think combining the Q10 and Q64 is a good idea, considering the fact that the Q10 is a highly used route to get to JFK airport? All that's going to do is make the route even worse then it is now. And what about a QT14 LTD?? 

The QT14 is already a limited. Pretty much all of the stops (key phrase, pretty much. They added a couple like Linden and 109th) on Lefferts are Q10 LTD stops, and it has 3 stops on Jewel Avenue. 

[jaf0519]

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I was looking at the current Q10 schedule and I'm surprised the Q10 Limited is even called a Limited since it takes almost the same amount of time to get to each terminal like the local Q10.

And with the new Q10 (QT14) do they really think combining the Q10 and Q64 is a good idea, considering the fact that the Q10 is a highly used route to get to JFK airport? All that's going to do is make the route even worse then it is now. And what about a QT14 LTD?? 

There would be no need for a limited. Compare the amount of stops being made:

• Current Q64: to Forest Hills from 164 St = 17 Stops
• QT14 on Jewel: 4 Stops
• Current Q10 Local between Kew Gardens and Rockaway Blvd = 22 Stops
• Current Q10 LTD to Rockaway Blvd = 7 Stops, 10 Stops to the Airtrain
• QT14: 10 stops to Rockaway, 13 to Airtrain 

It would be faster than the Q64 on Jewel and the Q10 local on Lefferts, and slightly slower than the Q10 LTD

[LGA Link N Train]

19 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Right offhand, it seems obvious to me that your proposed QT75 should run down Greenpoint Avenue instead of through LIC. The Northern Blvd and Queens Blvd routes (not to mention the subway of course) already connect that part of Queens to LIC, and the connects from points south. Worse-case leaving Thomson Avenue without bus service isn't as bad as leaving Greenpoint without bus service (especially near the Brooklyn-Queens border)

And the QT12 is a stub in your proposal. Trying to go a little deeper into Fresh Meadows is creating a noticeable gap in east-west service.

I see whaty you mean, so I adjusted those 2 lines to fill in those gaps. In the case of the QT75, the reason I initally didn't put it down Greenpoint Avenue was because I intend to have the B24 serve that route between Jackson Heights and WIlliamsburg via Greenpoint. But alas, having both the B24 and QT75 running along Greenpoint would be redundant, so I'd keep the QT75 in favor of the B24 just to have something serve 48th Street.

[B35 via Church]

5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church Since you'd have the 63rd Drive branch have Pitkin short-turns, then I suppose that would be the best one to extend to Lefferts AirTrain. Do you think it would be better to travel via Aqueduct or via Conduit?

Don't like the idea of a bus route using Aqueduct rd. & I'm not certain if they keep that gate (Pitkin) open throughout the day (although that can be arranged, if a bus route were to be routed through there).... On average, using Aqueduct rd. would be faster, but I would still go with taking Cross Bay to/from the Conduits.....

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Welp, I completed my own version at what the Queens Bus Redesign should look like. Added some changes that were the result of the ongoing discussion and I plan to tweak a few things here and there:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1TFLioK_1NnV15T-J0gOIR7WFRvp2GKz3&usp=sharing

First off, good job on drawing all of this (including the color choices for the routes)....

I'm not going to analyze every route in one shot, so this is going to have to be gradual.... It would help if you listed the routes that you would alter from the MTA's proposal.... As far as the SBS equivalent routes go:

• QT2/3: Why do both of these routes have different routings south of Borinquen (WBP area)?
• QT2/4: There's no need for Brooklyn (a Downtown route & a WBP route) having two routes going to Moore Terminal....
• QT42: Yeah, but how are buses turning around in Green Acres? That's why the current Q5/85 do what they currently do in/out of there...

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church I'll see if I can find out (for personal reasons I hope they do keep that gate open lol but obviously for bus-related routing issues it would be a help). But yeah, with the speed bumps and whatnot, Aqueduct Road isn't as bus-friendly as Conduit Avenue.

And I agree, while conceptually it sounds good to have a bus route linking WBP to Broadway & Roosevelt, I think the QT4 does a better job of connecting residential Williamsburg (or East Williamsburg depending on who you ask) to Jackson Heights, and you still get most of the connections you get at WBP. 

Funny enough, I have a good friend in Williamsburg  who didn't think twice about the QT1, 2, and 3 (which thinking about it, all pass relatively close to him) but he loved the idea of the QT4. (He was actually mentioned in a newspaper article. Sadly they had embellished his current commuting pattern for the article, but they were at least accurate in the fact that they found somebody who liked one aspect of the plan)

[LGA Link N Train]

14 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

First off, good job on drawing all of this (including the color choices for the routes)....

I'm not going to analyze every route in one shot, so this is going to have to be gradual.... It would help if you listed the routes that you would alter from the MTA's proposal.... As far as the SBS equivalent routes go:

• QT2/3: Why do both of these routes have different routings south of Borinquen (WBP area)?
• QT2/4: There's no need for Brooklyn (a Downtown route & a WBP route) having two routes going to Moore Terminal....
• QT42: Yeah, but how are buses turning around in Green Acres? That's why the current Q5/85 do what they currently do in/out of there...

Thanks, it took me a while to draw each individual line cause I had to draw each line from one end of the map to the other end, then back the opposite direction of where I started drawing that line. 

I'm going to add descriptions to lines that I altered, In fact, there wer're some lines in this map that I split into 2 sections like the QT67 and the QT81, but I don't know which end should keep its proposed name and which end should gain a new name. 

QT2/3 - I drew the QT59 route first on the map and basically had the QT3 follow its route within Brooklyn. Whereas the QT2, I think it should be a straight shot into Queens via the service lanes of the BQE and that a Brooklyn Route should take care of Bushwick/Woodpoint/Kingsland. (Looking back at 's Redesign, I'm guessing they did that so that it covers the current day B24 route) I forgot that I gave the QT2 and QT3 different routings south of Borinquen so thanks for pointing it out to me.

QT2/QT4 - The reason I put the QT2 at Jackson Heights was because I intended to have it run as a split B24 route with both ends meeting up at Jackson Heights. After examining my alteration to the QT2 after I made an unrelated alteration with the QT76, I see that there would be no reason to have the QT2 at Jackson Heights. Let alone the fact that I didn't even notice that I had 2 routes serving Brooklyn starting at Jackson Heights. 

QT42 - For this, I didn't alter anything from the official Queens Bus Redesign (other than make the QT42 an SBS Route) although I see your point about why buses make the loop (as I'm typing this). 

[checkmatechamp13]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Looking at the map in more detail I noticed a few more things.

Since Union Turnpike runs under Queens Blvd in that area, the QT86 would be bypassing the Kew Gardens subway station and all of the bus/subway connections available there. 

I don't see the need for 3 routes terminating at the LeHavre Apartments. Let the QT49 run there full-time, and maybe the eastern split of the QT81.

I don't see the need for the QT17 to end at the Little Neck LIRR station. If a rider wants to connect to the LIRR, they have the option of the Q20G (also keep in mind that during rush hour, most of the trains that run all the way to Port Washington run express west of Great Neck. And finally, since Little Neck is Zone 3 and Great Neck is Zone 4, there is a huge price difference. Great Neck to Port Washington is $3.25 all day whereas Little Neck to Port Washington is $8.25 peak, $6 off-peak (and the monthly is $201 vs. $99). So I would leave the QT17 terminating where the MTA has it terminating (HHE/Little Neck Parkway)

The QT34 via Winchester is one of the things I disagree vehemently with the MTA about. Leaving Glen Oaks without service, while adding a new route to an even lower-density area that has the Cross-Island Parkway on one side of it. 

If you're going to structure the QT39 in the way you did, it should be a green route. Purple implies it has some sort of nonstop section on it (unless you plan on running a QT39 local and QT39 LTD similar to the present-day Q83). I think that was the motivation in why the MTA (more or less) swapped the Q3 & Q83: They figured they would pretty much make all the Q83s into limited-stop buses, and have the Q3 cover Liberty Avenue (they are pretty much stopping at the Q83 LTD stops on Liberty Avenue, plus 183rd Street). 

For the QT18, being that those orange routes are meant to be as straight as possible, if you were to send it to Addesleigh Park, I would just have it take Merrick to Brinkerhoff.

For the QT88, I think it needs to be extended up Woodhaven. I don't see a point in an infrequent shuttle that already runs near the  connecting to just another station on the  .

In Far Rockaway, part of the reason they have the QT22 running up Beach Channel Drive is to avoid having to make the stop by the Wavecrest Apartments and then having to swing over to the left lane to make the turn onto Beach 19th Street. Not necessarily advocating for this, but if your goal is to provide service along that portion of Seagirt Blvd, I would have a shuttle run from Bayswater (Mott/Dunbar, the old Q22A terminal) run down Mott Avenue, and then cover the Q113/114 portion along Beach 9th Street before swinging back along Seagirt Blvd and terminating at Beach 36th Street.

Either that, or have the QT52 run down Seagirt Blvd to Beach 9th Street, and have the QT22 run a bit deeper into Bayswater (e.g. Bay 32nd Street/Norton Drive to Bayswater Avenue/Mott Avenue) en route to Five Towns. The obvious disadvantage with that is that it doesn't serve Beach 9th Street. I do think the Q52 has its place in the network, and this would give it a ridership base in the Rockaways that isn't near the train.

BTW, I don't think the MTA would go for having both the QT53 & QT63 along that portion of Broadway, especially with the subway running underneath. If that were the case, they'd probably have the QT63 cut back to Moore Terminal (Broadway & Roosevelt) if the QT53 continued down Broadway.

Edited September 12, 2020 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church I'll see if I can find out (for personal reasons I hope they do keep that gate open lol but obviously for bus-related routing issues it would be a help). But yeah, with the speed bumps and whatnot, Aqueduct Road isn't as bus-friendly as Conduit Avenue.

And I agree, while conceptually it sounds good to have a bus route linking WBP to Broadway & Roosevelt, I think the QT4 does a better job of connecting residential Williamsburg (or East Williamsburg depending on who you ask) to Jackson Heights, and you still get most of the connections you get at WBP. 

Funny enough, I have a good friend in Williamsburg  who didn't think twice about the QT1, 2, and 3 (which thinking about it, all pass relatively close to him) but he loved the idea of the QT4. (He was actually mentioned in a newspaper article. Sadly they had embellished his current commuting pattern for the article, but they were at least accurate in the fact that they found somebody who liked one aspect of the plan)

The thing about WBP people don't tend to realize, is that Williamsburg residents have little to no use for it... I'd go as far as to say many of them are averse to it.

8 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Thanks, it took me a while to draw each individual line cause I had to draw each line from one end of the map to the other end, then back the opposite direction of where I started drawing that line. 

I'm going to add descriptions to lines that I altered, In fact, there wer're some lines in this map that I split into 2 sections like the QT67 and the QT81, but I don't know which end should keep its proposed name and which end should gain a new name. 

QT2/3 - I drew the QT59 route first on the map and basically had the QT3 follow its route within Brooklyn. Whereas the QT2, I think it should be a straight shot into Queens via the service lanes of the BQE and that a Brooklyn Route should take care of Bushwick/Woodpoint/Kingsland. (Looking back at 's Redesign, I'm guessing they did that so that it covers the current day B24 route) I forgot that I gave the QT2 and QT3 different routings south of Borinquen so thanks for pointing it out to me.

QT2/QT4 - The reason I put the QT2 at Jackson Heights was because I intended to have it run as a split B24 route with both ends meeting up at Jackson Heights. After examining my alteration to the QT2 after I made an unrelated alteration with the QT76, I see that there would be no reason to have the QT2 at Jackson Heights. Let alone the fact that I didn't even notice that I had 2 routes serving Brooklyn starting at Jackson Heights. 

QT42 - For this, I didn't alter anything from the official Queens Bus Redesign (other than make the QT42 an SBS Route) although I see your point about why buses make the loop (as I'm typing this). 

That's cool that you're going to add descriptions on the map platform.... What I'm more getting at though, is posting a list on this forum, of the lines you altered.... Don't want to have to click on each individual route on the map to see if you'd change something (compared to what the MTA proposed)... Too many routes in Queens for that.

As far as the routes I brought up in the last reply, to be frank, I don't think the QT2 should even be a thing.... The only (somewhat of a) compromise I brought up a little after this thread's infancy, was to shift it over to 21st st (being that the QT1 only goes as far north in Astoria to the projects & doesn't serve WBP, being that it swings out to Downtown Bklyn. & what not) to have it be a variant of the QT1.... Basically what I'm saying is that there should be a 21st st route running between WBP & Astoria.... I don't see a need for two routes of any sort along Steinway (I see you've moved the QT2 back along Steinway on your map there), which is where I disagree with the MTA on - and for damn sure an SBS-like route along Steinway.... An SBS-like route along Steinway & along Meeker is suicide, fam....

[MTA Dude]

Hey everyone, I've come back from my 5 year slumber to present my version of the redesign.

https://app.podaris.com/projects/Yuj4C4c57sLWPDBLc/engage

I renamed all the routes so they matched the current-day routes as much as possible. Unfortunately, the viewing interface isn't that great, you can't click on routes to see them in detail and I had to put all of the routes into 5 groups. The best way to view it is to make an account and clone the project. In the Planning mode, on the right side click on the layers tab (the two squares stacked on top of each other) and from there you can toggle the visibility of each individual route.

I wrote my detailed thoughts about each route on the map, but here are the major changes:

Flushing / Northeast Queens:

• Francis Lewis Blvd south of the LIE is surrounded by the park, and north of the LIE there's the QT31, QT15, and QT17, which means that extending the QT73 to Flushing brings nothing new to the table. Instead, I have the QT64 running to Flushing via Sanford since the QT49 already covers the northern part of Utopia Pkwy, and giving it a strong northern anchor makes it easier to justify a much needed headway increase.
• Since the QT64 goes to Flushing, I would have the QT30 run via 164th St and 162nd St to Sanford before dashing to Flushing to cover the vast majority of Q65 riders heading to Flushing.
• I extended the QT86 up 130th St and 127th St up to 6th Ave to help out the QT15.
• QT48, QT49, and QT51 should run all day.
• Not sure if Willets Point Blvd ridership is high enough to justify a purple route. I turned it into a green route and extended it down with the QT16 to Holly Ave, helping out along the busiest section of that route.
• Instead of having the QT65 go to Beechhurst, it should run to industrial College Point along the proposed QT64 route so that those Q65 riders still have access while bypassing Flushing.
• Not sure how important it is to have a direct connection to College Point shopping center from Flushing is, but if it is, I'd have the QT64 run up there via Linden and Whitestone Expy.
• Split the QT81, obviously.
• QT50 should run straight to LGA from Flushing.

Forest Hills / Kew Gardens:

• Too many routes swinging across between Forest Hills and Kew Gardens.
• 108th St route should be separate.
• QT86 should terminate at Kew Gardens
• QT87 absolutely cannot replace any portion of Jewel Ave service with those headways. It should go through Kew Gardens, it's faster anyway.
• I think a combination between the Q10 and the Q46 might work, since for how major of a corridor Lefferts Blvd is, it's actually pretty isolated from points east of the Van Wyck Expressway.
• Not really sure about south Forest Hills. How many Q23 riders would be covered by the new Yellowstone route? What is left for the three stops along Continental? If the answer to that last question is "not much", then I would continue having the QT87 serving that portion, and run the Q64 Jewel Ave route down Yellowstone Blvd to Glendale. And even then the Q64 might have to be one of the few routes that need short turns.
• If the two branches have about equal ridership, I would have both branches run up Jewel Ave and truncate the QT87 to Kew Gardens.

Elmhurst / Jackson Heights:

• Probably gonna be my most controversial suggestion, but here goes. Q53 riders complained about losing access to Broadway, Jackson Heights, and Woodside. Someone from Woodside complained about how it would take three buses to get to Woodhaven Blvd. On the other hand, Broadway and Jackson Heights are incredibly congested and make the Q53 unreliable. My solution is to run the Q53 up via 90th/92nd St and Hampton St, which are kiiiiinda close to Broadway but much less congested. And at that point you might as well just take over the rest of the QT10 route. That would also give any point along Roosevelt Ave an easy 2-seat ride to Woodhaven Blvd and the Rockaways.
• For the QT82, Q29 riders complained that they now have to backtrack to get to the 7 train. I would have the northern portion run along Eliot Ave to Ridgewood. For the southern portion, the Q29 section feels a bit short, and they got rid of the Q47 along 80th St without any replacement. I would have the Q29 continue up 80th St, turn onto 57th Ave, and then run to Jackson Heights via Broadway.
• Everyone hates the QT74, just bring back the Q49.

LIC / Astoria / Maspeth:

• There's no need for two routes on Steinway St. Get rid of the QT2.
• The QT1 should continue up the Q100 route and end at the Q101 terminal.
• If the QT76 has to swing over to 21st like that, do it via Ditmars Blvd for the and connection.
• The QT75 sucks, bring back the Q39.
• The northern portion of the QT80 should be merged with the southern portion of the QT78. It'll be similar to the current Q18, but it runs on 65th Pl north of the LIE and 69th St south of it. The southern portion of the QT80 will be the Q39.
• I would have the QT77 run nonstop between Maurice Ave and Van Dam St via the LIE, run down 69th St, and then replace the southern branch of the Q38 via Juniper Valley Rd, Furmanville Ave, and 63rd Drive. Industrial Maspeth will be handled by the Q39 alone.
• My BQ24 is an awkward attempt at filling the gaps in service, covering Roosevelt Island, 36th Ave, 48th St, and the southern branch of the B24.

Jamaica / SE Queens:

• QT33, QT38, and QT39 should not be considered dash routes for running between 188th St and 179th St.
• There's no reason the QT68 (Q3) should be switching with the QT39 (Q83) to go up Liberty Blvd instead continuing up Farmers Blvd, especially since it goes back up to Hillside Ave immediately afterward anyway. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Liberty Ave pretty heavily used? Not a good idea to connect it with a coverage route along Farmers Blvd.
• QT41 should be covering all of 120th Ave like the Q84 does now. What does sending the QT73 over there accomplish?
• QT65 should run via Liberty Ave, 173rd St, 174th St, and Sayres Ave to the current Q42 terminal to cover more of St. Albans.

QT88

• This abomination of a route deserves its own section.
• The QT83 should serve Lindenwood and Howard Beach.
• The eastern branch should replace the QT62 on Liberty Ave.
• The QT62 should run via Sutter and Pitkin Aves like the current Q7.

 

Anyway, my username sucks, can I change it or something lol