Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[LGA Link N Train]

On 9/12/2020 at 9:49 PM, B35 via Church said:

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.

I actually have a document (that I would've posted earlier had it not been for the fact that the security certificate expired) which shows all of the modifications that I made into the Queens Bus Redesign. There are some ideas that I still disagree with (such as the QT50) but don't know what better alternative to provide whereas other routes (such as the QT34), I don't necessicarily have an opinion on them. I also added 5 routes that were never part of the Official Plan such as a QT90 (which is a South Bronx-Queens Connector). NGL, I kinda felt bothered by the fact that the never proposed a route that connected South Bronx with Queens via Astoria especially after they mentioned that they were going to improve interborough connections IIRC. Maybe it was to keep things budget neutral. Anyways, enough rambling, here's the document I made while the forums was down: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13bgZvRvkYdMhcMTbtcePbyqwYp9KfRrMgsB-McrdfdM/edit

[LGA Link N Train]

This is more of a random thought as opposed to any sort of criticism or proposal, but given the mass confusion and criticisms that people had in the early days of the redesign, I think that the  might revert a majority of its proposed routes back to the numbering scheme of the current day routes (with some exceptions here and there).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

25 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is more of a random thought as opposed to any sort of criticism or proposal, but given the mass confusion and criticisms that people had in the early days of the redesign, I think that the  might revert a majority of its proposed routes back to the numbering scheme of the current day routes (with some exceptions here and there).

I don't even know what the point of the post is given that the pandemic is still alive and well, and nothing will move forward until the pandemic is over and the  holds more public meetings. 

[LGA Link N Train]

13 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't even know what the point of the post is given that the pandemic is still alive and well, and nothing will move forward until the pandemic is over and the  holds more public meetings. 

Well that’s true. NGL I almost forgot about the pandemic. I’m just saying whats in my mind: 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well that’s true. NGL I almost forgot about the pandemic. I’m just saying whats in my mind: 

It's fine, but even I wouldn't speculate and I'm in touch with the regularly. Aside from the pandemic, there's a  $12 billion dollar hole that needs to be filled by the or there may be massive layoffs and service cuts. That is really the concern right now, and even some of my contacts may be laid off if this happens, so the focus right now is on them getting that money. I am talking about this with other advocacy groups this week on a conference call and we'll be discussing various strategies. Hopefully this can be averted, but that remains to be seen.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

On 9/14/2020 at 4:36 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I actually have a document (that I would've posted earlier had it not been for the fact that the security certificate expired) which shows all of the modifications that I made into the Queens Bus Redesign. There are some ideas that I still disagree with (such as the QT50) but don't know what better alternative to provide whereas other routes (such as the QT34), I don't necessicarily have an opinion on them. I also added 5 routes that were never part of the Official Plan such as a QT90 (which is a South Bronx-Queens Connector). NGL, I kinda felt bothered by the fact that the never proposed a route that connected South Bronx with Queens via Astoria especially after they mentioned that they were going to improve interborough connections IIRC. Maybe it was to keep things budget neutral. Anyways, enough rambling, here's the document I made while the forums was down: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13bgZvRvkYdMhcMTbtcePbyqwYp9KfRrMgsB-McrdfdM/edit

I agree. A lot of us were expecting it in the Bronx redesign, and then they tried to pull the wool over our eyes by extending the QT50 to LGA and saying "That's your Bronx-LaGuardia route". 

In any case, I like the general concept behind how you sent the 74th/75th Street bus route to The Bronx and moved the QT61 over to 82nd/83rd Street, but I still think the QT61 is too long and should be split at Broadway/Roosevelt. (At the same time, I'm a bit concerned about tying together a route running down narrow residential streets in Jackson Heights with a major interborough Queens-Bronx route). Maybe just split it up and have the Bronx-Queens route get back on the BQE after serving 31st Street (or after Steinway Street, just get back on at the GCP/BQE western interchange) with a residential route serving 74th/75th Streets.

Think about it how the Q33 was split into the current Q33 and the Q70. So it's the same concept (plus, this route more closely parallels the CSX line that they're talking about using for the Triboro RX). Just to think...from the Astoria Blvd  station you would be able to travel directly and reasonably quickly to Upper Manhattan, LGA, South Bronx, Jackson Heights and of course, LIC and Midtown/Downtown Manhattan using the subway itself (plus you could toss in Flushing, even though the Roosevelt Avenue portion will slow the QT81 down a bit compared to the Q19).

Anyway, for the QT5, I wouldn't add too many stops. Maybe 130th, 111th, Rockaway Blvd (if the QT62 is rerouted that way, though I can't picture it being a particularly popular transfer). Funny enough, the physical layout of Atlantic Avenue is more conducive than 101st for a blue route (wider street and more industrial). 

For the QT69, I don't see any issues whatsoever with running down Center Blvd. Even though it's a slightly longer walk to the  station, that area around Borden is prone to backups relating to cars trying to get onto the LIE (taking Jackson-Vernon-Borden is the backway to getting onto the LIE from LIC, as opposed to going around Van Dam), so taking Vernon-48th-Center is a good idea.

On 9/14/2020 at 6:53 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is more of a random thought as opposed to any sort of criticism or proposal, but given the mass confusion and criticisms that people had in the early days of the redesign, I think that the  might revert a majority of its proposed routes back to the numbering scheme of the current day routes (with some exceptions here and there).

I don't think that'll happen. There are too many routes that are combinations of multiple routes (plus, as we've seen with the SIM redesign, that confusion tends to go away after a while). With the new numbering system, you can see the general logic (for example, starting from Flushing and going clockwise, you can see the pattern in the QT30-series and QT40-series routes).

On a side note, I realized a further step in the ingenuity of the SIM numbering system. I already knew that the SIM20-series routes were South Shore (going up as you head south/west) and the SIM30-series routes were the North Shore (going up as you head north). But if you look carefully, you'll notice that the SIM1 is the main Hylan Blvd/East Shore route, and the SIM10-series are more-or-less variants of it, the same for the SIM2 and SIM20-series, and the SIM3 and SIM30-series.

On 9/14/2020 at 7:19 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't even know what the point of the post is given that the pandemic is still alive and well, and nothing will move forward until the pandemic is over and the  holds more public meetings. 

There is no harm in discussing proposals so that once things start back up again, we have stronger points to make with the MTA. It's true that funding and shifting ridership patterns will influence the redesign, but we can still get a baseline in our discussions and then go from there.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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

Welcome back, bro.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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.

I think the idea was to divide the Q27's ridership base between Flushing & SE Queens into 2 routes (QT31 to Queens Village and QT73 to Cambria Heights). 

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

I extended the QT86 up 130th St and 127th St up to 6th Ave to help out the QT15.

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.

Agreed, with the QT86, except I would have it run up 132nd Street which is a wider street and a little bit closer to the mall, which negates the need for a QT64 extension.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

QT48, QT49, and QT51 should run all day.

Agreed.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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.

If anything, I think the (relatively) low-ridership is the reason they have it running as a purple route: They don't want to have it overcrowded with people making short-distance trips, and then the long-distance people can't fit on (a similar principal to the QT11 & QT32 on Union Turnpike). But I can see your point. If the goal is to help the QT16, I'd go all the way down to HHE instead of Holly Avenue.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

 

• 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.

Agreed with all of this, except, I do think it might be possible if you had the QT87 run as a purple route (making limited stops east of Electchester) while a corresponding local route took care of the local stops east of Electchester. I agree the headways would need to be adjusted, though.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

 

• 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.

 

Would the QT87 serve the southern part of Forest Hills coming from Jewel Avenue or from Kew Gardens under your proposal.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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.

I think that route would be too long and prone to delays/bunching. I would leave the Q53 ending at QCM (Whether the QT10 goes to Rego Park or Queens Center Mall isn't a big deal either way, as long as they don't forget to add at stop at QCM like the draft plan shows).

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

LIC / Astoria / Maspeth:

• There's no need for two routes on Steinway St. Get rid of the QT2.
• If the QT76 has to swing over to 21st like that, do it via Ditmars Blvd for the and connection.

Agreed.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

 

• The QT1 should continue up the Q100 route and end at the Q101 terminal.

I don't see the point in that. 20th Avenue doesn't warrant the equivalent of an SBS route. I would just leave them with the QT76 (via Ditmars towards the western end of 20th Avenue) and the QT79 for the eastern end (or as @BM5 via Woodhaven suggested, run the QT79 all the way across 20th Avenue to 21st Street and then swing back to the Astoria Line)

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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.

Fair points.

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

QT41 should be covering all of 120th Ave like the Q84 does now. What does sending the QT73 over there accomplish?

Agreed (I think their logic was because Francis Lewis Blvd continues in that direction anyway, but I agree the Q84 does a better job of serving that area than the QT73 would, plus the QT73 is long enough).

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

QT65 should run via Liberty Ave, 173rd St, 174th St, and Sayres Ave to the current Q42 terminal to cover more of St. Albans.

If you're going to have the QT65 serve the area, it should take Merrick straight to Brinkerhoff instead of meandering around the neighborhood. (I personally think it should be a shuttle to the Jamaica LIRR station running across Brinkerhoff and up Sutphin).

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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.

Agreed with the QT83. As for the eastern branch, there is pretty much zero demand between Cypress Hills and Old Howard/Hamilton Beach. (Aside from that, you can transfer to the  if necessary). I'd leave the QT62 running all the way across Rockaway Blvd to Atlantic Avenue to head towards Cypress Hills, and have Sutter/Pitkin covered by an extended B14.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

There is no harm in discussing proposals so that once things start back up again, we have stronger points to make with the MTA. It's true that funding and shifting ridership patterns will influence the redesign, but we can still get a baseline in our discussions and then go from there.

You can discuss a lot of things, but we don't even have a vaccine yet, so it's a much to do about nothing. We also don't know if the  will get the funding it needs. More sensible to discuss these things once those two issues are resolved.

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You can discuss a lot of things, but we don't even have a vaccine yet, so it's a much to do about nothing. We also don't know if the  will get the funding it needs. More sensible to discuss these things once those two issues are resolved.

Then you can feel free to stay out of the discussion if you feel it's that much of a time-waste. 

[B35 via Church]

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

• The QT1 should continue up the Q100 route and end at the Q101 terminal.

I don't see the point in that. 20th Avenue doesn't warrant the equivalent of an SBS route. I would just leave them with the QT76 (via Ditmars towards the western end of 20th Avenue) and the QT79 for the eastern end (or as @BM5 via Woodhaven suggested, run the QT79 all the way across 20th Avenue to 21st Street and then swing back to the Astoria Line)

I'm somewhere in the middle with [what the MTA's proposing for the QT1] & [what he's suggesting the QT1 do].... While I don't think it should swing way over to 19th/Hazen, I do think it should cover more ground in Astoria, north of the projects.... I've read complaints in the past of Astorians feeling some type of way about having to go through Manhattan to get to Brooklyn... Now where in Brooklyn they're generally seeking, is the question.... Point I'm basically making is that the QT1 has the potential to kinda mimic an express bus route for those folks up there..... I actually think the QT1 would garner more patronage if it ran up to say 21st av/21st st., compared to turning off for the projects.... Which segues me to mentioning.....

....that I always thought that the Q69 should have a rush hour short turn at the (Astoria) projects anyway; well before the Q69 got renumbered from the Q19a, the Q19 got extended to the projects, and the Q102 got straightened to run along 30th av (paralleling the Q18 to 30th av )... Back when some folks on these parts were talking about combining the Q19 & Q19a..... Q103 service between the & the projects isn't enough & the Q102 crawls along under the el' to get to QBP......

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Agreed with the QT83. As for the eastern branch, there is pretty much zero demand between Cypress Hills and Old Howard/Hamilton Beach. (Aside from that, you can transfer to the  if necessary). I'd leave the QT62 running all the way across Rockaway Blvd to Atlantic Avenue to head towards Cypress Hills, and have Sutter/Pitkin covered by an extended B14.

What he's suggesting the QT62 do would virtually carry air from end to end.... The eastern spur of the QT88 is slated to take Centerville, so you immediately lose out on anyone trying to get to points along Cross Bay.... Something running from Crescent to Rockaway Blvd via Liberty I see as being a non-starter..... People taking Q24's, Q56's, and 's to Woodhaven blvd. (from points well west) typically xfer to the Q52/Q53 for points well south of Rockaway/Cross Bay (of those that aren't heading NB towards QB/QCM that is).... The majority of the people that are disembarking SB Q11's/21's/52's/53's at Rockaway Blvd are those emanating from at least as far north as Jamaica av.....

Basically what I'm laying out (in what we apparently agree on) is that a route running from Crescent to Old Howard Beach via the proposed QT62 & via the proposed QT88 would be a massive fail from end to end.... As much as I hate the proposed QT88, I even see that performing better... Another way of putting that is, I see more Lindenwood patrons taking buses to/from the than I do those possibly taking the proposed QT62 b/w Crescent & Rockaway Blvd .... At best, I think it'd be a wash, but I even think that's giving it too much credit....

[checkmatechamp13]

10 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm somewhere in the middle with [what the MTA's proposing for the QT1] & [what he's suggesting the QT1 do].... While I don't think it should swing way over to 19th/Hazen, I do think it should cover more ground in Astoria, north of the projects.... I've read complaints in the past of Astorians feeling some type of way about having to go through Manhattan to get to Brooklyn... Now where in Brooklyn they're generally seeking, is the question.... Point I'm basically making is that the QT1 has the potential to kinda mimic an express bus route for those folks up there..... I actually think the QT1 would garner more patronage if it ran up to say 21st av/21st st., compared to turning off for the projects.... Which segues me to mentioning.....

....that I always thought that the Q69 should have a rush hour short turn at the (Astoria) projects anyway; well before the Q69 got renumbered from the Q19a, the Q19 got extended to the projects, and the Q102 got straightened to run along 30th av (paralleling the Q18 to 30th av )... Back when some folks on these parts were talking about combining the Q19 & Q19a..... Q103 service between the & the projects isn't enough & the Q102 crawls along under the el' to get to QBP......

I forget if we mentioned it, but what are your plans for the Q103? I know we agreed that the southern portion could be covered by another route (I believe we were leaning towards the QT60). But what about the northern portion? (I know we were discussing having the QT63 run to Roosevelt Island which would cover a bit of it, but basically, would you have anything running up Vernon Blvd coming from the ?)

Me personally, since I'm still not wild about the QT1 running to Brooklyn, I'd have the Q103 run between QBP and the Astoria Houses (via 41st Avenue, via Vernon). Since it would also be taking some Q69 & Q102 riders to/from QBP, I'd give it a little boost in service which would translate into more service to the Astoria Houses from the  ).

In any case, looking at the QT1 routing on the Brooklyn side, I notice they have it running on the BQE in both directions between Flushing Avenue and Downtown Brooklyn. Eastbound/northbound I can see it working out, but westbound/southbound, that's just asking for trouble, since you have the bottleneck of the Manhattan/Brooklyn Bridges up ahead.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

20 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Then you can feel free to stay out of the discussion if you feel it's that much of a time-waste. 

Just as you were free not to jump into the discussion to tell me how it's so relevant because it really isn't.

[Q43LTD]

I was thinking about straightening out the Q18 now like its successor in the Queens redesign. Is it possible that it could go down 69 St instead of 65 Place? Or maybe 58 St?

Edited September 21, 2020 by Q43LTD

[checkmatechamp13]

8 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I was thinking about straightening out the Q18 now like its successor in the Queens redesign. Is it possible that it could go down 69 St instead of 65 Place? Or maybe 58 St?

Well that's what they're proposing. They have the QT80 running down 30th Avenue and 58th Street, heading towards Ridgewood, and the QT78 (and QT4) serving the neighborhood via 69th Street. 

[MTA Dude]

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think the idea was to divide the Q27's ridership base between Flushing & SE Queens into 2 routes (QT31 to Queens Village and QT73 to Cambria Heights).

There's not a lot of ridership between Cambria Heights and Flushing as it is, and the QT73 doesn't serve that portion effectively anyway. For the few that do need it though, it would be a two seat ride, whether from the QT71 or QT73.

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Agreed, with the QT86, except I would have it run up 132nd Street which is a wider street and a little bit closer to the mall, which negates the need for a QT64 extension.

Actually yeah, I might be overserving northern College Point with my proposal.

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Would the QT87 serve the southern part of Forest Hills coming from Jewel Avenue or from Kew Gardens under your proposal.

I have it running from Kew Gardens and going down 71st Ave, but are buses too tall for the LIRR bridge there? Is that why they have it running on Ascan? Also, what's the deal with the private neighborhood there?

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think that route would be too long and prone to delays/bunching. I would leave the Q53 ending at QCM (Whether the QT10 goes to Rego Park or Queens Center Mall isn't a big deal either way, as long as they don't forget to add at stop at QCM like the draft plan shows).

I think it would be better than the current Q53 running along Broadway and Roosevelt Ave. Unless you don't think the Q53 to Woodside should exist at all, but people were complaining about losing that connection.

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't see the point in that. 20th Avenue doesn't warrant the equivalent of an SBS route.

Actually yeah I definitely agree with this.

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

If you're going to have the QT65 serve the area, it should take Merrick straight to Brinkerhoff instead of meandering around the neighborhood. (I personally think it should be a shuttle to the Jamaica LIRR station running across Brinkerhoff and up Sutphin).

I saw the MTA's proposal as butchering the Q42 and attaching it to the Q65. The latter I'm leaning towards in favor of, especially now that the QT65 has been relegated to a coverage route, but why completely butcher the Q42?

On 9/19/2020 at 4:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Agreed with the QT83. As for the eastern branch, there is pretty much zero demand between Cypress Hills and Old Howard/Hamilton Beach. (Aside from that, you can transfer to the  if necessary). I'd leave the QT62 running all the way across Rockaway Blvd to Atlantic Avenue to head towards Cypress Hills, and have Sutter/Pitkin covered by an extended B14.

On 9/20/2020 at 1:38 AM, B35 via Church said:

What he's suggesting the QT62 do would virtually carry air from end to end.... The eastern spur of the QT88 is slated to take Centerville, so you immediately lose out on anyone trying to get to points along Cross Bay.... Something running from Crescent to Rockaway Blvd via Liberty I see as being a non-starter..... People taking Q24's, Q56's, and 's to Woodhaven blvd. (from points well west) typically xfer to the Q52/Q53 for points well south of Rockaway/Cross Bay (of those that aren't heading NB towards QB/QCM that is).... The majority of the people that are disembarking SB Q11's/21's/52's/53's at Rockaway Blvd are those emanating from at least as far north as Jamaica av.....

Basically what I'm laying out (in what we apparently agree on) is that a route running from Crescent to Old Howard Beach via the proposed QT62 & via the proposed QT88 would be a massive fail from end to end.... As much as I hate the proposed QT88, I even see that performing better... Another way of putting that is, I see more Lindenwood patrons taking buses to/from the than I do those possibly taking the proposed QT62 b/w Crescent & Rockaway Blvd .... At best, I think it'd be a wash, but I even think that's giving it too much credit....

 

Tbh I have no idea how to best serve Old Howard and Hamilton Beach. Currently, each Q11 branch runs every hour, but most Q11s short turn on Cross Bay Blvd. Are most riders there trying to head up Woodhaven Blvd, or somewhere else?

As for service between Crescent and Rockaway Blvd , I thought the MTA had a good reason for proposing it (under-subway bus coverage?) but guess not.

[jaf0519]

10 minutes ago, MTA Dude said:

I have it running from Kew Gardens and going down 71st Ave, but are buses too tall for the LIRR bridge there? Is that why they have it running on Ascan? Also, what's the deal with the private neighborhood there?

Yeah I believe it is due to the bridge being too low. The QT86 is proposed to run down Yellowstone Blvd, so sending the QT87 down the same route as the current Q23 would both be too close to the QT86 and have too many turns. By routing the bus over to Ascan then 71 Ave after the private neighborhood, it would split the current Q23 ridership area from just 69 Ave to two different routes.

The private neighborhood is against having a bus run down their streets. Even though it isn’t going to be stopping in the neighborhood, or be a frequent route. At the most it would be roughly 3 BPH each way.

[checkmatechamp13]

@MTAdude Yeah it's because of the railroad trestle.

As for the Q53, yeah I don't think the portion to Woodside should exist.

Not sure what they were thinking with having the QT65 cover part of a butchered Q42. That proposal was a slap in the face, saying they'll cover the portion of the Q42 that's closer to alternatives with a bus, while leaving the portions further away with nothing.

As for the Q7/QT62 running through there, I guess it was to straighten it out a bit (compared to looping to Sutter) and offer a connection within walking distance to the but they could've just done that by running straight down Rockaway Blvd. 

[LGA Link N Train]

6 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Yeah I believe it is due to the bridge being too low. The QT86 is proposed to run down Yellowstone Blvd, so sending the QT87 down the same route as the current Q23 would both be too close to the QT86 and have too many turns. By routing the bus over to Ascan then 71 Ave after the private neighborhood, it would split the current Q23 ridership area from just 69 Ave to two different routes.

Makes sense as to why'd they do that. However, I don't know if the height of the Bridge at 71st/Continental is too low (IIRC, the height of the bridge's underpass was like 10'5" last time I checked), but that would be depend on the height of the buses themselves.

6 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

I have it running from Kew Gardens and going down 71st Ave, but are buses too tall for the LIRR bridge there? Is that why they have it running on Ascan? Also, what's the deal with the private neighborhood there?

Well you kinda answered your own Question there. Forest Hills Gardens is a gated community, so to me it doesn't come as a surprise that they'd be against it. I also wonder if the consulted with the people that run the private neighborhood to have a route even running on Ascan.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 9/6/2020 at 6:16 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

And out of curiosity, what were your original concerns about the QT79 routing?

On 9/6/2020 at 8:30 PM, B35 via Church said:

That's the same question I asked myself upon reading that part of his post.

I initially wasn't too fond of the QT79 mainly because it paralleled in the  for much longer than under the existing Q102, with a relatively low frequency, because it severs the connection from Queensbridge (both the projects and the  station) to Rikers that exists on the current Q100, and because it doesn't directly connect riders to Mount Sinai like the current Q102. 

I missed the earlier discussion about the Woodhaven service to 63rd Drive, and I'm actually inclined to keep the locals as they currently are on the northern end, over sending them to Rego Park. I think that would further decrease ridership unless you send it somewhere past 63rd Drive and increase the service levels on the route. Corona Plaza (via the QT82) may be an option, but then length becomes an issue (and the area on Junction between Horace Harding and 57th Ave is a PITA to travel on during the day, particuarly rush hours). The area around 63rd Drive isn't as big as a draw as Woodhaven Blvd, and Queens Center Mall contributes to that. Even with Rego Center and Queens Place Mall, Queens Center remains the more popular of the three, and by a large margin.

Central Queens needs to be redone. Here's what I would consider (I'll describe it, since I don't feel like mapping it):

• QT10 - Existing QT10 from Marine Air Terminal to Roosevelt Ave, then via Roosevelt Ave, 69th Street, Calamus Ave, 79th Street, Grand Ave, and 80th Street to Cooper Ave
• QT29 - Existing Q29 bus route
• QT57 - Eliot Avenue leg of the Q38, between Otis Ave and Ridgewood Terminal or Malcom X Blvd & Kosciuzsko Street (Near Kosciuzko Street )
  • Via the Current Q38 Eliot Ave alignment between Otis Avenue and Fresh Pond Road
  • West/South of Fresh Pond Road, operates via Eliot Ave, Fresh Pond Ave, Gates Ave, Myrtle Ave, and DeKalb Ave 
  • Section between Ridgewood Terminal and Kosciuzko Street debatable, but I routed it for connectivity purpose, to offer a faster alternative to the B38, and to offer more of Ridgewood and Bushwick a connection to/from the B46
• QT59 - Extended to 108th Street to cover the 62nd Drive/63rd Road portions of the Q38
• QT78 - Have it going east along Northern Boulevard (to about 94th Street). 
• QT80 - Proposed route between Astoria Houses and Woodside Ave, then via Woodside Ave, 65th Place, 50th Ave, 69th Street, and Metropolitan Ave to Fresh Pond Road
• QT82 - Proposed route between Corona and Dry Harbor Road, then via existing Q38 Penelope Av leg to Fresh Pond Road, then via Fresh Pond Road on to Ridgewood Term
  • I chose this route over the QT57 (above) to operate via Fresh Pond Road because more of the populations along that section would choose to travel to that section of Ridgewood over the Eliot Avenue segment
• QT89 - Route that would mimic the existing Q39 more or less, with a variant through 55th Drive & 48th Street in Industrial Maspeth
  • QT89A - via Laurel Hill Blvd & 58th Street in Industrial Maspeth
  • QT89B - via 48th Street & 55th Drive in Industrial Maspeth

 

8 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

I think it would be better than the current Q53 running along Broadway and Roosevelt Ave. Unless you don't think the Q53 to Woodside should exist at all, but people were complaining about losing that connection.

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@MTAdude Yeah it's because of the railroad trestle.

As for the Q53, yeah I don't think the portion to Woodside should exist.

I would keep the Q53 as it is, from end to end. You have a substantial amount of people who get on at Woodside. Additionally, there's a lot of through ridership on the Q53 past QCM/Hoffman Drive. With the exception of the AM rush, it can be up to a 50/50 split during daytime hours between riders getting off at Queens Center Mall/Hoffman Drive and those staying on the bus past those points. During overnight hours, you see more people stay on buses past Queens Center Mall/Hoffman Drive (and this was true before the subway shutdown as well).

Edited September 23, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[B35 via Church]

On 9/20/2020 at 12:55 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I forget if we mentioned it, but what are your plans for the Q103? I know we agreed that the southern portion could be covered by another route (I believe we were leaning towards the QT60). But what about the northern portion? (I know we were discussing having the QT63 run to Roosevelt Island which would cover a bit of it, but basically, would you have anything running up Vernon Blvd coming from the ?)

Me personally, since I'm still not wild about the QT1 running to Brooklyn, I'd have the Q103 run between QBP and the Astoria Houses (via 41st Avenue, via Vernon). Since it would also be taking some Q69 & Q102 riders to/from QBP, I'd give it a little boost in service which would translate into more service to the Astoria Houses from the ).

I'm not sure if you're alluding to what I said about short turning Q69's or not, but I'll answer it as such anyway; no problem... My primary inclination is to leave the Q103 as is, being that there isn't nearly enough overall Q69 service to justify short turning a bunch of buses at the Astoria PJ's... It may sound weird, but I always saw the Q103 as "a 21st st. bypass" moreso than "the Vernon blvd. route".....

The northern portion of the Q103 I'm not all that worried about - it's the southern portion that's fast going down the tubes..... Maybe I just haven't been lucky, but over the years, I haven't been seeing those crowds I was used to seeing for the NB Q103 at the first stop over there at Vernon/50th - (going on to being) coupled with all that piled on at 21st , making the whole route solid enough to justify its existence as is.... Nor have I been seeing too many folks still on the SB buses after having served the .... Hunters Point/ Gantry Plaza area is fast becoming an area that doesn't seem to patronize public bus service - or at the very least, the Q103.... They got shuttle buses going to Court Sq. (which end right where the B32 does) & IINM, they got shuttles going to QBP also..... I said this before a while back & I'll repeat it - it's like they're trying to recreate the vibe of BPC in that area (and you see how sparse usage of the M20 is throughout both sections of that neighborhood)....

The QT63 to RI was/is a response to (over) having the QT78 serve RI, not necessarily for having it particularly serve Vernon per se...... The idea I've long had for the Q104 is to have it run to RI... The original idea had it turning off at the HS (on 21st) to run down 21st to 36th av - but being that they propped up that Costco's along Vernon Blvd. after the fact, I'd just have it taking Vernon to 36th av.... Either way, FFS, they should just do away with terminating buses where the current Q104 does (QT63)....

The Q60 I would truncate most trips at QBP (instead of having most trips run to Manhattan as they currently do).... The QT60 I would completely truncate to Court sq.... The Q69 I'd end at QBP (without the Court Sq. backtrack, meaning it would do the Q66 routing to get back to 21st st) & the QT69 I'd truncate to Court Sq (being that it doesn't serve QBP, on top of simply not agreeing with having QT69's running to Hunters Point, regardless of what street it takes).... Ultimately, I'd side with what I'm saying for the alterations to the current services (Q60/69), over that of the suggestions to the redesigned network (QT60/69)... It's a reason why I don't really have a problem with a 21st st. route running to Brooklyn - A 21st st. LTD IMO should be doing more than just running back & forth between Rikers & QBP.... When you couple that sentiment with the idea of a Brooklyn waterfront route (the B32), to me. it makes sense.... I see room for growth with the B32 if it served more of Queens & the way I see it, it's time to progress away from the baby mama express.... This is one of a few reasons why I'd shift that QT2 along 21st st - the question for me then becomes, should it be a variant of the QT1, or should the idea of a Astoria-Downtown route be done away with & have the QT2 be the sole "blue" route along 21st.... If not for having an interborough route along 21st st. be the LTD, then a LTD variant should just be made out of the Q69.... The thing with the QT69 is that it's a LTD route with no "local" variant.... That's the thing with this proposal's handling of 21st st that bugs me.....

With that said, tying allllllll this back to the Q103/Vernon Blvd (Lol), if not for leaving the Q103 intact, diverting the northern portion to QBP would be the best compromise..... If I take the current red/blue/green/purple bit they got going on into consideration, then the Q103 b/w the Astoria PJ's & QBP would be a green route - running along 21st - being that they got the QT69 as one of those red routes....

On 9/20/2020 at 12:55 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

In any case, looking at the QT1 routing on the Brooklyn side, I notice they have it running on the BQE in both directions between Flushing Avenue and Downtown Brooklyn. Eastbound/northbound I can see it working out, but westbound/southbound, that's just asking for trouble, since you have the bottleneck of the Manhattan/Brooklyn Bridges up ahead.

I thought buses were supposed to be taking Park av (as per this system map within the PDF file).... If they're having buses take the BQE, then that is just foolish.... Buses are far better off running along Park.... If a QT44 Jamaica - Fordham route can run along the Cross Bronx service rd. (instead of the Cross Bronx parking lot itself), then the QT1 can run along Park (instead of the BQE)....

[B35 via Church]

16 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

Tbh I have no idea how to best serve Old Howard and Hamilton Beach. Currently, each Q11 branch runs every hour, but most Q11s short turn on Cross Bay Blvd. Are most riders there trying to head up Woodhaven Blvd, or somewhere else?

As for service between Crescent and Rockaway Blvd , I thought the MTA had a good reason for proposing it (under-subway bus coverage?) but guess not.

I'd say most Old Howard/Hamilton Beach folks are off the bus by time it hits Rockaway blvd .... But I have been on SB buses (Q11's) where people rode south of the Conduits, that came from Jamaica av (whether it was from off the Q56 or off the , who knows), so IDK what that's all about.... One thing I can say for certain though is that the Old Howard branch is definitely used more than the Hamilton beach branch......

I was going to make another point, but this just hit me like a ton of bricks.... Their rationale for that part of the QT62 proposal (along Liberty) is probably as simple as not wanting to maintain two routes from the east serving Euclid av. (a la the current Q7 & Q8)..... Hence, having the QT62 run to Crescent & keeping the QT5 serving Euclid .....

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

As for the Q53, yeah I don't think the portion to Woodside should exist.

I get the reliability/increased OTP aspect of it, but at the same time, I would not sacrifice Q53 service along Broadway, just to have that gap along Broadway be filled with that QT63.... While you'll find most NB Q53's being prone to tanking at Moore terminal, very few of them do so at QCM (and most of that I'd say is due to bunching anyway).... The demand from areas along Woodhaven blvd, etc., along Broadway is definitely there.... I'm not so certain that there's anything remotely close to said demand of the Q53 from points south, from areas west of Woodside along/around Broadway.....

7 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I would keep the Q53 as it is, from end to end. You have a substantial amount of people who get on at Woodside. Additionally, there's a lot of through ridership on the Q53 past QCM/Hoffman Drive. With the exception of the AM rush, it can be up to a 50/50 split during daytime hours between riders getting off at Queens Center Mall/Hoffman Drive and those staying on the bus past those points. During overnight hours, you see more people stay on buses past Queens Center Mall/Hoffman Drive (and this was true before the subway shutdown as well).

See above.... Yeah the full Q53 should be kept intact & the doing away of it to prop up that god damn Q52 irritates me, the more & more I think about it.... This is that MTA stubbornness rearing its ugly head again... Brooklynites know all about that stubbornness when it came to the B83 & not having it serve Gateway for all that damn time..... But yeah, It wasn't enough that they dug into the Q53's frequency for the Q52 upon its initial implementation, now they're set to going full monty & throwing the WHOLE baby out with the bathwater.... Never mind the fact that west of the Hammels wye, subway service is a joke.....

* I'll have to get to the first part of your post later.

Edited September 23, 2020 by B35 via Church

[NBTA]

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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

Sorry for a late reply, but I wish I could use an app like this. I know, its restricted to actual transit employees, but it'll be nice if the general public has it.

Edited September 26, 2020 by NBTA
Never mind, I'm stupid, you actually can.

[GojiMet86]

On 9/14/2020 at 4:33 PM, MTA Dude said:

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

 

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.

 

So the current Q69 would essentially be doing what the first Q69 (the old Queens Surface Corporation line) did by serving the Hunters Point Ferry. I am fine with it going down like that, although nowadays (post-covid) I wonder what ridership would look like south of QBP.

My preference with the QT1 would be to run it to 31st and Ditmars and not end it at 21st and 21st, but looking at your map, that would be 3 lines serving Ditmars for that short stretch.

Edited September 26, 2020 by GojiMet86

[B35 via Church]

On 9/23/2020 at 12:16 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I initially wasn't too fond of the QT79 mainly because it paralleled in the  for much longer than under the existing Q102, with a relatively low frequency, because it severs the connection from Queensbridge (both the projects and the  station) to Rikers that exists on the current Q100, and because it doesn't directly connect riders to Mount Sinai like the current Q102.

The thing I agree with in regards to the QT79, is having a coverage route serving Rikers.... See, the Q100 flourishes because the Q69 has no LTD counterpart.... They don't want to supply that necessary service (for a Q69 LTD), so they have (less service on the) Q100 instead - putting that another way, having the Q100 be the 21st st. LTD route, hampers LTD service along 21st st. IMO...... Here's the kicker - the Q100 started flourishing when they added those LTD stops b/w 21st & Rikers (kind of like how the Q53 exploded with the addition of stops between the Wildlife Refuge & Rego Park, albeit not to the exact extent)....

The majority of people using Q100's to get to/from Rikers specifically, aren't of those that reside within NW-ern Queens.... Although there's clearly a need for LTD service along 21st st, there's no need for a LTD service to Rikers..... If that means taking basic service to Rikers off 21st & onto 31st, then I'm all in like a No Limit poker game; zero qualms whatsoever.... FWIW, the QT79 still serves Queens Plaza; the difference distance-wise between it & QBP subway is not drastic.... If it means riders (from either direction) having to take 's instead & riders having to hoof it over to Jackson, then so be it....

Having the QT79 utilize Jackson av. (combined with the QT1 proposition) is leading me to believe that the B62 is toast.

As far as Mt. Sinai, I don't really see much of anyone taking Q102's to get to it, to be honest.... Of those that do, I'd say it's largely comprised of those that interchangeably do so with the Q18....

On 9/23/2020 at 12:16 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I missed the earlier discussion about the Woodhaven service to 63rd Drive, and I'm actually inclined to keep the locals as they currently are on the northern end, over sending them to Rego Park. I think that would further decrease ridership unless you send it somewhere past 63rd Drive and increase the service levels on the route. Corona Plaza (via the QT82) may be an option, but then length becomes an issue (and the area on Junction between Horace Harding and 57th Ave is a PITA to travel on during the day, particuarly rush hours). The area around 63rd Drive isn't as big as a draw as Woodhaven Blvd, and Queens Center Mall contributes to that. Even with Rego Center and Queens Place Mall, Queens Center remains the more popular of the three, and by a large margin.

Although I do find the concept of his interesting (using Woodhaven local service as a means to cover that part of the Q38), which is why I was willing to discuss it, I don't disagree with any of what you're saying here.... What you're saying is part of the reason the Q53 got taken off 63rd dr....

Queens Place is in the other direction (back west), so that wouldn't factor into his talking point/proposal (although I get that you were generally/separately comparing the 3 shopping establishments)...... It's not a bad mall per se, but the basic problem with Rego Center is that it's a mish-mash of a mall..... Rego Park is what you get when you keep compiling one thing onto another, onto another, onto another; the overall layout is quite poor..... QCM is the polar opposite - it's too compact (too many stores in a relatively small space)..... For most people, advantage - QCM (for that reason alone, nevermind the fact that there's way more stores)....

[checkmatechamp13]

On 9/23/2020 at 6:40 AM, B35 via Church said:

I thought buses were supposed to be taking Park av (as per this system map within the PDF file).... If they're having buses take the BQE, then that is just foolish.... Buses are far better off running along Park.... If a QT44 Jamaica - Fordham route can run along the Cross Bronx service rd. (instead of the Cross Bronx parking lot itself), then the QT1 can run along Park (instead of the BQE)....

I prefer the interactive map . The format is easier to work with, and it's also more accurate (since with the PDF, that's the final published document, and they're not going to go around changing that, even if it's just to correct errors. But the interactive map can be updated much more fluidly)

But yeah, taking a second look, it looks like the westbound QT1 is taking Williamsburg Street West-Flushing-Vanderbilt-Park (with a stop added at Vanderbilt & Flushing...I thought they were holding off on the non-terminal Brooklyn stops...but anyway, probably so they can say it serves the Navy Yard) but the eastbound is definitely taking the BQE to the Flushing Avenue exit. 

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The majority of people using Q100's to get to/from Rikers specifically, aren't of those that reside within NW-ern Queens.... Although there's clearly a need for LTD service along 21st st, there's no need for a LTD service to Rikers..... If that means taking basic service to Rikers off 21st & onto 31st, then I'm all in like a No Limit poker game; zero qualms whatsoever.... FWIW, the QT79 still serves Queens Plaza; the difference distance-wise between it & QBP subway is not drastic.... If it means riders (from either direction) having to take 's instead & riders having to hoof it over to Jackson, then so be it....

That, and if walking is really an issue, they can get off at Court Square or Vernon-Jackson (me personally, I'd just transfer to the Astoria Line and go up to Ditmars for the QT79 if I needed to get to Rikers)

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Having the QT79 utilize Jackson av. (combined with the QT1 proposition) is leading me to believe that the B62 is toast.

I don't really see the QT79 routing being anything intentional with regards to the B62, but the QT76 routing along Bedford/Driggs is another sign of things to come.

Edited September 27, 2020 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

- I prefer the interactive map . The format is easier to work with, and it's also more accurate (since with the PDF, that's the final published document, and they're not going to go around changing that, even if it's just to correct errors. But the interactive map can be updated much more fluidly)

But yeah, taking a second look, it looks like the westbound QT1 is taking Williamsburg Street West-Flushing-Vanderbilt-Park (with a stop added at Vanderbilt & Flushing...I thought they were holding off on the non-terminal Brooklyn stops...but anyway, probably so they can say it serves the Navy Yard) but the eastbound is definitely taking the BQE to the Flushing Avenue exit. 

- That, and if walking is really an issue, they can get off at Court Square or Vernon-Jackson (me personally, I'd just transfer to the Astoria Line and go up to Ditmars for the QT79 if I needed to get to Rikers)

- I don't really see the QT79 routing being anything intentional with regards to the B62, but the QT76 routing along Bedford/Driggs is another sign of things to come.

- I'd prefer the remix map if it weren't so buggy & laggy for me.... Opening the PDF for a quick reference is just simpler for me to deal with...

- If they're coming from Brooklyn or somewhere in northern Manhattan, taking the to Court Sq. or Vernon-Jackson to get to the QT79 makes sense.... If they're coming from points east of QBP/Queens Plaza along the , taking it to either of those stations to the QT79 would be a backtrack.... I mean yeah, either way, those options would be available to get to the thing....

- I'm not convinced that portion of the QT79 has nothing to do with phasing out the current Downtown Brooklyn - Queens Plz. local route in our system (i.e. the B62).... It's more to it than just connecting folks north of Queens Plaza to the ferry AFAIC....... Even though it takes Bedford/Driggs, the QT76's overall structure has more to do with the B24 (Williamsburg - Sunnyside via Greenpoint av., instead of via the Kosciuszko)....