Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Eric B said:

This area is horrbly connected. (I call it the "cipher zone"). It's the current system that looks like it was drawn up by someone who has never set foot in the area. The redesign, while of course not perfect, would still be an improvement.

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, that QT77 & QT78 are abominable from start to finish.... There is nothing about those routes that entails straighter/more direct.... The complete opposite of an improvement to current bus service (not that the Q38/39/67 are anything to write home about in their own rights, but they're exponentially better than those aforementioned proposed QT routes)....

Without a doubt, the status quo in SW Queens is terrible (if I had a dollar for every time the Q38 or Q67 failed to deliver, I'd have a small loan of a million dollars), but the proposals definitely don't do much to fix the fundamental issues; unless the planners go back to the drawing board and take a closer look at the street grid and ridership destinations, I don't think much will change for the better.  I still can't wrap my head around the whole concept of a route going from Middle Village to Roosevelt Island, of all places.

If they really wanted to fix up service in the area, the logical thing to do would've been rerouting the Q39 to Woodside instead of Queens Plaza, straightening out the Q67 to get rid of all the twists and turns on the western half of the route, and split the Q38 (a route from Fresh Pond to Queens Mall, another one to Forest Hills). 

 

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

What's very interesting about the split into local/subway-dash service is that LA Metro, which is probably the biggest transit agency running the most "limited/rapid" whatever bus routes, is moving in the opposite direction as the MTA on this.

LA is mostly going to get rid of the rapid/local distinction altogether, and instead run one service pattern with stop spacing that splits the difference, because they found that the rapid/local frequency split made connections worse and increased overall travel time. And I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that Metro routes aren't long or congested.

I think if anything it's the same thing (for the plans of MTA and LA Metro). These red limited-stop routes stop more often than a traditional LTD but less often than a current local. 

@B35 via Church All very good points...I will add one quick thing (just for informational/anecdotal purposes). I don't think I really heard any complaints about about stop spacing/stop placement. I don't know if those issues were overshadowed by the far larger issue of routings, or if the proposed stop spacing is generally decent/passable in the eyes of Queens residents. The only route-specific ones I heard were the QT69 (just generally adding back a couple of stops) and basically a Q40 rider who wanted every single stop kept (I personally think the QT46/47 are some of the better thought-out routes, though of course the schedules need work). I would imagine the QT5 received a lot of complaints in that category but like I said, I didn't go to that meeting. The overwhelming majority of complaints were route-related (I also heard a few schedule-related ones but not too many). 

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

They just want to force more people on that QT11 by having it additionally serve the more western portion of the Q46; being cheap.... The demand for a route like that is virtually nil..... Lion's share of Q23 riders from the north tank out at Forest Hills subway.... Speaking of which, the northern portion of the Q23 (Forest Hills - E. Elmhurst) would be a successful route by itself.... No plausible reason whatsoever to have a route of sorts (said portion of the Q23 in question) even swinging down to Union Tpke - let alone running along Union Tpke. to ultimately terminate at the Fresh Meadows shopping ctr....

While I don't condone the breaking up of service along Union Tpke. as proposed, I can't concur with the Q46 being solely a LTD route either (which is what it sounds like you're conveying) - regardless of fare payment method.... Hillside doesn't get gridlocked like it used to (even before covid) anymore either, but in regards to Union Tpke., you said it yourself - it doesn't really get bogged down with traffic like that.... So how detrimental (or useless) is local service really along Union Tpke....

I get that everyone wants faster service, but I'm just not as willing to make the sacrifice (or otherwise go all-in with it) by chucking away local coverage so readily as a means of doing so.... See, I find that people like to make like it's the number of stops buses are making that's by far & large the main reason for slower bus speeds, when it's just not the case here in NYC.....

To clarify, the LA Metro is basically consolidating a local every 15 and a LTD every 15 into a single bus route running every 7.5. So as an MTA example, if the local stops every two blocks and the LTD every ten, both get replaced by one very-frequent route stopping every four/five.

14 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think if anything it's the same thing (for the plans of MTA and LA Metro). These red limited-stop routes stop more often than a traditional LTD but less often than a current local.

Yes, but LA just straight up doesn't have a "subway-dash". So it would be as if Q46 service was replaced by one red bus in it's totality, not by a red bus in one half and a blue subway-dash in the other.

Which is not really saying that you couldn't also have some second route on Union Turnpike, but the blue dash is not good.

[checkmatechamp13]

7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yes, but LA just straight up doesn't have a "subway-dash". So it would be as if Q46 service was replaced by one red bus in it's totality, not by a red bus in one half and a blue subway-dash in the other.

Which is not really saying that you couldn't also have some second route on Union Turnpike, but the blue dash is not good.

I think you could just add Utopia Parkway and 164th Street and still call it a blue dash (since it's still skipping 3 stops west of 188th Street).

I don't think the concept of a subway dash is bad. For example, I think the QT31 and QT33 are pretty good, as are the QT48/49/51 (they just need to run full-time instead of rush hour). The same for the SE Queens ones (Merrick, Brewer, Sutphin).

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Without a doubt, the status quo in SW Queens is terrible (if I had a dollar for every time the Q38 or Q67 failed to deliver, I'd have a small loan of a million dollars), but the proposals definitely don't do much to fix the fundamental issues; unless the planners go back to the drawing board and take a closer look at the street grid and ridership destinations, I don't think much will change for the better.  I still can't wrap my head around the whole concept of a route going from Middle Village to Roosevelt Island, of all places.

If they really wanted to fix up service in the area, the logical thing to do would've been rerouting the Q39 to Woodside instead of Queens Plaza, straightening out the Q67 to get rid of all the twists and turns on the western half of the route, and split the Q38 (a route from Fresh Pond to Queens Mall, another one to Forest Hills).

Which begs the question - How much studying did these planners really do.....

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think if anything it's the same thing (for the plans of MTA and LA Metro). These red limited-stop routes stop more often than a traditional LTD but less often than a current local. 

@B35 via Church All very good points...I will add one quick thing (just for informational/anecdotal purposes). I don't think I really heard any complaints about about stop spacing/stop placement. I don't know if those issues were overshadowed by the far larger issue of routings, or if the proposed stop spacing is generally decent/passable in the eyes of Queens residents. The only route-specific ones I heard were the QT69 (just generally adding back a couple of stops) and basically a Q40 rider who wanted every single stop kept (I personally think the QT46/47 are some of the better thought-out routes, though of course the schedules need work). I would imagine the QT5 received a lot of complaints in that category but like I said, I didn't go to that meeting. The overwhelming majority of complaints were route-related (I also heard a few schedule-related ones but not too many). 

Most folks are not deep thinkers or free-thinkers; goes back to what I mentioned earlier about (a lot of) the riding public not being (near as) transit savvy as we on these forums are.... So I would guess that the majority of everyone that went to those meetings all riled up, were so because of how preposterous they deem the routing changes to be.

I will admit though, that some people that claim to be opposed to the redesign, aren't much more than bandwagoners (who I wouldn't be too much surprised if they even use the buses at all) in support of friends/family or whatever..... You can tell by the brevity & half-heartedness of the arguments they pose.... These are the people that irritate me just as much as the MTA can-do-no-wrong kool aid drinkers...

35 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To clarify, the LA Metro is basically consolidating a local every 15 and a LTD every 15 into a single bus route running every 7.5.

So as an MTA example, if the local stops every two blocks and the LTD every ten, both get replaced by one very-frequent route stopping every four/five.

In that example, that would yield a route stopping about every 1/3rd mile (6 blocks), not every 1/4th or 1/5th mile.... Still too close to a LTD route IMO, but nonetheless, I get what you're ultimately saying, though.

35 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yes, but LA just straight up doesn't have a "subway-dash". So it would be as if Q46 service was replaced by one red bus in it's totality, not by a red bus in one half and a blue subway-dash in the other.

Which is not really saying that you couldn't also have some second route on Union Turnpike, but the blue dash is not good.

20 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think you could just add Utopia Parkway and 164th Street and still call it a blue dash (since it's still skipping 3 stops west of 188th Street).

I don't think the concept of a subway dash is bad. For example, I think the QT31 and QT33 are pretty good, as are the QT48/49/51 (they just need to run full-time instead of rush hour). The same for the SE Queens ones (Merrick, Brewer, Sutphin).

To BobPanda: I thought you were referring to those "super LTD" routes (like the QT1, QT2, etc) that are actually blue, but then I remember you professing a while back that you have an issue with color-blindness (FYI, the subway dash routes [like that QT32 in question] are purple)......

To the both of you: Anyway, I don't have a problem with the subway dash concept in general - I just think they should be variants of a "core" route & not standalone routes by themselves..... As if to say, some Q46 trips past a certain point should "dash" to the subway (from 188th though, I will say is a bit much, either way).... But every trip doing dashing to/from the subway, yeah, nah....

Edited February 15, 2021 by B35 via Church

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think you could just add Utopia Parkway and 164th Street and still call it a blue dash (since it's still skipping 3 stops west of 188th Street).

I don't think the concept of a subway dash is bad. For example, I think the QT31 and QT33 are pretty good, as are the QT48/49/51 (they just need to run full-time instead of rush hour). The same for the SE Queens ones (Merrick, Brewer, Sutphin).

Yeah, but at that point you're only skipping three stops, at which point you may as well just stop there too, since a stop is what, a minute? People will save more time with all the frequency serving all the stops.

My major concern with a subway dash is that a lot of them as proposed will unnecessarily make a lot of today's one seat rides two seat rides, and two-seat rides into three, which is a major pain that could largely be avoided since those dash routes still run on the same road as their local stop. The proposed stop consolidation is enough, IMO.

Edited February 15, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[checkmatechamp13]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Which begs the question - How much studying did these planners really do.....

The thing that I wonder is, at what point did they rush and make some of these stupid decisions? You take a look at some reasonably well thought-out ideas (e.g. Cutting the Q66 back to 51st Street, Creating the QT46/47, etc), and then you look at the QT77, QT84, and QT88 and wonder what they were thinking...remember this thing was supposed to be done by December 2019, and they made that deadline by about 2 days IIRC...

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Most folks are not deep thinkers or free-thinkers; goes back to what I mentioned earlier about (a lot of) the riding public not being (near as) transit savvy as we on these forums are.... So I would guess that the majority of everyone that went to those meetings all riled up, were so because of how preposterous they deem the routing changes to be.

I will admit though, that some people that claim to be opposed to the redesign, aren't much more than bandwagoners (who I wouldn't be too much surprised if they even use the buses at all) in support of friends/family or whatever..... You can tell by the brevity & half-heartedness of the arguments they pose.... These are the people that irritate me just as much as the MTA can-do-no-wrong kool aid drinkers...

The thing that annoyed me is that some "advocates" got people riled up by telling people that their routes were going to be eliminated (Q32, Q49, Q66, etc) Their logic was "Well, it doesn't take me from Point A to Point B exactly like the old route used to, so therefore it was eliminated and I have the right to advertise it as such". I made sure to call them out on it (wasn't expecting them to change their attitude, but that was to inform the more reasonable people in the crowd). 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

To the both of you: Anyway, I don't have a problem with the subway dash concept in general - I just think they should be variants of a "core" route & not standalone routes by themselves..... As if to say, some Q46 trips past a certain point should "dash" to the subway (from 188th though, I will say is a bit much, either way).... But every trip doing dashing to/from the subway, yeah, nah....

To be honest, I had that same general attitude about the S79 when it first became an SBS route (I thought it should either have a local variant or at least run local during the evenings). But then I realized (especially after taking some evening trips to commute home from CCNY) that people would usually just use Request-A-Stop (even though technically SBS routes are exempt, most B/Os would let them off at the local stop if they were at a traffic light or whatever). Perhaps that policy could apply to all routes. 

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yeah, but at that point you're only skipping three stops, at which point you may as well just stop there too, since a stop is what, a minute? People will save more time with all the frequency serving all the stops.

My major concern with a subway dash is that a lot of them as proposed will unnecessarily make a lot of today's one seat rides two seat rides, and two-seat rides into three, which is a major pain that could largely be avoided since those dash routes still run on the same road as their local stop. The proposed stop consolidation is enough, IMO.

The other idea is to balance the loads a bit. If you're skipping a bunch of stops, people will be more likely to pile onto the limited-stop version and then walk it out. If you're skipping a few stops (especially if that short-turn local (or semi-limited or whatever you want to call the QT11) runs at a high frequency), then people will be more likely to just take the local.

But in any case, I'm not seeing too many additional transfers added because of these routes. The QT31/33/34/36/38/39/40/41/42/43/45/49/51 don't skip a single transfer point, and the QT46/47/48 still have those transfers available at the terminal (the QT48 skips 32nd/33rd Avenue and Northern Blvd, but those transfers are available at Roosevelt Avenue, and the QT46/47 skip Liberty Avenue, but those transfers are available at Archer Avenue). The QT30 skips 164th Street (which I agree is wrong, but that can easily be added back). The only one left is the QT32 which we're discussing.

The other thing is that some of these dash routes (namely the QT33/38/39) don't skip a single stop on their dash portion. So you could just as easily call them green routes at that point. Also, there might be alternatives that use other portions of the grid (e.g. If there's any QT48 riders seeking a connection to the QT85, they would find some way to connect to a north-south route and make their way from there, but I don't think that trip pattern is common to begin with, hence why they figured few would be detrimentally affected by the dash portion).

Edited February 16, 2021 by checkmatechamp13

[Via Garibaldi 8]

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The thing that annoyed me is that some "advocates" got people riled up by telling people that their routes were going to be eliminated (Q32, Q49, Q66, etc) Their logic was "Well, it doesn't take me from Point A to Point B exactly like the old route used to, so therefore it was eliminated and I have the right to advertise it as such". I made sure to call them out on it (wasn't expecting them to change their attitude, but that was to inform the more reasonable people in the crowd). 

Well it's a service cut in their mind because their trip is now longer. You're annoyed that people want to keep their service that they depend on... Smh...

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well it's a service cut in their mind because their trip is now longer. You're annoyed that people want to keep their service that they depend on... Smh...

The Q66 was cut back to Northern Blvd & 51st Street. That equates to the route being eliminated entirely....okay....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The Q66 was cut back to Northern Blvd & 51st Street. That equates to the route being eliminated entirely....okay....

Not entirely no, and it's misleading, but I definitely a service cut for people that have to now transfer, etc.

[LGA Link N Train]

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Not entirely no, and it's misleading, but I definitely a service cut for people that have to now transfer, etc.

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

[Lex]

4 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

It tends to tank around there.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

 

13 minutes ago, Lex said:

It tends to tank around there.

Yeah, I'm sure the  's thought process was to make it more direct and shorten the length of the trip. It's pretty much as direct as it gets with the proposal, with only one or two turns, but there are people that prefer the bus over the subway, some because they feel safer on the subway. The Q32 is an example of that, as are lines like the M1, M2, M3 and M4.

[Cait Sith]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

Ridership on the LIC end tends to be on the low side, the real bulk of the Q66's ridership stems from 51st all the way to Flushing, hence why there are(or were) Woodside short turns during the rush hour.

[NewFlyer 230]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

In addition to what everyone else said, I think they also want to cut it back to improve reliability on the route. 
I personally think the route should terminate at Steinway St because from personal experience there are always folks who board/get off there that ride to/from points along Northern Blvd. Plus there is a mini shopping plaza at 48th street that would require people to have to walk from 54th street which is technically the last stop on Woodside bound buses. 
 

Other than that buses tend to carry air along 21st unless the Q69 was a no show. Then you’ll have people ride usually from 21st-Queensbridge to 35th Ave. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by NewFlyer 230

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Not entirely no, and it's misleading

That's my point...

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

but I definitely a service cut for people that have to now transfer, etc.

Not denying that...

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

It will be soon: https://www.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-announces-20-additional-subway-stations-receive-accessibility

[bobtehpanda]

5 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's my point...

Not denying that...

It will be soon: https://www.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-announces-20-additional-subway-stations-receive-accessibility

Dated "December 19, 2019"

More recently: https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/personality/interviews-profiles/conversation-quemuel-arroyo-mtas-first-chief-accessibility

Quote

How does the current pandemic and potential future cuts threaten the agency’s progress and plans for accessibility projects?

It’s a major concern for me. The Capital Plan that was unveiled prior to COVID looks very differently today. Those funding sources and that pot of money might not be what people expect it to be today. We need to be cognizant of the impact that the organization has had because of COVID. No different than what every other business or organization throughout the world is facing. We need to come back to the table, take the temperature, understand where we're at today and what we're able to deliver. 

 

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Dated "December 19, 2019"

More recently: https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/personality/interviews-profiles/conversation-quemuel-arroyo-mtas-first-chief-accessibility

Fair enough, but at the time that draft was proposed, that station was planned to be ADA-accessible, so it was reasonable to make a proposal based off that assumption. (Not making any evaluations of the proposal itself in this statement).

But you're right. opefully the feds do come through with sufficient capital and operating funding and the installation of the elevators can proceed as planned. 

[bobtehpanda]

18 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Fair enough, but at the time that draft was proposed, that station was planned to be ADA-accessible, so it was reasonable to make a proposal based off that assumption. (Not making any evaluations of the proposal itself in this statement).

But you're right. opefully the feds do come through with sufficient capital and operating funding and the installation of the elevators can proceed as planned. 

TBH, it was pretty bold of them to start proposing redesigns like that when the stations didn't even have a completion timeframe other than "sometime before 2024" and the MTA does not have a good track record of on-time project delivery.

I feel like a prerequisite for cutting a route back to an accessible station requires the station to be accessible.

[checkmatechamp13]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

TBH, it was pretty bold of them to start proposing redesigns like that when the stations didn't even have a completion timeframe other than "sometime before 2024" and the MTA does not have a good track record of on-time project delivery.

I feel like a prerequisite for cutting a route back to an accessible station requires the station to be accessible.

To be fair, for a lot of the elevator projects specifically, they seemed to be running on or close to schedule, since one of Byford's main goals was to expand accessibility.

[Lawrence St]

Bringing this over from the subway fourm:

I propose these changes to the M60-SBS and Q19:

Proposal 1:

Q19: Rerouted from Astoria-2nd St to Lexington Av/125th St. Increase in service frequency.

M60-SBS: Skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport.

Proposal 2:

M60-SBS split into two services:

M60-SBS: 106th St to Astoria Blvd/77th St, making all stops on Astoria Blvd. Service would run every 10 minutes.

M60x-SBS: 106th St to LGA Airport (All Terminals), skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport. Service would run every 15-20 minutes.

This is a similar setup to how the Q10/Q10A originally were.

[Cait Sith]

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Bringing this over from the subway fourm:

I propose these changes to the M60-SBS and Q19:

Proposal 1:

Q19: Rerouted from Astoria-2nd St to Lexington Av/125th St. Increase in service frequency.

M60-SBS: Skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport.

Proposal 2:

M60-SBS split into two services:

M60-SBS: 106th St to Astoria Blvd/77th St, making all stops on Astoria Blvd. Service would run every 10 minutes.

M60x-SBS: 106th St to LGA Airport (All Terminals), skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport. Service would run every 15-20 minutes.

This is a similar setup to how the Q10/Q10A originally were.

Wouldn't work, Astoria Blvd Station is one hell of an artery to skip, as a bulk of the M60s ridership also comes from that station. Steinway also gets a decent amount of usage to and from the airport.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Cait Sith

[NewFlyer 230]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Bringing this over from the subway fourm:

I propose these changes to the M60-SBS and Q19:

Proposal 1:

Q19: Rerouted from Astoria-2nd St to Lexington Av/125th St. Increase in service frequency.

M60-SBS: Skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport.

Proposal 2:

M60-SBS split into two services:

M60-SBS: 106th St to Astoria Blvd/77th St, making all stops on Astoria Blvd. Service would run every 10 minutes.

M60x-SBS: 106th St to LGA Airport (All Terminals), skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport. Service would run every 15-20 minutes.

This is a similar setup to how the Q10/Q10A originally were.

On the other thread I proposed to have the M60 to stop at the Astoria Blvd station then run nonstop to LGA. 
To make up for the loss of service I proposed to make the Q19 run more frequently and possibly have half the buses go to 125th & Lexington Ave while the others go to Astoria 2nd Ave. This could possibly result in some confusion though because people in this city don’t look at the signs. I can already see a bunch of angry people ending up in Harlem when they wanted to go to Astoria  .

So maybe designate Harlem trips as the Q19M or Q89.

[B35 via Church]

On 2/15/2021 at 9:04 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

The thing that I wonder is, at what point did they rush and make some of these stupid decisions? You take a look at some reasonably well thought-out ideas (e.g. Cutting the Q66 back to 51st Street, Creating the QT46/47, etc), and then you look at the QT77, QT84, and QT88 and wonder what they were thinking...remember this thing was supposed to be done by December 2019, and they made that deadline by about 2 days IIRC...

Well that's just it - I'm not so sure too many of these ideas were even rushed (regardless of the more favorable or unfavorable portions of this redesign).....

On 2/15/2021 at 9:04 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

The thing that annoyed me is that some "advocates" got people riled up by telling people that their routes were going to be eliminated (Q32, Q49, Q66, etc) Their logic was "Well, it doesn't take me from Point A to Point B exactly like the old route used to, so therefore it was eliminated and I have the right to advertise it as such". I made sure to call them out on it (wasn't expecting them to change their attitude, but that was to inform the more reasonable people in the crowd). 

Yeah, you have black & white thinkers like that..... Needless to say, all cuts are not eliminations, but all eliminations are definitely cuts; one of those type of ordeals.... Of the ones that aren't intentionally spreading misinformation, what they really mean to convey is that (that part of) their commute has been destroyed - that's where conflation tends to occur.... To sum it up, there is a bit of interchangeability between the terms "cut" & "elimination".... Hell, it even happens on here on a whole forum full of transit savvy enthusiasts at times - although we don't go off the deep end with being obtuse regarding the nuance between the two.....

On 2/16/2021 at 2:16 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

Vast majority of the Q66's patronage is b/w Jackson Hgts. & Flushing.... It's not really about having people xfer to the subway per se.....

On 2/16/2021 at 3:45 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

In addition to what everyone else said, I think they also want to cut it back to improve reliability on the route. 
I personally think the route should terminate at Steinway St because from personal experience there are always folks who board/get off there that ride to/from points along Northern Blvd. Plus there is a mini shopping plaza at 48th street that would require people to have to walk from 54th street which is technically the last stop on Woodside bound buses. 
 

Other than that buses tend to carry air along 21st unless the Q69 was a no show. Then you’ll have people ride usually from 21st-Queensbridge to 35th Ave. 

You would think that, but I'd say the proposed QT66 is as such, for no other reason than to shave costs.....

As far as what the Q66 should do, if not for cutting it back to Northern Blvd. , I'd have it take over the Q104 routing south of Northern Blvd.... Stubbing the thing at Steinway would actually be more pointless than running it to QBP (hell, at least you have NB riders (moreso than SB riders) that do use it interchangeably with the Q69 b/w QBP & the Ravenswood houses).... Having buses start at Steinway OTOH would have too many buses running empty until you hit that mall on 48th & too many buses heading back west running more emptier west of Northern Blvd. than the current QBP bound Q66's do...

[B35 via Church]

17 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Bringing this over from the subway fourm:

I propose these changes to the M60-SBS and Q19:

Proposal 1:

Q19: Rerouted from Astoria-2nd St to Lexington Av/125th St. Increase in service frequency.

M60-SBS: Skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport.

Proposal 2:

M60-SBS split into two services:

M60-SBS: 106th St to Astoria Blvd/77th St, making all stops on Astoria Blvd. Service would run every 10 minutes.

M60x-SBS: 106th St to LGA Airport (All Terminals), skips all stops between 1st Av & Terminal B, runs directly on GCP to Airport. Service would run every 15-20 minutes.

This is a similar setup to how the Q10/Q10A originally were.

The Q10a was a perfect example of an idea that looked good on paper, but never really panned out for the better..... Problem with it was that the demand for JFK stemmed way more from the residents of (and from off other routes that the Q10 connected to, on down the line) the areas that the Q10A bypassed... In other words, the demand for JFK from Union Tpke. subway sta. in particular wasn't nearly high enough to dedicate a whole bus route for it.....

So as for what you're proposing (proposal 1 or whatever), what you're attempting to do here is basically cutting off a nose to spite a face.... To deter intra-Queens usage on the M60, you're suggesting Q19's run to Manhattan (even if it's only to Lex-125th) to have the M60 solely transport Manhattan riders to/from LGA.... This completely ignores the actual demand for LGA for ppl. coming off the Astoria (subway) line, as the Q19 does not serve LGA.... The fact of the matter is that intra-Queens uasge on the M60 isn't near as much a problem on the M60 as much as it is the route running along 125th that hampers the thing..... Proposal 2 or whatever is even more ridiculous; there is zero need for an SBS route running between Manhattan & Bulova, because you have this apparent incessant fixation to have M60's running on the GCP....

13 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

On the other thread I proposed to have the M60 to stop at the Astoria Blvd station then run nonstop to LGA.

To make up for the loss of service I proposed to make the Q19 run more frequently and possibly have half the buses go to 125th & Lexington Ave while the others go to Astoria 2nd Ave. This could possibly result in some confusion though because people in this city don’t look at the signs. I can already see a bunch of angry people ending up in Harlem when they wanted to go to Astoria  .

So maybe designate Harlem trips as the Q19M or Q89.

See above.... I'm not seeing the need to inject the Q19 into any of this involving the M60.... IIRC, you were the same person in concurrence with the notion that the Q19 should take over the Q48 portion b/w Main st. Flushing & Astoria/108th - and to then tack this onto it? Anyway, while the Q19 could stand to use more service either way, it doesn't have to run to Manhattan (in any facet) to justify a service addition.... The extra service could simply be short turns stopping dead at Astoria from Flushing, since most WB trips tank out there FWIW....