Jump to content

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread


Lawrence St

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They are stupid. Those people already have subway connections to reach Downtown. No need for an express bus running through there.

Trust me, even as someone who doesn't use the express routes, I'm definitely not agreeing to it.

What I actually suspect is that it's less about Williamsburg -> Downtown and more Glendale/Middle Village (removed from the existing Q54) -> Williamsburg, but that doesn't make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, Lex said:

Trust me, even as someone who doesn't use the express routes, I'm definitely not agreeing to it.

What I actually suspect is that it's less about Williamsburg -> Downtown and more Glendale/Middle Village (removed from the existing Q54) -> Williamsburg, but that doesn't make it better.

There's no stops on any of the Downtown buses in Williamsburg. Plus, there's already local bus service going from Middle Village and Maspeth to Williamsburg, on top of the (M) train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

There's no stops on any of the Downtown buses in Williamsburg. Plus, there's already local bus service going from Middle Village and Maspeth to Williamsburg, on top of the (M) train.

If anything, Maspeth has been asking for an express bus because it has no subway.  That would've made more sense before doing this crap. The (MTA) also argued during the Bronx redesign that they didn't want to compete with areas that had subway access. Well what do they call this??

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

I’m not concern with the 35. If you read my comment carefully you would notice I’m only talking about riding patterns in and around Brookdale. I live near the hospital and the 8, 15 and 35 all run there. 
 

But, actually who wants to take a bus from Sunset Park to Jamaica. I sure don’t, and I sure won’t take a bus from Brownsville to Jamaica if I have the (L)(J)(Z) LIRR which could get me there within minutes. 

I'm familiar with Brookdale used the dentist there a-few times concerned about patterns? transfers, ridership layovers? The issue is We don't have the data so we don't know who would take that long of a trip. Maybe not a sunset park to Jamaica But who's to say someone wouldn't do a Utica to Jamaica or Nostrand to Jamaica?

The route seems to have decent capture and coverage.

 

QT5 Route stats 

Within a quarter of a mile of the route.

42,201 population

11,071 jobs

11,329 public transit to work

49.4% with no vehicles

 

Within half a mile.

139,731 population

30,419 jobs

36,603 public transit to work

44.6% with no vehicles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

There will be cuts in late night Lefferts Boulevard bus service:

Between 12 AM and 1 AM, service will run every 30 minutes instead of every 12-18 minutes.

Between 1 AM and 5 AM, service will run every 30 minutes instead of every 20 minutes.

More cuts from the current Q10:

- Riders on the Rockaway Boulevard Branch, who now use the QT47 (Q9), will have all service from 11:30 PM to 6 AM cut. They currently receive service every 20 minutes until 4:15 AM (from S. Ozone Park), and then every 15 minutes until 5:15, and then every 10 minutes until 6:09 AM. Keep in mind that riders during these hours cannot walk to the QT37 since it starts at 6. If they need to travel between 5 and 6, they could walk for 10-20 minutes to take the QT62 (Q7), which runs hourly until 5 AM, and then every 18 minutes (What is with these frequencies, and the lack of transition between late night and rush hour frequencies. Why not have every 60 minutes, then 30 minutes, then 15, or something?), and transfer to the QT14. During the day, riders will 

- Currently Rockaway Boulevard Branch riders enjoy buses every 5 minutes from 6:33 until 8:49. Instead, the QT49 will run every 13 minutes, and it will require riders to take a detour to Jamaica instead of going straight down Lefferts to Kew Gardens, making it take longer to get to the subway. In the PM there will be brutal cuts. Instead of Q10s to S. Ozone every 5-6 minutes from 4:33 to 8:41, every 10-12 minutes until 9:41, and every 12-15 minutes until 1:09, buses will run every 13 minutes until 7 PM, and then every 30 MINUTES! until 11:30. Service after that is Gone.

- All Lefferts Boulevard service will be cut from running as frequently as 3-5 minutes during the peak of the rush to 7 minutes.

In terms of stop spacing, do they not realize Kew Gardens is hilly? Seriously, no stops between the LIRR station (I don't know where they are putting the stop) and Metropolitan? No stops between Metropolitan and Jamaica Avenue is inexcusable. No stops between the subway and LIRR? Screw all students/parents going to PS 99, to the cemetery, and to residents in areas near Talbot east of Lefferts, who I guess don't exist. I cannot wait for a platoon of 3 and 4 articulated buses running back to back on Lefferts, but since the road is narrow and windy, they won't be able to pass each other. Time to get the popcorn ready. Also, I cannot wait for buses to have trouble going up/down the hill on Lefferts between KGR and Austin in slippery/snowy weather, as Q10s will no longer run via Austin.

Here is the biggest question for me. Where the heck are they having southbound QT14s stop near the subway? Are they going to have them stop on the southern side of Kew Gardens Road near the Medical Center and have people cross a really dangerous intersection (I deal with this mess 6 days a week; crossing the street at 80th and KGR is like frogger, you have to go quickly in one part, slow down, speed up, dodge buses and use them as shields, etc.) to get to the subway? There is no place for people  to stand. Or, are they going to move the stop near the old Q74 stop and cause further crowding at this end of the station, and on the front end of (E) and (F)s to Manhattan and in the back on the way back? Or, are they banking that (E) and (F) riders will board in Forest Hills?

I am a really big supporter of reducing bus stops, but this is way too far. They really want to drive all bus riders to a few "higher-quality routes," and then make all other service so bad that people will not use them, allowing the agency to eliminate all service on these routes, fire bus operators, and reduce the need to buy more buses. Also, fewer dispatchers would be needed to monitor routes, and fewer stops to be maintained. In the future we will likely have headway management, eliminating all accountability for buses being late. This has the potential to be much worse than the '95 and '10 service cuts.

THIS IS REALLY BAD, and I didn't look extremely throughly at the route (I haven't started on the Q64 section). Keep in mind, service will become more unreliable with the merger with the Q64. I had slight optimism that there would be enough good to outweigh the bad in the plan, but this plan is was a level of bad I did not think was possible. Where are all of these cut buses going? This plan needs to be stopped!

Everyone else, please make sure to look very carefully at the schedules like I have started to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to analyze the QT37

First, I cannot tell whether service is cut by an hour from 6 to 5 since Remix doesn't show separate times between the directions. Great job idiots! The biggest red flag for me is the runtime. They have QT37 buses running between Kew Gardens and South Ozone Park, on a more direct route, taking 63 minutes instead of the current 32.

- Currently, buses run every 5-6 minutes from 5:50 to 8:30; now they will run every 10 minutes. After 8:45 buses will run INSANE 24 minute headways. Buses currently run every 8-10 minutes until 9:25, and then every 15-20 minutes afterwards.

- The worst cut: buses will stop running at 10 PM, instead of at 1:30 AM, a 3.5 hour span reduction. On Saturday, buses will stop at 9:15 instead of 1:30, a 4.25 hour span reduction, and on Sunday, buses will stop at 9:30 instead of 1:30, a 4 hour span reduction.

The MTA really wants to further reduce bus service. There is no other explanation. I know there are good people who worked on this plan, but they have to realize what they are doing. They are going to make it faster to walk than take the bus in most of the borough because of how far spaced out stops are, how infrequent service will be, reduced spans of service, and the need to make 3 or 4 transfers to just get to the subway, where they will now have to stand for 30-40 minutes. This is criminal and nobody will care because the people who will be hurt have lower-incomes than subway riders and people like Pat Foye who drives to get everywhere, and because the people that will be hurt are the people who do not have the time to attend these meetings.

This is despicable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Time to analyze the QT37

First, I cannot tell whether service is cut by an hour from 6 to 5 since Remix doesn't show separate times between the directions. Great job idiots! The biggest red flag for me is the runtime. They have QT37 buses running between Kew Gardens and South Ozone Park, on a more direct route, taking 63 minutes instead of the current 32.

- Currently, buses run every 5-6 minutes from 5:50 to 8:30; now they will run every 10 minutes. After 8:45 buses will run INSANE 24 minute headways. Buses currently run every 8-10 minutes until 9:25, and then every 15-20 minutes afterwards.

- The worst cut: buses will stop running at 10 PM, instead of at 1:30 AM, a 3.5 hour span reduction. On Saturday, buses will stop at 9:15 instead of 1:30, a 4.25 hour span reduction, and on Sunday, buses will stop at 9:30 instead of 1:30, a 4 hour span reduction.

The MTA really wants to further reduce bus service. There is no other explanation. I know there are good people who worked on this plan, but they have to realize what they are doing. They are going to make it faster to walk than take the bus in most of the borough because of how far spaced out stops are, how infrequent service will be, reduced spans of service, and the need to make 3 or 4 transfers to just get to the subway, where they will now have to stand for 30-40 minutes. This is criminal and nobody will care because the people who will be hurt have lower-incomes than subway riders and people like Pat Foye who drives to get everywhere, and because the people that will be hurt are the people who do not have the time to attend these meetings.

This is despicable.

 

I’m just generalizing here but it seems like most of peopel have issue with the headway’s mostly. I think in a way since these routes are basically done from scratch there’s no telling how much will people ride the routes at first so it would be kind of throwing something into a blender. Plus some of these routes serve different types of service patters. So maybe a traditional route would need like say a 10 minute headway but on these newer routes they would need maybe 15 because of how quicker it’s gonna be. That’s just my take on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If anything, Maspeth has been asking for an express bus because it has no subway.  That would've made more sense before doing this crap. The (MTA) also argued during the Bronx redesign that they didn't want to compete with areas that had subway access. Well what do they call this??

Yeah, they will have the Fresh Pond Road leg of the QM24/QM34 will go via Maspeth, but not make any stops. 

 

34 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Time to analyze the QT37

First, I cannot tell whether service is cut by an hour from 6 to 5 since Remix doesn't show separate times between the directions. Great job idiots! The biggest red flag for me is the runtime. They have QT37 buses running between Kew Gardens and South Ozone Park, on a more direct route, taking 63 minutes instead of the current 32.

- Currently, buses run every 5-6 minutes from 5:50 to 8:30; now they will run every 10 minutes. After 8:45 buses will run INSANE 24 minute headways. Buses currently run every 8-10 minutes until 9:25, and then every 15-20 minutes afterwards.

- The worst cut: buses will stop running at 10 PM, instead of at 1:30 AM, a 3.5 hour span reduction. On Saturday, buses will stop at 9:15 instead of 1:30, a 4.25 hour span reduction, and on Sunday, buses will stop at 9:30 instead of 1:30, a 4 hour span reduction.

The MTA really wants to further reduce bus service. There is no other explanation. I know there are good people who worked on this plan, but they have to realize what they are doing. They are going to make it faster to walk than take the bus in most of the borough because of how far spaced out stops are, how infrequent service will be, reduced spans of service, and the need to make 3 or 4 transfers to just get to the subway, where they will now have to stand for 30-40 minutes. This is criminal and nobody will care because the people who will be hurt have lower-incomes than subway riders and people like Pat Foye who drives to get everywhere, and because the people that will be hurt are the people who do not have the time to attend these meetings.

This is despicable.

 

I think the 63 minute runtime is the round-trip runtime, not just in one direction (so it would be within 31-32 minutes in one direction).

The base headway is 30 minute headways for overnight service, which is good if your bus route runs 24 hours. However, for all routes that don't run 24 hours, there's noticeable cuts in service span and/or service levels (and not just on this route either). 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

There's no stops on any of the Downtown buses in Williamsburg. Plus, there's already local bus service going from Middle Village and Maspeth to Williamsburg, on top of the (M) train.

There's two actually.

One at Grand/Lorimer and one at Grand/Bushwick.

Why? I don't know, but that's a bogus idea....

Edited by Cait Sith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Q52/Q53:

The current Q52 operates every 20 minutes and the Q53 every 8-10 minutes during the rush. With the QT52SBS, they've basically cut the Q53 out completely and shifted the headways from the Q53 to the Q52, which makes no sense given how east of the Rockaway Line Link (that connects Beach 90th to Beach 67th) already has frequent enough (A) service to Manhattan while west of there only has the (S) and requires a transfer to the (A) that could take up to 25 minutes. Do they not know that the Q53 is a heavily used route, especially in the Rockaway Park? They've also reduced the headways with I wanna say 2 buses less because of the loss on the Q53.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed criticisms of the plan based on current travel patterns, but aren't some aspect of current travel patterns the result of the existing network?

For example,

  • The N45 had ok ridership, the LIB created the N43 and ridership on Uniondale Ave increased.
  • (M) train had poor ridership, everyone bailed for the (L) when possible, the (M) implemented a "Service cut" merge with the (V) and now  (M) and (J) ridership increased (even before the building boom).  
  • The (J) went Jamaica to Manhattan solo, once the (E) was connected to it along Archer Ave, riders started backtracking to the (E) to take the express train to Manhattan and other destinations.
  • On a different but similar note, there was a member that would base bus/express bus routing plans along highways based on highway congestion. But, missed the point that motorists use available highways and their routings to get to where they going. The reason say, the Meadowbrook Parkway is congested going north in the morning, is because the motorists are actually trying to go WEST along the Northern State and LIE toward Manhattan and/or the Bronx/Westchester. And so, the Meadowbrook Parkway doesn't necessarily need a bus route if there is a quicker way west which is the direction where people want to go. (ie, Maybe a route along Hempstead Turnpike, Clearview Expressway to Pelham Parkway/Fordham would work better, connection provides cheaper MNRR tickets to White Plains, maybe trips to New Rochelle MNRR for cheaper tickets to Stamford), etc
    • Same with Van Wyck Expressway, if the Bushwick Expressway existed, a lot of motorists wouldn't even bother with the VWE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I've noticed criticisms of the plan based on current travel patterns, but aren't some aspect of current travel patterns the result of the existing network?

For example,

  • The N45 had ok ridership, the LIB created the N43 and ridership on Uniondale Ave increased.
  • (M) train had poor ridership, everyone bailed for the (L) when possible, the (M) implemented a "Service cut" merge with the (V) and now  (M) and (J) ridership increased (even before the building boom).  
  • The (J) went Jamaica to Manhattan solo, once the (E) was connected to it along Archer Ave, riders started backtracking to the (E) to take the express train to Manhattan and other destinations.
  • On a different but similar note, there was a member that would base bus/express bus routing plans along highways based on highway congestion. But, missed the point that motorists use available highways and their routings to get to where they going. The reason say, the Meadowbrook Parkway is congested going north in the morning, is because the motorists are actually trying to go WEST along the Northern State and LIE toward Manhattan and/or the Bronx/Westchester. And so, the Meadowbrook Parkway doesn't necessarily need a bus route if there is a quicker way west which is the direction where people want to go. (ie, Maybe a route along Hempstead Turnpike, Clearview Expressway to Pelham Parkway/Fordham would work better, connection provides cheaper MNRR tickets to White Plains, maybe trips to New Rochelle MNRR for cheaper tickets to Stamford), etc
    • Same with Van Wyck Expressway, if the Bushwick Expressway existed, a lot of motorists wouldn't even bother with the VWE.

The (Q), with also a kind of a service cut, had increased ridership when it got rerouted to SAS.

The (M) had a ridership boost because it opened up a new connection between Nassau and 6th Av, which was previously only possible by transferring to the (F) at Essex St, and it took off ridership from the (L) (and the (L) is already as crowded as it is).

However, weren't a lot of riders upset that they lost the (J) between 121st St and 168th St? It also caused a whole bus network change in that section didnt it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, danielhg121 said:

A lot of these local bus routes end up in stubs, they just run to the bumblef**k nowhere. I do acknowledge the fact that some of these are built to obviously serve neighborhoods and thus may end in suburbs, but exactly who will benefit from riding the QT86 north of Flushing? It just runs to the Whitestone Expwy unless they just want people going to that Stop N Shop mall, or movie theater or hell it might be a convenient place to start the bus from CP depot. The whole Whitestone Expwy/Linden Pl corridor is over served IMO. People would rather take the QT44, it makes fewer stops and just runs more frequently. And the QT84 Flushing-Bayside, who would ride that, it starts at Flushing and goes to Bayside via the outskirt of College Point and Francis Lewis, they definitely tried recreating the 76 but like that? There are faster options like the more direct QT17 to substitute that and as far as I'm concerned, not everyone wants to get off the bus at Northern and Francis and get the QT73 down to continue their journey, it's not like there's a huge amount of turnover there either.  Quite frankly the QT84 chose a place to run with very little ridership, it runs in the sticks and suburbia 20th Avenue if you will, not the nitty gritty College Point and gets its feet a little wet. 

Another issue I see is they have the QT16 doing a Q20/25 variant running every 1,861 min...whatever lets just go with the 6 min peak. They do know the Q25 runs more frequently than that, right? They have the local's and limited's running together as scheduled but this 6 minute peak isn't going to hold its own. How do they even know riders will stay on the bus anyways? They haven't studied ridership patterns and only going solely off the numbers and that is not a way to redesign a bus network. Many former Q25 riders who stayed on the 25 for college point service now have to get off at Flushing and transfer to QT15, they basically mixed and matched the Q65 truncated and the Q25 together and hoped it works. Do they want a lot of people to transfer at Flushing? I foresee that happening. 

Some of these proposals are probably being set up for failure so they can use it as an excuse to cut service later on or truncate or just eliminate the bus route with no substitute.

The QT86 north of Flushing is indeed rather useless, since that area of Linden Pl isn't heavily populated.  But it likely does make for easy access to CP depot and is probably a concession for the Police Academy instead of dealing with the garbage proposed headways on the QT84.  They're better off extending the QT86 to serve 14 Ave in College Point instead so they can actually serve residents on the northern part of the route.  The QT84 is basically a garbage amalgamation of the Q20A/76 with crap headways and doesn't actually bring residents of College Point to the shopping center.

This plan will only work if they allow an extra bus transfer for the same fare.  Otherwise, I foresee many people paying double just to get where they're going with these shorter lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

im assuming the reason why they're using this as opposed to the Staten or Bx redesigns is because those were completely different scenarios. this is a very invasive, clusterf**k of a situation, and being that there are a vast amount of different components to this redesign, Temporary was somewhat necessary... they better know that people will not be receptive to any of this, so by saying Temporary, they leave themselves a public relations out, so to speak. it's nit-picking, but nonetheless, reading maps doesn't come easy to most, so if they tried to simplify this process while keeping people from revolting in the streets, then who am i to judge? 

Smh (not at you, but out of frustration with this plan)...... I get it why they're doing the whole 'T' shit - but at the same time, you would think this penultimate stage of the plan (dubbed "draft plan") would nullify the need for adding an extra letter to the prefix of these proposed routes, to denote that it's not the final nomenclature of the route....

Maybe they need to come up with another name for "draft plan" or something, to where you don't have to resort to adding unnecessary characters to proposed routes....

12 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

QT24.......just throw the entire route away at this rate. I'm already miffed at the QT5 being removed from 165 and over to SUTPHIN AND HILLSIDE.....as if that's gonna be any good, that's two of my options gone.

QT67.....I can kind of see what they're trying to do with it, but Liberty Avenue will be the real factor on how that route will actually perform.

The QT68.....I have to laugh my ass off for that one. Okay, a little backstory as to why the Jamaica Hospital portion of the route is like that and why I'm laughing.....

For those that may or may not know, the J Shuttle buses used to terminate just across the street from the hospital, and would them loop around 89th Avenue and then 134th Street to get back to Jamaica Avenue. However, that was changed to terminate at the Service Road & Jamaica Avenue, why? Because the hospitals had numerous complaints about the buses blocking ambulances and such, especially when they would turn too wide. Now, I am interested in seeing how they'll make that right turn onto 91st....since it's a tight street. If the MTA never got those complaints, they could've used 89th Avenue without a problem.......

The QT7 being the Linden Blvd route is an interesting one, but it's gonna be one very obscure route seeing as it's going to Gateway, especially with what will be the most minimal of connections.

The thing with the Q24 is that EB buses have a tendency to tank at Sutphin - but at the same time, WB buses are jampacked well before hitting Sutphin.... I know you've expressed issues in the past with the thing, so my question to you is, what would you have done with the Q24?

The Q112 is rather indirect once it hits Jamaica, so at least that's fixed with that QT67.... Considering what Liberty av along a significant portion of the 112 is (a narrow, commercial, two-way street), running it over the whole Q110 just comes off as unwise..... The Q110 east of where the current Q54/56 terminate is pretty much smooth sailing....

I never put any thought as to why they ended up altering the course of the (J) shuttles (at one point, they were ending on the NW corner of Jamaica/Van Wyck service rd (on the service rd)), but now that you mention it, it makes sense... Don't blame hospital management one bit.... As it relates to the QT68 though, I can't agree with something like this running to the hospital and JFK like that.... I would take this route out of JFK airport and end it down there by the JFK Depot - since they already have that QT20 (Sutphin route) running to JFK.... At least that QT20 takes you to the (F) & the (J)....

Running Q8's to Gateway (for Queens patrons) never really caught on, so now they're shifting the Q8 elsewhere in Brooklyn to have this QT7 run to Gateway... In other words, trying to attract a different riderbase in Queens, to Gateway.... I'd like to see this route be more of an interborough success (than the Q8 at least), as I don't really see SE Queens patrons really using a through Linden blvd. route within Queens.....

6 hours ago, Lex said:

I'm not sure if I've already said this somewhere on the forums, but Newport Avenue has the better catchment area, not to mention that it provides decent access to the businesses on Beach 129th Street...

IINM, Rockaway Beach Blvd. has more traffic lights between B. 149th & B. 116th too...

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The Q50 going to LGA I don’t have too much of a problem with, but why via the Q48 route? Just have the Q19 cover that portion to Astoria Blvd. The Q50 should get on the Grand Central after it passes the Citi Field. That would make the route even more useful. Of course another thing that I worry about is Flushing traffic because it can still get really bad. 

They're making the Q50 less useful overall, for the sake of running it to LGA... There is zero need for 2 routes (QT50, QT81) panning from Roosevelt/Main to 108th/Astoria Blvd via Roosevelt & via 108th.... I mean, they have the Q70 which, for all intents & purposes, is successful, but yet there is this reluctance to do away with connecting Flushing to LGA.... There is a significant minority of people boarding from Flushing seeking LGA.... It's one thing to suggest new concepts, it's another to continue to hold onto old concepts that current riders en masse are not taking  advantage of (and that's putting it very nicely)......

To opine on your question though, it's to maintain the Bronx - (Downtown) Flushing connection.... Have the Q50 continue straight on Northern (after turning off on Linden) en route to the airport, you'd make the route that much/significantly less attractive for Bronxites....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, 7-express said:

The QT86 north of Flushing is indeed rather useless, since that area of Linden Pl isn't heavily populated.  But it likely does make for easy access to CP depot and is probably a concession for the Police Academy instead of dealing with the garbage proposed headways on the QT84.  They're better off extending the QT86 to serve 14 Ave in College Point instead so they can actually serve residents on the northern part of the route.  The QT84 is basically a garbage amalgamation of the Q20A/76 with crap headways and doesn't actually bring residents of College Point to the shopping center.

This plan will only work if they allow an extra bus transfer for the same fare.  Otherwise, I foresee many people paying double just to get where they're going with these shorter lines.

I think its just to keep terminating, in Flushing, buses from clogging Roosevelt and Main.... Too many buses terminating at R&M is problem the redesign looks to try and solve. Notice we have more through routing in Downtown Flushing now, and routes that would logically terminate at R&M are routed to the outskirts of Downtown Flushing to terminate... i.e QT85, QT86. 

 

Other Topics is: 

I guess with this Network redesign and the mixing of NYCT and MTAB routes.... Its safe to say MTAB is going away, everything is now NYCT? From a branding standpoint.  No division (TA, OA, BC) will have "ownership" of routes... I can see a lot of route splits among the depots now, especially as the MTA discovers a lot of these high headways just WILL NOT work, and routes will need more equipment. I can see BP, JA, QV splitting work, JFK, GA, FP, ENY. CP, CS and LGA. Hell LGA may wind up splitting runs with BK depots too. 

 

Edited by Lennyj17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Smh (not at you, but out of frustration with this plan)...... I get it why they're doing the whole 'T' shit - but at the same time, you would think this penultimate stage of the plan (dubbed "draft plan") would nullify the need for adding an extra letter to the prefix of these proposed routes, to denote that it's not the final nomenclature of the route....

Maybe they need to come up with another name for "draft plan" or something, to where you don't have to resort to adding unnecessary characters to proposed routes....

The thing with the Q24 is that EB buses have a tendency to tank at Sutphin - but at the same time, WB buses are jampacked well before hitting Sutphin.... I know you've expressed issues in the past with the thing, so my question to you is, what would you have done with the Q24?

The Q112 is rather indirect once it hits Jamaica, so at least that's fixed with that QT67.... Considering what Liberty av along a significant portion of the 112 is (a narrow, commercial, two-way street), running it over the whole Q110 just comes off as unwise..... The Q110 east of where the current Q54/56 terminate is pretty much smooth sailing....

I never put any thought as to why they ended up altering the course of the (J) shuttles (at one point, they were ending on the NW corner of Jamaica/Van Wyck service rd (on the service rd)), but now that you mention it, it makes sense... Don't blame hospital management one bit.... As it relates to the QT68 though, I can't agree with something like this running to the hospital and JFK like that.... I would take this route out of JFK airport and end it down there by the JFK Depot - since they already have that QT20 (Sutphin route) running to JFK.... At least that QT20 takes you to the (F) & the (J)....

Running Q8's to Gateway (for Queens patrons) never really caught on, so now they're shifting the Q8 elsewhere in Brooklyn to have this QT7 run to Gateway... In other words, trying to attract a different riderbase in Queens, to Gateway.... I'd like to see this route be more of an interborough success (than the Q8 at least), as I don't really see SE Queens patrons really using a through Linden blvd. route within Queens.....

IINM, Rockaway Beach Blvd. has more traffic lights between B. 149th & B. 116th too...

They're making the Q50 less useful overall, for the sake of running it to LGA... There is zero need for 2 routes (QT50, QT81) panning from Roosevelt/Main to 108th/Astoria Blvd via Roosevelt & via 108th.... I mean, they have the Q70 which, for all intents & purposes, is successful, but yet there is this reluctance to do away with connecting Flushing to LGA.... There is a significant minority of people boarding from Flushing seeking LGA.... It's one thing to suggest new concepts, it's another to continue to hold onto old concepts that current riders en masse are not taking  advantage of (and that's putting it very nicely)......

To opine on your question though, it's to maintain the Bronx - (Downtown) Flushing connection.... Have the Q50 continue straight on Northern (after turning off on Linden) en route to the airport, you'd make the route that much/significantly less attractive for Bronxites....

As insignificant they're making the QT24 to be(especially by butchering it's headways, between the QT5 and the QT24, one of them should at least head on over to 165. I would've accepted this QT24 plan if the QT5 went to 165, but they're making East-West routes require transfers to 165 now more than ever and sending the QT5 to the current Q40 terminal is bogus.

Admittedly, I've never checked out the Q24 west of Broadway Junction, does that part of the line even see decent usage?

EDIT

Now that I think about it, the 165 reconfiguration was supposed to happen in a matter of years as well....hmm. I wonder if that has something to do with the terminal changes on that end, because if I'm seeing things correctly, there's less routes terminating there than there is now.

Edited by Cait Sith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the redesign plan and the routes in Jackson Heights, it really look like the planners completely disregarded ridership pattern and took those existing routes and just connected them elsewhere

Q49- Currently most passengers start boarding to the subway at Astoria/92nd St. That bus is absolutely packed. 35th Av is a huge ridership generator. To replace it with QT74, I don't believe will generate the same amount of riders. most people will just walk from the 7. I wouldn't be surprised if QT74 loses 70% of the former Q49 ridership. Since they are ending that route  at Elmhurst Hospital, they might as well extend it to 74th St.

Q33 (QT10) - Again, most passenger want the QBL Express. Thats why people don't get off the bus as of now at 82nd subway station. No one is going to ride it to Woodhaven and take the local to backtrack. Those Q33 riders and Q29 riders are two different riderbases heading in the opposite direction (Q47/45).

Q47 (QT61)- I don't really see a need for a route heading from Columbus Circle into Jackson Heights. I see what they are trying to do though, taking the redundant portion of the Q32 and extending it onto the Q47. Again, I expect the need for MUCH more buses between Astoria Blvd and 74th than the rest of the route.

QT78(Q45)- There is a reason the Q45 turns onto Roosevelt to serve the 7. People want the QBL Express. By skipping that station and serving directly Broadway and Northern blvd station, many people will have to transfer twice, or take the local at Northern Bl. 

Elsewhere in Queens, some observation

QT58/QT6 (Q58)- I really like what they did there. Those traveling along Corona Av could get a faster ride via Willets Point, and those traveling further into Elmhurst and Ridgewood will also have the route straightened out. There probably will be some service cuts however, but the busiest portion in Elmhurst will continue to see frequent service.

I can't help but wonder if that corrider between Flushing, and 108th St is overserved. Since they have the Q50, and the new QT11 serving that corrider, I don't find the need to reroute the Q19 (QT81) onto 108th St. 

Jamaica Routes- I really like those zoned expresses. I always feel like there are too many routes making all stops along Hillside and Merrick Blvd. There should be one local, and the rest of them should be express to/from the subway.

QT43 (Q85)- They really can't extend that route into Green Acres. Its literally a straight shot.

QT65- I don't think that route needed to go to South Jamaica, there are plenty of alternatives nearby.

Flushing Routes-

That cost neutral move for the QT17(Q12)- I like that. It improves connectivity north-south in that area of Queens

QT73(Q12/76)- A Flushing to 120 Av route via Sanford and F Lewis Blvd. Most riders will probably only ride to 165th and Sanford.

QT51/48- These will run peak only? Thats a major mobility loss for that area of Queens. Most riders would either have to walk to Northern, F Lewis or to the QT85 or transfer during off peak hours.

QT65- I don't see any sucess in this route. Q65 serves two separate rider bases, Coll Point-Flushing and Flushing to 164th St. these two riders all want the subway. No one will go from Jamaica or any point along 164th St to Powells Cove vice versa. Everyone in both direction will transfer to the QT17 at Northern Blvd. I would love to see the chaos there

QT14(Q64,10)- Combining two busy route into one? I thought thats against their philosophy of serving multiple riderbases with the same routes. Again two separate riderbase, going in the opposite direction, all heading into the subway.

 

Colors-

These colors, I see what they are trying to do, but why not just have Purple, Red and Green. 

Blue and Red seems to serve the same purpose

In other city, buses run every 60 minutes which is why Red is used to denote frequent service. I don't believe NYC should use that kind of denotion. Some of those light green routes they are proposing are not coverage routes that run ever 60-120 min like in other cities. They are significant routes that carry significant amount of people.

 

Again these are some of my thoughts for now.

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lennyj17 said:

I guess with this Network redesign and the mixing of NYCT and MTAB routes.... Its safe to say MTAB is going away, everything is now NYCT? From a branding standpoint.  No division (TA, OA, BC) will have "ownership" of routes... I can see a lot of route splits among the depots now, especially as the MTA discovers a lot of these high headways just WILL NOT work, and routes will need more equipment. I can see BP, JA, QV splitting work, JFK, GA, FP, ENY. CP, CS and LGA. Hell LGA may wind up splitting runs with BK depots too. 

i can absolutely see all of this happening, as some veiled attempt by DOB to adequately accommodate all unions involved. ultimately, there will be cuts, but with the potential new contract/contract negotiations (with Bus Company demanding parity to NYCTA/MaBSTOA across the board) and the new farebox/destination sign code system on the way, your point is absolutely a valid one to point out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Thing 1... For local routes, they look at population within a quarter-mile of each stop, yet most stops are more than a quarter-mile apart.

Thing 2... Why does the M60 need to make those stupid jogs in Manhattan?

1) If stops are 1/2 mile apart and you are along the street the route runs on, right in the middle of 2 stops, then you are 1/4 mile from a stop.

2) Who knows, maybe that will change in the upcoming Manhattan redesign. My guess is it has to do with that portion of Broadway between 120th & 125th being more industrial, whereas on Amsterdam you are right in the middle of apartment buildings.

9 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I knew the Q34 would be eliminated because it heavily duplicates the Q25, whatever resources the Q34 had will probably go to the Q25 or the new “QT16”. I don’t think it’s elimination is bad either because the Q25 and the Q20/Q44 is no more than a block or two away from the part that is exclusively served only by the Q34. Plus the route has no weekend service so residents have to rely on alternatives anyways. From what I know I don’t recall anyone fighting for weekend Q34 service either.

The Q50 going to LGA I don’t have too much of a problem with, but why via the Q48 route? Just have the Q19 cover that portion to Astoria Blvd. The Q50 should get on the Grand Central after it passes the Citi Field. That would make the route even more useful. Of course another thing that I worry about is Flushing traffic because it can still get really bad. 

I recall an article of politicians asking for service further east along Willets Point Blvd. Not sure if they asked for weekend service.

7 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Yeah they need to update that. I'm sure we can assume that's 30mins.

300 minutes = 5 hours = no overnight service

5 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

What about the direct connection to the B35? It's hard to give opinions when you don't have a rider matrix. Very long ride indeed but you technically would have a 2 bus ride from Sunset Park to Jamaica.

You could also take 2 trains to get there under the current system. 

One of my coworkers said most likely they will implement Brooklyn & Queens at the same time...there is just too much intertwined between the 2.

4 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

I’m just generalizing here but it seems like most of peopel have issue with the headway’s mostly. I think in a way since these routes are basically done from scratch there’s no telling how much will people ride the routes at first so it would be kind of throwing something into a blender. Plus some of these routes serve different types of service patters. So maybe a traditional route would need like say a 10 minute headway but on these newer routes they would need maybe 15 because of how quicker it’s gonna be. That’s just my take on it. 

If it's quicker, it should attract more riders and receive more frequent service, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

i can absolutely see all of this happening, as some veiled attempt by DOB to adequately accommodate all unions involved. ultimately, there will be cuts, but with the potential new contract/contract negotiations (with Bus Company demanding parity to NYCTA/MaBSTOA across the board) and the new farebox/destination sign code system on the way, your point is absolutely a valid one to point out.

Yep, I can see QMT's replacing the old Union Tpke Express routes, going to QV instead of CP..... I could see GA getting the QM24, 25, 34 off of LGA for LGA to take on more Artics. 

QV would probably take all SE Qns Express routes (so BP could handle more Artics).

CP would just focus on express's north of LIE. CP may take more ECH express runs, as YON routes shift to ECH for YON to shut down. Wasn't there talk of CP becoming an Express exclusive depot? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

QT51/48- These will run peak only? Thats a major mobility loss for that area of Queens. Most riders would either have to walk to Northern, F Lewis or to the QT85 or transfer during off peak hours.

Peak hour only would mean major cuts for people in the Clearview, Beechhurst, and Bayside area, who will not have a one-seat ride option into Flushing.  They're counting on the QT84/85 but they have infrequent headways and don't have the same level of coverage without a lot of walking.  The Q28 driver base can't be too happy about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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