Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[ItsDavid]

No one is gonna talk about the Q66 so I guess I will, based on the plan the Q66 would be split into two routes the QT66 and the QT78, the main portion, the QT66 would be shortened to Woodside, I personally think if it was better, the QT66 would go via Broadway and help out the Q104 and would end at 21 St

[NewFlyer 230]

On 10/21/2020 at 2:44 PM, ItsDavid said:

No one is gonna talk about the Q66 so I guess I will, based on the plan the Q66 would be split into two routes the QT66 and the QT78, the main portion, the QT66 would be shortened to Woodside, I personally think if it was better, the QT66 would go via Broadway and help out the Q104 and would end at 21 St

I think the QT63 is what the current Q104 should be. The Q104 in its current state is somewhat useless due to where it goes and it’s frequency. At least the QT63 will hit more places of interest. 

However if you were to put the Q66 onto Broadway I could still see it being more useful in general than the Q104. I wouldn’t prefer it but I suppose it wouldn’t do bad. My only corncern with that plan is the traffic issues on Broadway especially when everyone is out at restaurants and bars and people are doubled parked over there.
 

My issue with the MTA’s proposal is that I don’t like it being cut to the subway station when there are some who use it west of the Northern Blvd station. However I do feel that it’s unnecessary for the Q66 to run to Queens Plaza. If the Q66 were to get cut back it should terminate at Steinway Street and 35th Ave because the times I’ve used the Q66 there always tend to be people who get on and off there and they travel to and from places along Northern Blvd in Jackson Heights. Then there is that shopping plaza that is on 48th street and Northern that would force people to have to walk to Broadway for the Q66, so if the proposed Q66 can cover those two mentioned spots I would have no problem with it. 

[B35 via Church]

1 minute ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I think the QT63 is what the current Q104 should be. The Q104 in its current state is somewhat useless due to where it goes and it’s frequency. At least the QT63 will hit more places of interest. 

However if you were to put the Q66 onto Broadway I could still see it being more useful in general than the Q104. I wouldn’t prefer it but I suppose it wouldn’t do bad. My only corncern with that plan is the traffic issues on Broadway especially when everyone is out at restaurants and bars and people are doubled parked over there.
 

My issue with the MTA’s proposal is that I don’t like it being cut to the subway station when there are some who use it west of the Northern Blvd station. However I do feel that it’s unnecessary for the Q66 to run to Queens Plaza. If the Q66 were to get cut back it should terminate at Steinway Street and 35th Ave because the times I’ve used the Q66 there always tend to be people who get on and off there and they travel to and from places along Northern Blvd in Jackson Heights. Then there is that shopping plaza that is on 48th street and Northern that would force people to have to walk to Broadway for the Q66, so if the proposed Q66 can cover those two mentioned spots I would have no problem with it. 

I honestly don't care what it is at this point, but something else can cover the portion of the Q66 around the Astoria line.... A lot of that ridership from [QBP] & [21st ] themselves, due NB/EB on the Q66 is that of interchangeability with the Q69 (of ppl. not wanting to being bothered w/ the backtrack to Court sq.) & the Q100, before it (the Q66) turns off at the Ravenswood houses..... Now I'm not saying that virtually nobody uses the portion on 35th - But at the same time, to see buses from QBP practically tank at 35th/21st (before the turn), I'm like honestly, wtf..... In the other direction, long tired of seeing so many bone empty SB buses along 21st st (yeah, because most everybody are already on Q69's & Q100's), when you have ppl. waiting for & eventually sardining onto Q66's in Jackson Hgts.... The crux of the issue is that most of the service on the Q66 should be (dedicated to) running b/w Broadway & Flushing....

The only compromise or alternative I'd have to (not) having Q66's terminate at Northern blvd. subway (full time), is to have the Q66 run along the southern portion of the Q104 to 48th/Queens blvd (which is something I've proposed on here before, long before this redesign).... For what @ItsDavid is bringing up (regarding running the Q66 over most of the northern portion of the Q104) AFAIC, you may as well keep the Q66 running to QBP... Not to mention that it would be excessive; since he mentions having it help the Q104....

Not that I'm all gung-ho about the QT63 (for reasons that have been mentioned ad nauseam, incl. & esp. regarding the Q53), but that part of Broadway needs its own route... No real reason to have Q66's from Flushing, running up to 21st/Broadway....

[NewFlyer 230]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I honestly don't care what it is at this point, but something else can cover the portion of the Q66 around the Astoria line.... A lot of that ridership from [QBP] & [21st ] themselves, due NB/EB on the Q66 is that of interchangeability with the Q69 (of ppl. not wanting to being bothered w/ the backtrack to Court sq.) & the Q100, before it (the Q66) turns off at the Ravenswood houses..... Now I'm not saying that virtually nobody uses the portion on 35th - But at the same time, to see buses from QBP practically tank at 35th/21st (before the turn), I'm like honestly, wtf..... In the other direction, long tired of seeing so many bone empty SB buses along 21st st (yeah, because most everybody are already on Q69's & Q100's), when you have ppl. waiting for & eventually sardining onto Q66's in Jackson Hgts.... The crux of the issue is that most of the service on the Q66 should be (dedicated to) running b/w Broadway & Flushing....

The only compromise or alternative I'd have to (not) having Q66's terminate at Northern blvd. subway (full time), is to have the Q66 run along the southern portion of the Q104 to 48th/Queens blvd (which is something I've proposed on here before, long before this redesign).... For what @ItsDavid is bringing up (regarding running the Q66 over most of the northern portion of the Q104) AFAIC, you may as well keep the Q66 running to QBP... Not to mention that it would be excessive; since he mentions having it help the Q104....

Not that I'm all gung-ho about the QT63 (for reasons that have been mentioned ad nauseam, incl. & esp. regarding the Q53), but that part of Broadway needs its own route... No real reason to have Q66's from Flushing, running up to 21st/Broadway....

I did not read his proposal correctly I thought he was saying that he wanted the Q66 to replace the Q104 on Broadway, which is why I didn’t have too much of a problem with it because it could potentially attract more riders over there. However I do think Broadway should have a route of its own, but if this QT63 sees the day of light where would you terminate it on both its north and south ends? I know you wouldn’t want it to interfere with the Q53 which is something I would agree with because a lot of people from Woodhaven ride the Q53 up to 74th street. 

I’m not an advocate for service cuts but currently in this case the MTA could probably get away with having more Q66 short turns at Broadway/Northern Blvd, because even on the weekends there is too much service to Queens Plaza. Throughout most of the day on a Saturday/ Sunday service is running every 10-12 minutes and they could possibly get away with doubling the frequency so that Flushing and Woodside can see bus service every 10-12 minutes throughout the midday and Astoria and Long Island City Q66 riders would see service every 20-24 minutes. 

I always felt that if the MTA wanted the Q66 to serve Queens Plaza they should have continued it down Northern Blvd and run it to 42nd Road and Jackson Ave where the B62 and Q67 terminates at. I feel like the Q66 on that end runs into the same issue that the Q59 in Williamsburg faces when it runs to the bus plaza. It’s just very indirect and if someone needed to get to Queens Plaza or in the Q59’s Williamsburg Bus plaza they have to sit through a mini neighborhood detour which is a time waster. 

Of course if the Q66 took Northern Blvd to Queens Plaza something would have to take it’s place on 35th Ave. I guess they never changed anything up around there because it would require shifting up more routes over there in that mess of a bus network that exist in Astoria/ Long Island City. 

[B35 via Church]

On 10/22/2020 at 10:04 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I did not read his proposal correctly I thought he was saying that he wanted the Q66 to replace the Q104 on Broadway, which is why I didn’t have too much of a problem with it because it could potentially attract more riders over there. However I do think Broadway should have a route of its own, but if this QT63 sees the day of light where would you terminate it on both its north and south ends? I know you wouldn’t want it to interfere with the Q53 which is something I would agree with because a lot of people from Woodhaven ride the Q53 up to 74th street. 

I’m not an advocate for service cuts but currently in this case the MTA could probably get away with having more Q66 short turns at Broadway/Northern Blvd, because even on the weekends there is too much service to Queens Plaza. Throughout most of the day on a Saturday/ Sunday service is running every 10-12 minutes and they could possibly get away with doubling the frequency so that Flushing and Woodside can see bus service every 10-12 minutes throughout the midday and Astoria and Long Island City Q66 riders would see service every 20-24 minutes. 

I always felt that if the MTA wanted the Q66 to serve Queens Plaza they should have continued it down Northern Blvd and run it to 42nd Road and Jackson Ave where the B62 and Q67 terminates at. I feel like the Q66 on that end runs into the same issue that the Q59 in Williamsburg faces when it runs to the bus plaza. It’s just very indirect and if someone needed to get to Queens Plaza or in the Q59’s Williamsburg Bus plaza they have to sit through a mini neighborhood detour which is a time waster. 

Of course if the Q66 took Northern Blvd to Queens Plaza something would have to take it’s place on 35th Ave. I guess they never changed anything up around there because it would require shifting up more routes over there in that mess of a bus network that exist in Astoria/ Long Island City. 

Not just regarding the Q66, but the too much service to Queens Plaza thing, is what the redesign in general addressed (although I think they went overboard with it)...

The question you pose regarding the QT63, to me is kind of a leading question.... I say that because it assumes I would keep the core portion of the route intact, which I would not.... Putting that another way, although I think the Q104 portion of Broadway needs its own route, I would not create a through Broadway route (as in, down towards QB)... I would have the Q104 extended to Roosevelt Island, with the Q53 left as alone (of course).... I don't see the real need to connect either side of Broadway with one route... Never did.

[R10 2952]

Been reviewing the drafts for the proposed QT77 and QT78 routes; I find it beyond odd that they would try to combine the Q39, Q67 and western half of the Q38 into one route.  You would think they could just straighten the routing of the 67 through Maspeth and LIC (less twists and turns), reroute the 39 from Queens Plaza to Woodside and simply call it a day.

As to the QT78, I can't even wrap my head around that one- the Q38's current routing may be a bit ridiculous, but it does get ridership.  The most I can see them doing with the 38 is a partial split or some sort of realignment.  Maybe something like Metropolitan-69th-Juniper Blvd-Dry Harbor, or Metropolitan-Cooper-Yellowstone to 71st Ave.

But definitely not a bus from Middle Village to Roosevelt Island, LMAO I don't even know how they came up with that..  

[N6 Limited]

They should probably move along with the redesign while ridership is still low.

[checkmatechamp13]

@N6 Limited Honestly at this point, now that it seems pretty much certain that they'll get bailed out, I see no reason not to start the process again. Obviously there's going to be some general changes in ridership patterns related to the pandemic, but I see no harm in at least trying to address some of the biggest issues from the previous plan and getting ready for another draft.

And honestly the same for The Bronx. I mean at this point, most of the issues with the local plan were addressed, they already said that the express bus plan would be done separately. I say just go for it and see what needs to be tweaked later.

[The TransitMan]

On 10/21/2020 at 2:44 PM, ItsDavid said:

No one is gonna talk about the Q66 so I guess I will, based on the plan the Q66 would be split into two routes the QT66 and the QT78, the main portion, the QT66 would be shortened to Woodside, I personally think if it was better, the QT66 would go via Broadway and help out the Q104 and would end at 21 St

First, terminating the QT66 or Q66 or whatever at 21st St and Broadway would be a disaster because there is no real turnaround in that area. I live near the last stop of the Q104 in LIC and the Q104 NOW is not as dependable due to the increase traffic on Broadway especially between 31st St and about 46th St...and I'm not even talking about the outdoor dining.

With the amount of buses on the Q66 now, it would be a disaster. My opinion, I would just leave that bus as is...for now.

[Future ENY OP]

18 minutes ago, The TransitMan said:

First, terminating the QT66 or Q66 or whatever at 21st St and Broadway would be a disaster because there is no real turnaround in that area. I live near the last stop of the Q104 in LIC and the Q104 NOW is not as dependable due to the increase traffic on Broadway especially between 31st St and about 46th St...and I'm not even talking about the outdoor dining.

With the amount of buses on the Q66 now, it would be a disaster. My opinion, I would just leave that bus as is...for now.

Too add on that. Long Island City/Astoria/Woodside traffic has been hell within the last few years. I'll go a little further and say around the Northern Blvd area between LIC & Woodside. Most of the Queens Re-design plan needs to get scrapped and re-done over. There are SOME good ideas there, but at the bare minimum MOST are bad.

[B35 via Church]

13 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@N6 Limited Honestly at this point, now that it seems pretty much certain that they'll get bailed out, I see no reason not to start the process again. Obviously there's going to be some general changes in ridership patterns related to the pandemic, but I see no harm in at least trying to address some of the biggest issues from the previous plan and getting ready for another draft.

And honestly the same for The Bronx. I mean at this point, most of the issues with the local plan were addressed, they already said that the express bus plan would be done separately. I say just go for it and see what needs to be tweaked later.

They need to throw the whole thing in the trash & start from scratch... Never re-build a house on a shaky foundation.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

15 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

They should probably move along with the redesign while ridership is still low.

 

13 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@N6 Limited Honestly at this point, now that it seems pretty much certain that they'll get bailed out, I see no reason not to start the process again. Obviously there's going to be some general changes in ridership patterns related to the pandemic, but I see no harm in at least trying to address some of the biggest issues from the previous plan and getting ready for another draft.

And honestly the same for The Bronx. I mean at this point, most of the issues with the local plan were addressed, they already said that the express bus plan would be done separately. I say just go for it and see what needs to be tweaked later.

I don't know why this keeps coming up, but nothing will be done until the pandemic is over.  The  made that clear MONTHS ago.  No one is thinking about bus routes changing in the middle of a global pandemic.  When the pandemic is over and things get back to some level of normalcy, they will resume with the outreach meetings.

[Lawrence St]

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 

I don't know why this keeps coming up, but nothing will be done until the pandemic is over.  The  made that clear MONTHS ago.  No one is thinking about bus routes changing in the middle of a global pandemic.  When the pandemic is over and things get back to some level of normalcy, they will resume with the outreach meetings.

Because it would make sense to change the system now so that once everything is back to normal, riders will be familiar with the new routes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

10 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Because it would make sense to change the system now so that once everything is back to normal, riders will be familiar with the new routes.

It makes no sense to implement a new bus network when riders VEHEMENTLY opposed the proposed changes, which is the case for the Queens proposals and the Bronx express bus proposals, which is why the  agreed to have more meetings in Queens prior to the pandemic hitting to gather more feedback from the public, and shelved the Bronx express bus proposals until they revise them at a later date. Apparently no one on this forum has been following.  You don't go out and make changes to a bus network that is going to impact peoples' lives for years to come in the middle of a global pandemic when ridership is down significantly as people work from home, etc. That's absurd.

What troubles me at times about some posters on this forum is they forget that there are PEOPLE that use the service that would be impacted by any changes.  

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[JAzumah]

46 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What troubles me at times about some posters on this forum is they forget that there are PEOPLE that use the service that would be impacted by any changes.

What troubles me at times is that anyone thinks there is a GOOD time to change a bus network. It is better to make changes when ridership is lower than when it is heavier. In addition, some people will complain about any change because they are used to the existing system. The plan is definitely a mixed bag, but people ask the MTA to improve service and then complain when they try. You can't make buses faster without removing stops and removing stops harms a lot of transit dependent people. Transit systems are a compromise and it is not wrong to look at how it can be different.

[bobtehpanda]

51 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It makes no sense to implement a new bus network when riders VEHEMENTLY opposed the proposed changes, which is the case for the Queens proposals and the Bronx express bus proposals, which is why the  agreed to have more meetings in Queens prior to the pandemic hitting to gather more feedback from the public, and shelved the Bronx express bus proposals until they revise them at a later date. Apparently no one on this forum has been following.  You don't go out and make changes to a bus network that is going to impact peoples' lives for years to come in the middle of a global pandemic when ridership is down significantly as people work from home, etc. That's absurd.

What troubles me at times about some posters on this forum is they forget that there are PEOPLE that use the service that would be impacted by any changes.  

 

The thing that weirds me out is that most of the changes weren't very well received here either, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it's a few quick here and there and we're good to go.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

42 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

What troubles me at times is that anyone thinks there is a GOOD time to change a bus network. It is better to make changes when ridership is lower than when it is heavier. In addition, some people will complain about any change because they are used to the existing system. The plan is definitely a mixed bag, but people ask the MTA to improve service and then complain when they try. You can't make buses faster without removing stops and removing stops harms a lot of transit dependent people. Transit systems are a compromise and it is not wrong to look at how it can be different.

The system will never be perfect, but given the immense amount of negative feedback the  received on the Queens bus proposals, particularly on the lack of meetings that numerous neighborhoods did not have that are heavily dependent on bus service (local and express), no plan should be considered until those meetings are wrapped up. Then they can go back and work on revising things as they did with the Bronx local bus network. Truth be told, I too was not pleased with the opportunities I had in my own neighborhood to provide feedback on the bus lines that I use regularly. They refused to allow feedback on the express buses and wanted us to discuss local bus service on lines that some of us rarely use. That's not how you elicit feedback. lol

41 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The thing that weirds me out is that most of the changes weren't very well received here either, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it's a few quick here and there and we're good to go.

Exactly. The  has made it clear that want feedback from all areas of the City (that is the way it should be), and if people have not been heard from that have feedback, then the proposals have to be put on hold until those meetings are had.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Because it would make sense to change the system now so that once everything is back to normal, riders will be familiar with the new routes.

You mean, the same riders that don't read the dam destination signs on the current buses as it is? Those riders

People are going to have to get out of this "back to normal" mindset & start living for the present (and the future)....

5 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

What troubles me at times is that anyone thinks there is a GOOD time to change a bus network....

Same thing I said to myself when I saw that post.... Ridership's been hemorrhaging left & right with the current network over the years, so this notion that there's going to be this ideal juncture that a] ridership losses will either cease or be held to some realistic minimum & b] be this ridership boom or whatever (on top of it), with the implementation of some newly formulated network on top of it, I'm just not seeing.... The ratio of usage gains:losses (I don't want to necessarily say profit margins) is more important, because for one, commuters tend to not revert to utilizing public transportation when they've given up on it - regardless if the routes remain the same, or if they have changed....

What troubles me, period, is that there is this blind optimism that some people have when it comes to the MTA - and for the life of me, IDK where that glimmer of hope emanates from...

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

The thing that weirds me out is that most of the changes weren't very well received here either, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it's a few quick here and there and we're good to go.

Everybody has their own ideals (and often choose to ignore everyone else's), but by no means do I expect the MTA to adopt my ideals... I'm just not that naive (or hopeful)....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

You mean, the same riders that don't read the dam destination signs on the current buses as it is? Those riders

People are going to have to get out of this "back to normal" mindset & start living for the present (and the future)....

Same thing I said to myself when I saw that post.... Ridership's been hemorrhaging left & right with the current network over the years, so this notion that there's going to be this ideal juncture that a] ridership losses will either cease or be held to some realistic minimum & b] be this ridership boom or whatever (on top of it), with the implementation of some newly formulated network on top of it, I'm just not seeing.... The ratio of usage gains:losses (I don't want to necessarily say profit margins) is more important, because for one, commuters tend to not revert to utilizing public transportation when they've given up on it - regardless if the routes remain the same, or if they have changed....

What troubles me, period, is that there is this blind optimism that some people have when it comes to the MTA - and for the life of me, IDK where that glimmer of hope emanates from...

Everybody has their own ideals (and often choose to ignore everyone else's), but by no means do I expect the MTA to adopt my ideals... I'm just not that naive (or hopeful)....

It's not really about back to normal. It's about all riders getting a say in how their routes will be changed or not. If all of the community meetings had been completed, it would be one thing, but they have not been yet, and many communities complained that the  did not give them a chance to provide feedback, as they did not hold meetings in their area. The process is supposed to include community engagement, and if some communities are left out of that process, it doesn't make sense to say that the redesign was inclusive or created with adequate feedback from the public. Everyone knows that bus ridership has been declining over the years well before the pandemic.  

If there's going to be any chance of reversing that precipitous decline, you need a redesign that is going to attract riders to use the system. If we look at the younger demographic here in NYC, more of them are inclined to not own a car and prefer to use public transportation, so if you provide a system that is accessible and reliable, they MAY just use it.

[B35 via Church]

44 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's not really about back to normal. It's about all riders getting a say in how their routes will be changed or not. If all of the community meetings had been completed, it would be one thing, but they have not been yet, and many communities complained that the  did not give them a chance to provide feedback, as they did not hold meetings in their area. The process is supposed to include community engagement, and if some communities are left out of that process, it doesn't make sense to say that the redesign was inclusive or created with adequate feedback from the public. Everyone knows that bus ridership has been declining over the years well before the pandemic.  

If there's going to be any chance of reversing that precipitous decline, you need a redesign that is going to attract riders to use the system. If we look at the younger demographic here in NYC, more of them are inclined to not own a car and prefer to use public transportation, so if you provide a system that is accessible and reliable, they MAY just use it.

Yeah, It isn't about no back to normal at all & it isn't about no right time to implement a new bus network either....

The MTA does what it wants & the fact that you have as many people throwing their hands up with the antics they've been pulling over the years when it comes to providing service, is pretty evident of that... People have breaking points & quite frankly, as much as we talk about what routes should do what as enthusiasts or whatever, none of that shit is going to completely stop the bleeding (so to speak).... As much as I applaud those that have resorted to talking with their feet, the ones that are going to lose out because of it, are the ones that don't have that option..... The MTA simply does not give a f*** about commuters, as they do not value them... I would argue that they want these ridership losses to happen.... There appears to be this inclination that because ridership has drastically waned due to COVID, that means they won't be as trigger happy as they normally are....

I've never known of a leopard to change its spots & I'm not about to start believing that shit now.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, It isn't about no back to normal at all & it isn't about no right time to implement a new bus network either....

The MTA does what it wants & the fact that you have as many people throwing their hands up with the antics they've been pulling over the years when it comes to providing service, is pretty evident of that... People have breaking points & quite frankly, as much as we talk about what routes should do what as enthusiasts or whatever, none of that shit is going to completely stop the bleeding (so to speak).... As much as I applaud those that have resorted to talking with their feet, the ones that are going to lose out because of it, are the ones that don't have that option..... The MTA simply does not give a f*** about commuters, as they do not value them... I would argue that they want these ridership losses to happen.... There appears to be this inclination that because ridership has drastically waned due to COVID, that means they won't be as trigger happy as they normally are....

I've never known of a leopard to change its spots & I'm not about to start believing that shit now.

It's no secret that the  faces significant budget constraints going forward, and one way I think they would like to rid themselves of some costs is by shedding bus ridership. Fewer bus operators they need, fewer costs they have to worry about. It's the sad truth.  

[JAzumah]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You mean, the same riders that don't read the dam destination signs on the current buses as it is? Those riders

I mean, when the driver puts "Eastern Parkway" on the sign, the bus gets to Eastern Parkway, and you are wondering why the driver is kicking you off the bus
Everyone wants a personal invitation for everything.
 

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The ratio of usage gains:losses (I don't want to necessarily say profit margins) is more important, because for one, commuters tend to not revert to utilizing public transportation when they've given up on it - regardless if the routes remain the same, or if they have changed....

I'll say it...PROFIT. In the private sector, it is the cold hard cash. In the public sector, it is the social benefits that extends beyond the cost of operating the service. It is why we look at an express bus route carrying air less favorably than a local bus route with the same economics, but many more individual passengers transported. We are spreading that subsidy over more passengers, so the social benefit of the local bus service is greater than the express bus. This is why there is a general outrage at the NYC Ferry's subsidy per passenger and overall. No one really likes the idea of a small number of wealthi(er) passengers receiving such high per-passenger subsidies. This is also why the subways operating between 1-5am upsets people. We are spending money to run trains that no one can ride. It is literally an "only in New York" kind of story where the government spends money on transportation services no one can use if they aren't special.

 

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If all of the community meetings had been completed, it would be one thing, but they have not been yet, and many communities complained that the  did not give them a chance to provide feedback, as they did not hold meetings in their area.

I have no issue with the MTA completing their meeting schedules. In the pandemic era, I am sure the MTA is happy to make a ton of these meetings virtual once they are solvent enough to start doing these types of studies again. However, the MTA knows that they have to use a filter with special interests. There are a few people showing up to the meetings that don't want any changes in their neighborhood other than the new bus never to come and the existing bus to disappear. In addition, some of these smaller streets do create operational havoc with bus reliability and safety and that is a discussion the MTA needs to have. The level of service does impact future bus orders and the MTA needs to know what it is buying and where it is needed.

 

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If we look at the younger demographic here in NYC, more of them are inclined to not own a car and prefer to use public transportation, so if you provide a system that is accessible and reliable, they MAY just use it.

Those folks tend NOT to show up to these meetings. It is easier to motivate people to action with a negative stimulus (i.e. we are cutting the BxM18 and turning the buses that were assigned on it into razor blades for shaving) than a positive one. It is one of those human nature traits.
 

[JAzumah]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I would argue that they want these ridership losses to happen....

I think WANT is a strong word. However, they are saving money that they didn't have to do a lot of capital projects. I expect a capital program special allocation in 2021 from the Feds, but imagine being able to push back bus orders 1-2 years or thinning out the initial delivery rate.

I continue to say that the Rutgers tube should be closed 24/7 to cut that project's construction time in half. That would likely save money, keep bus drivers employed using something useful, and offload the costs of shuttle bus service to the federal capital budget.

[checkmatechamp13]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:47 PM, B35 via Church said:

They need to throw the whole thing in the trash & start from scratch... Never re-build a house on a shaky foundation.

The thing is that the "foundation" for any redesign will always be the existing system to a certain extent (that's why for every borough, they released/will release an Existing Conditions Report...obviously the SIM network is a different story but that was the guinea pig and they failed miserably...that's why they implemented the multi-step process that they did for The Bronx and Queens).

But in any case, each official iteration gives you an idea of where their head is at on different issues, thus giving more time to change their mind if necessary. In the Existing Conditions Report for Queens, I notice that they singled out (western) Linden Blvd (express bus and old Q89 territory) as a corridor with low ridership potential. I sent an email to them saying that to use the ridership numbers from the X63/QM21 (which only cover a portion of the corridor) and use that to imply that any local route along that corridor is doomed to Q89-level uselessness is disingenuous and ridiculous. In their draft plan, they came out with the QT7, which shows that they agree with my sentiments. (I'm not saying it was necessarily because of my own email. I'm sure there were some other people requesting service in that general corridor, and obviously I disagree with making it a blue SBS route, but we'll see what they took into consideration in the next draft).

My point is that you can't have a full conversation on the topic without knowing where their head is at, at that particular moment. At some of the meetings in the Jackson Heights area that I attended, the MTA representatives said "We heard you loud and clear on the Q32, Q33, Q49, Q53, and Q66" But the question is, what exactly do they plan on doing to appease the riders of these routes (If anything)? If, for example, they agree to changes on say, 2 of those 5 routes mentioned, and they mention it in their next draft, then people have an additional chance to try and push for changes on the remaining 3 routes.

On 12/23/2020 at 2:55 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't know why this keeps coming up, but nothing will be done until the pandemic is over.  The  made that clear MONTHS ago.  No one is thinking about bus routes changing in the middle of a global pandemic.  When the pandemic is over and things get back to some level of normalcy, they will resume with the outreach meetings.

I'm talking about what I believe they should be doing. I'm well aware of what they're actually doing.

On 12/23/2020 at 3:13 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It makes no sense to implement a new bus network when riders VEHEMENTLY opposed the proposed changes, which is the case for the Queens proposals and the Bronx express bus proposals, which is why the  agreed to have more meetings in Queens prior to the pandemic hitting to gather more feedback from the public, and shelved the Bronx express bus proposals until they revise them at a later date. Apparently no one on this forum has been following.  You don't go out and make changes to a bus network that is going to impact peoples' lives for years to come in the middle of a global pandemic when ridership is down significantly as people work from home, etc. That's absurd.

What troubles me at times about some posters on this forum is they forget that there are PEOPLE that use the service that would be impacted by any changes.  

Who said anything about implementing the Queens proposals? I'm talking about continuing the public outreach process.

The only thing remotely close to being ready for implementation are the Bronx local proposals. (The only major opposition left on that end is regarding the southern end of the Bx34, and that can be left unchanged until they figure out an alternative plan)

On 12/23/2020 at 4:06 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The thing that weirds me out is that most of the changes weren't very well received here either, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it's a few quick here and there and we're good to go.

Again, nobody said anything about being "good to go" after the next draft. But the process needs to continue and the public should know what general changes were considered after the last round of feedback.

On 12/23/2020 at 5:47 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's not really about back to normal. It's about all riders getting a say in how their routes will be changed or not. If all of the community meetings had been completed, it would be one thing, but they have not been yet, and many communities complained that the  did not give them a chance to provide feedback, as they did not hold meetings in their area. The process is supposed to include community engagement, and if some communities are left out of that process, it doesn't make sense to say that the redesign was inclusive or created with adequate feedback from the public. Everyone knows that bus ridership has been declining over the years well before the pandemic.  

If there's going to be any chance of reversing that precipitous decline, you need a redesign that is going to attract riders to use the system. If we look at the younger demographic here in NYC, more of them are inclined to not own a car and prefer to use public transportation, so if you provide a system that is accessible and reliable, they MAY just use it.

Simple. Virtual meetings. We just had virtual public hearings. It is very much possible to have virtual community outreach meetings (Heck, all the community board meetings are online nowadays).

On 12/24/2020 at 2:27 AM, JAzumah said:

I have no issue with the MTA completing their meeting schedules. In the pandemic era, I am sure the MTA is happy to make a ton of these meetings virtual once they are solvent enough to start doing these types of studies again. However, the MTA knows that they have to use a filter with special interests. There are a few people showing up to the meetings that don't want any changes in their neighborhood other than the new bus never to come and the existing bus to disappear. In addition, some of these smaller streets do create operational havoc with bus reliability and safety and that is a discussion the MTA needs to have. The level of service does impact future bus orders and the MTA needs to know what it is buying and where it is needed.

Agreed. Down in Miami, they are actively redesigning their system and they have virtual outreach (15 minute Zoom sessions).

And what I like about their redesign is that they give service levels with different funding scenarios (So at Level 1 funding (60% of current), they have their core frequent network and a few coverage routes, and then they keep going until they reach Level 5 (100% of current))

[B35 via Church]

On 12/24/2020 at 2:27 AM, JAzumah said:

I mean, when the driver puts "Eastern Parkway" on the sign, the bus gets to Eastern Parkway, and you are wondering why the driver is kicking you off the bus
Everyone wants a personal invitation for everything.

...and a handout on top of it.

Some of these thieves even have nerve to be selective/critical of the service they're freely consuming.

On 12/24/2020 at 2:27 AM, JAzumah said:

I'll say it...PROFIT. In the private sector, it is the cold hard cash. In the public sector, it is the social benefits that extends beyond the cost of operating the service. It is why we look at an express bus route carrying air less favorably than a local bus route with the same economics, but many more individual passengers transported. We are spreading that subsidy over more passengers, so the social benefit of the local bus service is greater than the express bus. This is why there is a general outrage at the NYC Ferry's subsidy per passenger and overall. No one really likes the idea of a small number of wealthi(er) passengers receiving such high per-passenger subsidies. This is also why the subways operating between 1-5am upsets people. We are spending money to run trains that no one can ride. It is literally an "only in New York" kind of story where the government spends money on transportation services no one can use if they aren't special.

Interesting how an entity can penny-pinch in one facet of their operation & squander in other facet{s} of their operation....

On 12/24/2020 at 2:34 AM, JAzumah said:

I think WANT is a strong word. However, they are saving money that they didn't have to do a lot of capital projects. I expect a capital program special allocation in 2021 from the Feds, but imagine being able to push back bus orders 1-2 years or thinning out the initial delivery rate.

I continue to say that the Rutgers tube should be closed 24/7 to cut that project's construction time in half. That would likely save money, keep bus drivers employed using something useful, and offload the costs of shuttle bus service to the federal capital budget.

There needs to be a strong word to expose their underlying scheme{s} & there should be much more public outrage than there currently is.... Instead of being outraged, a growing amount of people are just like, f*** it....

This agency gives commuters far more reasons to be pessimistic, irate, and/or despondent about the future of public transit in this city than they do reasons to be ecstatic.

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The thing is that the "foundation" for any redesign will always be the existing system to a certain extent (that's why for every borough, they released/will release an Existing Conditions Report...obviously the SIM network is a different story but that was the guinea pig and they failed miserably...that's why they implemented the multi-step process that they did for The Bronx and Queens).

But in any case, each official iteration gives you an idea of where their head is at on different issues, thus giving more time to change their mind if necessary. In the Existing Conditions Report for Queens, I notice that they singled out (western) Linden Blvd (express bus and old Q89 territory) as a corridor with low ridership potential. I sent an email to them saying that to use the ridership numbers from the X63/QM21 (which only cover a portion of the corridor) and use that to imply that any local route along that corridor is doomed to Q89-level uselessness is disingenuous and ridiculous. In their draft plan, they came out with the QT7, which shows that they agree with my sentiments. (I'm not saying it was necessarily because of my own email. I'm sure there were some other people requesting service in that general corridor, and obviously I disagree with making it a blue SBS route, but we'll see what they took into consideration in the next draft).

My point is that you can't have a full conversation on the topic without knowing where their head is at, at that particular moment. At some of the meetings in the Jackson Heights area that I attended, the MTA representatives said "We heard you loud and clear on the Q32, Q33, Q49, Q53, and Q66" But the question is, what exactly do they plan on doing to appease the riders of these routes (If anything)? If, for example, they agree to changes on say, 2 of those 5 routes mentioned, and they mention it in their next draft, then people have an additional chance to try and push for changes on the remaining 3 routes.

The foundation of any redesign is not always a pre-existing system when you start over from complete scratch....

There is a direct link between where their heads are at & what they're portraying in these maps & everything else that was mentioned in that 400 something odd page PDF.... There is no disassociation going on here with them & we don't have to be in the war room to have the conversation.... The MTA is trying to be cheap as shit when it comes down to it & they're banking on the collective of the riding public being stupefied enough to believe that this redesign is in our best interest, instead of in the MTA's best interest... Of course, there's always going to be the people that have no other realistic choice than to take w/e route{s} they concoct in these individual borough plans/redesigns...

IDK about you, but I take quite the offense when I'm being mollified with nothing more than mere words; especially by someone who has a history of either reneging or outright lying when it comes time to put ass to task.... The time has long past for giving the MTA the benefit of the doubt..... AFAIC, they aint hear shit loud & clear from those (valid) concerns of Jackson Hgts. patrons.....

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Again, nobody said anything about being "good to go" after the next draft. But the process needs to continue and the public should know what general changes were considered after the last round of feedback.

...if any.