Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Future ENY OP]

2 minutes ago, Transit Enthusiast said:

A route to North Shore Hospital in Manhasset as well (doesn't the N25 bus go there)?

I believe the N25 does go to North Shore University Hosp..

[Transit Enthusiast]

46 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

I believe the N25 does go to North Shore University Hosp..

And the N26 as well on Weekdays.

[jaf0519]

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

What's replacing that portion between Sutphin and Merrick? (Current Q24/5/83/84/85)?

Also, when it's time to attend these Queens re-design meetings that something that needs to be mentioned.  They should leave the Merrick Blvd/Archer Ave stop alone.

It doesn’t matter anymore since the original plan was scrapped. We will have to wait until some point in this first quarter of 2022 for them to release their new plan. Originally nothing was going to replace it. All bus service in Jamaica with a few exceptions would only serve the LIRR, Jamaica Center, or 165 St Term. None would serve multiple. Only the QT55, 56, and QT67 (which was a combo of the Q112/110/36) would cover Jamaica Ave between Sutphin and 168 St. Archer wasn’t even supposed to have any service west of Jamaica Center, plus no busway was planned at the point that they released the draft. In addition, only Main St and Kissena Blvd would be corridors between Jamaica and Flushing since the Q65 was rerouted and the Q17 split up.

[jaf0519]

Honestly, looking back at the now scrapped plan, I feel like people are being a little harsh. If you look purely at the routes themselves and not the frequencies, since the frequencies are an issue in general, the routes aren’t that bad. Out of all of them the only real issues I see are:

• QT24: Why does Patchen Ave still need a one seat ride to Jamaica? I get that not every can take the  but that doesn’t mean giving people one seat rides. Might as well have it continue all the way to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza if you can’t change it
• QT34: Does Winchester Blvd really need a bus route, especially since Little Neck Pkwy lost most service? And does North Shore Hospital really need that much service? Nice to have a connection from the west but still.
• QT50: The Bronx needs to connect to LGA. Not like this though.
• Lack of a QT53: Like the fact that all Woodhaven service ends at Elmhurst. Killing the entire Q53 was extremely dumb though.
• QT61: Does 59 St in Manhattan rally need a crosstown. 57 St is literally two blocks away with two of them.
• The abominations that are the QT74 an QT84
• Random Terminals: QT22 and QT62 ending in Cedarhurst, QT64 ending at 164/Hillside, QT68 ending at Jamaica Hospital, and the QT85 and QT86 ending just south and north of Main ST  

Everything else is either good or needs tweaking not redrawing from scratch. Routes that others have pointed out as weird like the QT14 (Q10/64 combo), QT81 (Q15/15A/19/48 combo), or QT88 (Q11/21/41) are excellent to me since they are routes that would likely have 90 to 100% turnover at their respective subway stations (Forest Hills/Kew Gardens, Flushing, and Ozone Park) and would provide an extra bit of connectivity and eliminate layovers in crowded areas. 

Overall I just hope that while the MTA fixes some of the major issues with the plan, that they don’t remove some actual good ideas in the process. 

[Future ENY OP]

11 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

Honestly, looking back at the now scrapped plan, I feel like people are being a little harsh. If you look purely at the routes themselves and not the frequencies, since the frequencies are an issue in general, the routes aren’t that bad. Out of all of them the only real issues I see are:

• QT24: Why does Patchen Ave still need a one seat ride to Jamaica? I get that not every can take the  but that doesn’t mean giving people one seat rides. Might as well have it continue all the way to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza if you can’t change it
• QT34: Does Winchester Blvd really need a bus route, especially since Little Neck Pkwy lost most service? And does North Shore Hospital really need that much service? Nice to have a connection from the west but still.
• QT50: The Bronx needs to connect to LGA. Not like this though.
• Lack of a QT53: Like the fact that all Woodhaven service ends at Elmhurst. Killing the entire Q53 was extremely dumb though.
• QT61: Does 59 St in Manhattan rally need a crosstown. 57 St is literally two blocks away with two of them.
• The abominations that are the QT74 an QT84
• Random Terminals: QT22 and QT62 ending in Cedarhurst, QT64 ending at 164/Hillside, QT68 ending at Jamaica Hospital, and the QT85 and QT86 ending just south and north of Main ST  

Everything else is either good or needs tweaking not redrawing from scratch. Routes that others have pointed out as weird like the QT14 (Q10/64 combo), QT81 (Q15/15A/19/48 combo), or QT88 (Q11/21/41) are excellent to me since they are routes that would likely have 90 to 100% turnover at their respective subway stations (Forest Hills/Kew Gardens, Flushing, and Ozone Park) and would provide an extra bit of connectivity and eliminate layovers in crowded areas. 

Overall I just hope that while the MTA fixes some of the major issues with the plan, that they don’t remove some actual good ideas in the process. 

That's what happened with B40 many years ago with Broadway Junction to Williamsburg Bridge via Broadway.. I don't think we need a same repeat of this.. TA will find a way to merge the QT24 with another route and eliminate the Williamsburg Br portion of the route.

If anything I'd extend this QT24 to Woodhull Hospital- Flushing Avenue Sta .

[Via Garibaldi 8]

37 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

Honestly, looking back at the now scrapped plan, I feel like people are being a little harsh. If you look purely at the routes themselves and not the frequencies, since the frequencies are an issue in general, the routes aren’t that bad. Out of all of them the only real issues I see are:

• QT24: Why does Patchen Ave still need a one seat ride to Jamaica? I get that not every can take the  but that doesn’t mean giving people one seat rides. Might as well have it continue all the way to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza if you can’t change it
• QT34: Does Winchester Blvd really need a bus route, especially since Little Neck Pkwy lost most service? And does North Shore Hospital really need that much service? Nice to have a connection from the west but still.
• QT50: The Bronx needs to connect to LGA. Not like this though.
• Lack of a QT53: Like the fact that all Woodhaven service ends at Elmhurst. Killing the entire Q53 was extremely dumb though.
• QT61: Does 59 St in Manhattan rally need a crosstown. 57 St is literally two blocks away with two of them.
• The abominations that are the QT74 an QT84
• Random Terminals: QT22 and QT62 ending in Cedarhurst, QT64 ending at 164/Hillside, QT68 ending at Jamaica Hospital, and the QT85 and QT86 ending just south and north of Main ST  

Everything else is either good or needs tweaking not redrawing from scratch. Routes that others have pointed out as weird like the QT14 (Q10/64 combo), QT81 (Q15/15A/19/48 combo), or QT88 (Q11/21/41) are excellent to me since they are routes that would likely have 90 to 100% turnover at their respective subway stations (Forest Hills/Kew Gardens, Flushing, and Ozone Park) and would provide an extra bit of connectivity and eliminate layovers in crowded areas. 

Overall I just hope that while the MTA fixes some of the major issues with the plan, that they don’t remove some actual good ideas in the process. 

I don't think people were harsh at all. The redesign is supposed to be for the commuters and if it doesn't help people get around better then what's the point?  A lot of these changes essentially force people to have to make several transfers, so yes, the routes themselves may be a tad more reliable, but at the sake of people having to transfer a lot more and the more transfers, the more likely you are to be delayed, as more has to work in order to make those connections. I'm sorry, but going outside of this forum, the average rider does not want to give up that much convenience. 

For some people, public transportation is not a must. People do it and make the sacrifice, so if you make getting around too complicated, people give up, and I'm not just saying that. I'm speaking from personal experience and from feedback of many other commuters. Now, some sacrifices have to be made, but some of the routes are just ridiculous. Make changes that need to be made for the better, not just for the hell of making changes or trying to save money. That's not how it should be, so the public has spoken loud and clear in the Bronx and in Queens and the  needs to take that feedback, go back and come out with something better. What is especially disturbing is what they came out with in Northeast Queens, a part of Queens that is one of the most bus dependent in the borough. Instead of making better connections, they tried to create problems where there were none. Just stupid. I also find this whole QT thing dumb and overly complicated. Temporary or not, keep the Q and then a number and leave it that way.

I think they should consider making small changes like they did in the Bronx local bus network. Tweak some lines, combine some stops, come out with a few new routes and leave the ones that work alone and try to make those better from a connectivity standpoint, but there is no need to come out with a total redesign.  We're not reinventing the wheel here. People need certain lines for certain trips every day. There's your bead and butter routes and those shouldn't be screwed with to the point of people yelling and screaming.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

On 1/3/2022 at 7:29 AM, Mtatransit said:

There is definitely demand for bus trips from that portions of Jackson Heights, to the QCM/Elmhurst vicinity. However, the demand is not nearly as strong or certain as current demand to 74th. In fact you can probably just reroute the Q72 to QCM away from Rego Park by making that turn onto 57th Avenue from Junction, so there is no need to impact the entire area's routes and existing ridership to accomplish that connection. Matter of fact Q72 is one of the weakest route in that entire area (with the sole exception to Q48), and that is with it serving an express  stop and LGA. With that in mind, the QT74 will perform even worse, unless it is running every 2 minutes or something.

I think we're referring to two different things. I'm referring to the QT10 being a combination of the present-day Q33 and Q29. The QT10 and QT72 aren't really close enough to be used interchangeably for service to QCM.

On 1/3/2022 at 7:29 AM, Mtatransit said:

The issue with the Q49 is that you really don't need a route on 35th Avenue, or even on 90th Street. 35th Ave and 89th Street is always a busy stop. That is a 5 minute walk to the 7, yet people use it. Why? because they (and myself) find it convenient. (as well as having a proper cover from the elements at 74th Street). The routes main purpose is so passengers wouldn't need to walk to Roosevelt, take the  then transfer again to the QB Expresses. Therefore if the proposed routes are going to drop them off at a local  station anyways, most passengers first instinct will be to walk, and if there is a bus coming they will hop on (similar to today's Q72 ridership pattern at Roosevelt).

The QT74 has almost none of the conveniences, and on top of that ends near Elmhurst Hospital? I can not think of anyone who willingly will want to travel down Elmhurst Avenue to get to Elmhurst Hospital. Theoretically if we were to have a crosstown 90th St/Elmhurst Avenue bus, at least have it serve the Grand Av station or something, this way at the minimum it will serve Elmhurst proper.  

To be clear, my stance on the QT74 is that it should be extended from Elmhurst Hospital to Broadway & Roosevelt. (As a matter of fact, that would also provide a connection from the 90th Street station to the ADA-accessible station at Jackson Heights).

On 1/3/2022 at 7:29 AM, Mtatransit said:

With your question of a route going on 31st Avenue (presumely a combined Q33/Q49), no because most of the ridership are off the bus by 31st Avenue. By Astoria Blvd, the bus Q49 is usually carrying air.

My first thought was to have a route running across 35th Avenue, ending at Junction Blvd, and then a separate route running up 74th/75th Street and across 31st Avenue. (I was trying to figure out how to get the QT74 up to 23rd Avenue, so that the QT61 could be truncated to Bulova Center...I'm not wild about buses making that loop, but if they serve it, they should terminate there)

But now that you mention it, perhaps another way would be to have the 35th Avenue route run up 82nd/83rd, and then use that to take over the 23rd Avenue portion of the proposed QT61. (That way, most present-day Q33 riders maintain access to Broadway & Roosevelt).

On 1/3/2022 at 7:29 AM, Mtatransit said:

When you have an overwhelming demand to a certain area, most of the routes should be tailored towards there, with a couple of grid routes here and there (I am thinking of a better you, a non glorified version of the Q31).

You mean the QT64?

On 1/3/2022 at 7:29 AM, Mtatransit said:

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean we do nothing. Some changes are still good for the network. For example if they reroute the QT30 down 164th Street, it will still achieve the goal that the MTA set out to achieve: reduce route duplication along Kissena, as well preserving most existing ridership on the Q65 and the Q17 coming from Flushing

I think they figured that since that part of the QT65 (between 46th Avenue & HHE) is mostly parkland, it would be better to have it run down Utopia Parkway, which is in the middle of a residential area.

On 1/3/2022 at 7:29 AM, Mtatransit said:

I guess what I mean to say is 3 vehicle trips. It really seems like the MTA wants everyone to transfer to the QT17 in NE Queens, both from passenger north of N Blvd as well as south it, and transfer again onto the subway at Flushing

I do agree those NE Queens purple routes should run full-time, but I don't think it's in an effort to get everyone in that area onto the QT17. Remember that the QT15 would be more convenient for riders transferring from points south, and the QT30/31/73 swing down towards points south and provide decent coverage there. (Though taking a second look, that QT31 should definitely run later...ending at 8pm on weekdays and 7:30pm on weekends...yikes! Should probably start at 5am on weekdays as well)

For points north, it's more confined to Beechhurst and the lower-ridership portions of the present-day Q16. (Not to say it isn't a problem, like I said I agree that they should run full-time. But it's confined to certain portions of NE Queens that will be directed towards the QT17).

5 hours ago, Transit Enthusiast said:

Adding onto the Queens Bus Redesign, I see the Q44 Select Bus Service is supposed to be extended into Fordham Plaza (been a long time coming, so bravo to them), but at the same time, will be truncated to Sutphin Boulevard and 94th Avenue (at the Q25/Q34/Q65 terminal). What are your thoughts?

Honestly, I like the Fordham Extension part, but it should follow the Bx9/17 route (continue up East 180th, right on Southern, left on Fordham, left onto Washington, right onto 189th, and right into Fordham Plaza).

And honestly, the Q44-SBS should still go to Merrick Boulevard.

The point of going across 182nd Street is to provide somewhat of a crosstown route between East 180th Street and Fordham Road. Particularly connecting the hospital (and to a lesser extent, that "Little Italy" area on 187th Street to points east.

4 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

What's replacing that portion between Sutphin and Merrick? (Current Q24/5/83/84/85)?

Also, when it's time to attend these Queens re-design meetings that something that needs to be mentioned.  They should leave the Merrick Blvd/Archer Ave stop alone.

The QT44 will run as far as Parsons/Archer. (It'll be going down 150th/153rd instead of Sutphin. Actually, taking a second look at it, the next stop after Parsons/Archer will be Queens Blvd & Main Street...no stops at Hillside at all. That's definitely a mistake (but hopefully one that will be corrected).

In any case, under that plan, you'd have to transfer to the QT55/56/67 along Jamaica Avenue. (Some of the other routes go to Merrick, but those are the "dash" routes heading out towards SE Queens).

4 hours ago, Transit Enthusiast said:

A route to North Shore Hospital in Manhasset as well (doesn't the N25 bus go there)?

The N25 does go there, but it doesn't go to Queens. The best it offers is a connection to the Q46 or N22/24.

3 hours ago, Transit Enthusiast said:

And the N26 as well on Weekdays.

It does, but again, it's a rush hour-only route. There is some value to having a full-time connection from Queens to the hospital (and it's a less than 2 mile extension from Little Neck Parkway down a relatively quick road). 

2 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

QT34: Does Winchester Blvd really need a bus route, especially since Little Neck Pkwy lost most service? And does North Shore Hospital really need that much service? Nice to have a connection from the west but still.

I agree. It should run down Little Neck Parkway (which would also provide more service along a still-busy part of Hillside. The QT36 can't handle it alone at those frequencies.

2 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

QT61: Does 59 St in Manhattan rally need a crosstown. 57 St is literally two blocks away with two of them.

I don't think it's about making a crosstown route in that area, but more about providing the connection from Queens to Columbus Circle for those seeking the UWS.

2 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Random Terminals: QT22 and QT62 ending in Cedarhurst, QT64 ending at 164/Hillside, QT68 ending at Jamaica Hospital, and the QT85 and QT86 ending just south and north of Main ST  

I think the QT22 (and QT62 to a small extent, since it stops at Rockaway Blvd) ending in Cedarhurst was an attempt at avoiding duplication with the  I agree the simplest thing would be to just terminate them at Far Rockaway.

The QT86, I think that has to do with proximity to the College Point Depot (as mentioned above, it should definitely extend into the residential section of College Point).

The QT85 is to avoid a layover in Downtown Flushing, but I agree it should end by the Horace Harding Expressway (especially since the QT6 is bypassing that part of College Point Blvd)

The QT68, I assume they were trying to avoid some congestion in Downtown Jamaica and go down Hillside which is wider, and figured the hospital was the best option). Also, I think the fact that the current Q83 extends past Parsons/Archer and connects to the  might've inspired them to do this, instead of ending it at Parsons/Archer with the other SE Queens routes.

2 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Everything else is either good or needs tweaking not redrawing from scratch. Routes that others have pointed out as weird like the QT14 (Q10/64 combo), QT81 (Q15/15A/19/48 combo), or QT88 (Q11/21/41) are excellent to me since they are routes that would likely have 90 to 100% turnover at their respective subway stations (Forest Hills/Kew Gardens, Flushing, and Ozone Park) and would provide an extra bit of connectivity and eliminate layovers in crowded areas. 

Overall I just hope that while the MTA fixes some of the major issues with the plan, that they don’t remove some actual good ideas in the process. 

Having full turnover at any point is something you should not be aiming for. That means you mismatched the two halves of the route. And especially for the QT88, I'm not sure what layover space you're saving there. The Woodhaven routes all run straight through, and the QT67 (old Q112) still terminates there.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I also find this whole QT thing dumb and overly complicated. Temporary or not, keep the Q and then a number and leave it that way.

It would be more complicated if they left it as Q. Then when someone is talking about the Q4, you wouldn't know if they're talking about the current Jamaica-Cambria Heights route, or the proposed Jackson Heights-Downtown Brooklyn route.

[jaf0519]

36 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I agree. It should run down Little Neck Parkway (which would also provide more service along a still-busy part of Hillside. The QT36 can't handle it alone at those frequencies.

I don't think it's about making a crosstown route in that area, but more about providing the connection from Queens to Columbus Circle for those seeking the UWS.

The QT86, I think that has to do with proximity to the College Point Depot (as mentioned above, it should definitely extend into the residential section of College Point).

The QT85 is to avoid a layover in Downtown Flushing, but I agree it should end by the Horace Harding Expressway (especially since the QT6 is bypassing that part of College Point Blvd)

Having full turnover at any point is something you should not be aiming for. That means you mismatched the two halves of the route. And especially for the QT88, I'm not sure what layover space you're saving there. The Woodhaven routes all run straight through, and the QT67 (old Q112) still terminates there.

Just to respond to some of this:

• We disagree slightly on the QT36/Little Neck Pkwy, but mainly on frequency and stuff. Part of my issue with the QT36 is that the MTA is using it (and the QT87) to cover the eastern portion of their Horace Harding corridor (with the QT12 on the western portion). I understand that Douglaston Pkwy/Winchester could be served well by a route but at the same time they have east-west access albeit with some walking already. As for LN pkwy proper, I’m fine with the QT87 serving the northern half, but their should definitely be a north south route the whole length, and I feel currently the Q36 OVERSERVES it, so rerouting the QT36 would be too much, especially with anything more than weekdays only service.
• QT61: that is definitely true, but while doing that it also is acting as a crosstown connection. I just don’t know how to feel about traffic and stuff, seeing the rest of the QT61’s route in Queens itself.
• QT86: I agree that it is because of the depot, but I feel that College Point is served enough by the QT15 and QT84 (not so much the QT84 itself since that thing is a mess, but two routes in general).Maybe have the QT86 cover the Q34 and end in Mitchell Gardens.
• QT85: That makes more sense than just ending over by Avery Ave.
• Look at the full turnover routes. In Flushing, the Q15/15A and Q19/48 wouldn’t be taking up space since the QT81 is a thru route. The QT14 is less like this as the route would carry close to air between Kew Gardens and Forest Hills, but that would reduce congestion a bit by both stations without buses parked on Kew Gardens Rd or 108 St. And as for Woodhaven, I agree with the MTA’s approach to reducing redundancy. There should only be local route from Elmhurst south. The layover space would be occupied by three routes, the QT67, and the Lindenwood half and Old Howard/Hamilton Beach half of the QT88. Since I don’t think either half should continue to Elmhurst with the QT83 doing so, they would be combined so only the QT67 actually terminates at Rockaway Blvd

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Having full turnover at any point is something you should not be aiming for. That means you mismatched the two halves of the route....

You mean like the QT11, QT14, & QT18....

Blatantly egregious as to what they're aiming to accomplish with that

Edited January 5, 2022 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

20 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

We disagree slightly on the QT36/Little Neck Pkwy, but mainly on frequency and stuff. Part of my issue with the QT36 is that the MTA is using it (and the QT87) to cover the eastern portion of their Horace Harding corridor (with the QT12 on the western portion). I understand that Douglaston Pkwy/Winchester could be served well by a route but at the same time they have east-west access albeit with some walking already. As for LN pkwy proper, I’m fine with the QT87 serving the northern half, but their should definitely be a north south route the whole length, and I feel currently the Q36 OVERSERVES it, so rerouting the QT36 would be too much, especially with anything more than weekdays only service.

To be clear, I don't think the QT36 should be rerouted at all. The eastern portion of Hillside Avenue needs the coverage (and the n22 is pick-up/drop-off only heading to/from Mineola, so that's not going to work for riders heading to/from Jamaica. Plus, I think there is some value in the connection from North Shore LIJ to the Hillside Avenue corridor).

Thinking about it some more, I think the reason they have it running up Winchester is for Q30 riders heading to Jamaica (to cover more of HHE compared to running it up LNP). 

If you really want a route running the whole length (which I think would necessarily result in the QT87 being cut back to HHE/LNP), then probably the simplest solution is to branch the QT34 (have half running to the hospital and half running to the Little Neck LIRR station). But I think the simplest solution is the best, and just have the QT34 run up LNP, even if it provides a bit more service than might otherwise be warranted (plus, it's a few minutes quicker to/from Jamaica running via Hillside instead of looping down to Jamaica Avenue like the current Q36 does, and there's the connection to the hospital, so that might boost ridership compared to current levels).

20 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

QT61: that is definitely true, but while doing that it also is acting as a crosstown connection. I just don’t know how to feel about traffic and stuff, seeing the rest of the QT61’s route in Queens itself.

Well that's a separate story. Not wild about the route going anywhere past Broadway & Roosevelt (and definitely not all the way out to the end of 23rd Avenue), but if that issue was corrected, it wouldn't really be any worse than the present-day Q32.

20 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

QT86: I agree that it is because of the depot, but I feel that College Point is served enough by the QT15 and QT84 (not so much the QT84 itself since that thing is a mess, but two routes in general).Maybe have the QT86 cover the Q34 and end in Mitchell Gardens.

Mitchell Gardens would definitely be better than the proposed terminal by the highway. But I think the better solution is to have the QT86 run up 130th Street - 20th Avenue - 132nd Street - 14th Avenue - 127th Street, and then either terminate somewhere in that area, or head over to the QT15 terminal by the park. The QT64 can run up Francis Lewis Blvd north of Utopia Parkway, and then cover the eastern part of the QT84, before swinging back up 132nd Street and 14th Avenue.

20 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

Look at the full turnover routes. In Flushing, the Q15/15A and Q19/48 wouldn’t be taking up space since the QT81 is a thru route. The QT14 is less like this as the route would carry close to air between Kew Gardens and Forest Hills, but that would reduce congestion a bit by both stations without buses parked on Kew Gardens Rd or 108 St. And as for Woodhaven, I agree with the MTA’s approach to reducing redundancy. There should only be local route from Elmhurst south. The layover space would be occupied by three routes, the QT67, and the Lindenwood half and Old Howard/Hamilton Beach half of the QT88. Since I don’t think either half should continue to Elmhurst with the QT83 doing so, they would be combined so only the QT67 actually terminates at Rockaway Blvd

My biggest issue is with the QT88. The Q11/21 complement each other. That's not the same as duplication or redundancy. That's basically saying that every route with a branch (Q15/15A, Q30, Bx1/2, B38, Bx40/42, Bx4/4A etc) is duplicating the other one when that isn't the case.

[Mtatransit]

16 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think we're referring to two different things. I'm referring to the QT10 being a combination of the present-day Q33 and Q29. The QT10 and QT72 aren't really close enough to be used interchangeably for service to QCM.

Then I see less value in having a direct service. At least not at the expense of 74th St riders. Potential ridership loss north of Roosevelt Ave will far exceed any potential new ridership ridership riding through from QCM/Elmhurst gained through a one seat ride.

Maybe they can plow some of their savings from rerouting the QT61 onto 74th Street, into extending the current Q29 up to Northern/82nd so there still remains a one seat ride to QCM for most JH riders. But I have this feeling that the MTA don't want to operate duplicative service despite planning to operating three service on the weakest corridor today (108th Street)

All of the routes in the area serves as subway feeders, and they serve their intended purpose, it is like Bee Line deciding to change the 39 Hartsdale Bus (a railroad feeder bus) and combining with another route that serves a whole different purpose.

16 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

To be clear, my stance on the QT74 is that it should be extended from Elmhurst Hospital to Broadway & Roosevelt. (As a matter of fact, that would also provide a connection from the 90th Street station to the ADA-accessible station at Jackson Heights).

My first thought was to have a route running across 35th Avenue, ending at Junction Blvd, and then a separate route running up 74th/75th Street and across 31st Avenue. (I was trying to figure out how to get the QT74 up to 23rd Avenue, so that the QT61 could be truncated to Bulova Center...I'm not wild about buses making that loop, but if they serve it, they should terminate there)

But now that you mention it, perhaps another way would be to have the 35th Avenue route run up 82nd/83rd, and then use that to take over the 23rd Avenue portion of the proposed QT61. (That way, most present-day Q33 riders maintain access to Broadway & Roosevelt).

The majority of the currents Q49 bus is east of 82nd Street, closer towards 88th St/35th Av and/or along 89/90 Street, so rerouting the present day Q33 up 35th Ave wouldn't save the current Q49 ridership.

The Q49 (future QT74) serves its purpose today, and really doesn't need to be changed, aside from its northern terminus, at East Elmhurst/102 where it provides way too many empty miles along Astoria Blvd.

I think that route should be MORE of a residential to subway shuttle than it is today, The Q49 should be rerouted to make a left on Junction from Astoria, and serves northern Junction Blvd and end at where the current Q33 terminates.

I am also not wild in having a bus all the way from Columbus Circle into the deep residential areas of JH. Most of the ridership even on the current Q47 (in both directions) is at 74th Street. By having a bus come from Manhattan and dealing with Queensboro Bridge traffic, buses will be extremely unreliable by the time gets 74th Street. I rather they just extend the QT4 up 74th Street instead

17 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The N25 does go there, but it doesn't go to Queens. The best it offers is a connection to the Q46 or N22/24.

It does, but again, it's a rush hour-only route. There is some value to having a full-time connection from Queens to the hospital (and it's a less than 2 mile extension from Little Neck Parkway down a relatively quick road). 

With the QT34, we can officially said goodbye to the n26 as well as a third of n25's current service. Good for the MTA, really bad for NICE. 

17 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't think it's about making a crosstown route in that area, but more about providing the connection from Queens to Columbus Circle for those seeking the UWS.

That I agree with the plan, its good they finally decided to remove the Q32 or QT61 from 5th/Madison, and onto 59th Street. This way passengers can head uptown without going through Times Square

16 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You mean like the QT11, QT14, & QT18....

Blatantly egregious as to what they're aiming to accomplish with that

When MTA is trying to cut service to duplicate corridor the justification is transferring is good, when they are cutting/combining service the justification is they are trying to serve new markets. Pretty smart reasoning I gotta say

[checkmatechamp13]

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Then I see less value in having a direct service. At least not at the expense of 74th St riders. Potential ridership loss north of Roosevelt Ave will far exceed any potential new ridership ridership riding through from QCM/Elmhurst gained through a one seat ride.

But that's why I mentioned having a route that cuts across 35th Avenue to 82nd/83rd Streets. That would provide coverage for the majority of present-day Q33 riders.

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Maybe they can plow some of their savings from rerouting the QT61 onto 74th Street, into extending the current Q29 up to Northern/82nd so there still remains a one seat ride to QCM for most JH riders. But I have this feeling that the MTA don't want to operate duplicative service despite planning to operating three service on the weakest corridor today (108th Street)

I assume you're referring to the QT11/50/81 with that? (The QT11/58 on the southern part of I don't see any issues with...the QT58 becomes much more direct, and 111th Street is wider than those side streets the Q23 uses to get to/from Corona Plaza).

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

The majority of the currents Q49 bus is east of 82nd Street, closer towards 88th St/35th Av and/or along 89/90 Street, so rerouting the present day Q33 up 35th Ave wouldn't save the current Q49 ridership.

Under my proposal, the QT74 would still run to Broadway & Roosevelt (just via Whitney Avenue/Elmhurst Avenue instead of via 35th Avenue).

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I am also not wild in having a bus all the way from Columbus Circle into the deep residential areas of JH.

Agreed.

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

With the QT34, we can officially said goodbye to the n26 as well as a third of n25's current service. Good for the MTA, really bad for NICE. 

Not necessarily. If anything, I'm sure they'd be happy to hand that responsibility over to the MTA. 

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

When MTA is trying to cut service to duplicate corridor the justification is transferring is good, when they are cutting/combining service the justification is they are trying to serve new markets. Pretty smart reasoning I gotta say

That's a bit oversimplistic. Part of it has to do with the number of people who are being forced to transfer (or who have a transfer eliminated) as part of any particular route change. 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

When MTA is trying to cut service to duplicate corridor the justification is transferring is good, when they are cutting/combining service the justification is they are trying to serve new markets. Pretty smart reasoning I gotta say

That's how the  has always been. When they want to do something, they will find a way to justify it and when they don't they'll find a way to twist the data to favor that as well. I know from experience.

[Bill from Maspeth]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's how the  has always been. When they want to do something, they will find a way to justify it and when they don't they'll find a way to twist the data to favor that as well. I know from experience.

LOL, so true!   That's what happens when you're both the judge and the jury!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

LOL, so true!   That's what happens when you're both the judge and the jury!

Back in 2010, as you know, they axed a bunch of service Citywide, local and express. There were a number of neighborhoods negatively impacted by that, especially in Southern Brooklyn where I'm from. I wrote to some elected officials such as Senator Golden (we met a few years ago in person at his office in Bay Ridge shortly after I started my advocacy group), Assemblymen, etc. and we discussed how we were going to work together to restore a bunch of local and express lines. I think it was the B2 (weekends), B4, B37, X27 & X28 (weekends), and the B64. They agreed to restore most of the lines over time, as we would circulate petitions and elected officials would continue to follow-up with requests, backed also by the union, but the X28 was the most difficult to get restored. 

First they said there wasn't enough money. Then they said there wasn't enough ridership, despite having restored the X27 fully years earlier. We waited and I started circulations petitions again because there was always chatter from commuters that wanted the line restored and could not take the subway because they were not ADA accessible. The most vocal people were mainly in Dyker Heights, which was one of the main reasons they had the X17C pick-up in Bay Ridge on weekends. The  came back and said those people can just take the  train. After multiple requests and the threat of a lawsuit because of a lack of ADA accessible subway stations, the  then softened their stance, and suddenly, there was enough ridership to run the X28 on weekends. LOL Now they didn't bring back the same level of frequency, but it still runs at reasonable headways.

The B37 was also a tough one to get back. I used to get e-mails from then Councilman Vincent Gentile and a bunch of other people, including the union that represents Ulmer Park Depot. It was the union that was also helpful in getting a number of the other lines I mentioned restored, as they stood with the communities and elected officials and kept pressing the  to restore the service, so six years later we got the X28 back and today, just about everything that was cut that I originally pushed to get restored in Southern Brooklyn is back, though the B37 was truncated Northbound. Still better than what it was. What I learned was to be persistent and patient. 

If anyone loses bus service in Queens in this redesign, that is the approach they should take as well.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[N6 Limited]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:40 PM, B35 via Church said:

You mean like the QT11, QT14, & QT18....

Blatantly egregious as to what they're aiming to accomplish with that

The QT18 Is logical, Frequent service on the inner portion of heavily used routes with bus lanes, basically the Subway Setup on a couple of levels, where the middle of the route is "downtown, get in and out of downtown Jamaica, and the purple routes are "express" to the outer end like the  and  . It also provides connections to many routes, goes direct from Hillside to Merrick, bypassing terminal operations in Jamaica, narrow streets like Archer, will get good peak ridership in both directions, nice turn over at 169th st , may encourage through ridership trips, provide options  to riders on on Merrick between Jamaica Center and Hillside, would be helpful during G.Os to 179th, ,  excellent farebox recovery, and easy connection to Union Turnpike routes.  Hillside ave

 

Many of these routes open up travel across Queens and allow/simplify previously difficult or annoying trips that cars make very easy.

On 1/5/2022 at 2:00 PM, Mtatransit said:

When MTA is trying to cut service to duplicate corridor the justification is transferring is good, when they are cutting/combining service the justification is they are trying to serve new markets. Pretty smart reasoning I gotta say

 The  was a "service cut', not all are bad.

The busways on Jamaica and Archer wouldn't be needed as much if 100s of buses weren't rolling down said corridors providing redundant service with light loads. Instead of riders at various stops letting various buses pass and get stuck in traffic, they could simply board the first QT67 they see to move along Jamaica Ave. Lets not forget most SE Queens bus service went to The Jamaica Bus Terminal to serve shopping, the  at 168th St and the   on Hillside, Jamaica Center stub kind of screwed that up. Also, we have free transfers now and they'd be smart to institute unlimited transfers within a certain time frame with OMNY.

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The QT18 Is logical, Frequent service on the inner portion of heavily used routes with bus lanes, basically the Subway Setup on a couple of levels, where the middle of the route is "downtown, get in and out of downtown Jamaica, and the purple routes are "express" to the outer end like the  and  . It also provides connections to many routes, goes direct from Hillside to Merrick, bypassing terminal operations in Jamaica, narrow streets like Archer, will get good peak ridership in both directions, nice turn over at 169th st , may encourage through ridership trips, provide options  to riders on on Merrick between Jamaica Center and Hillside, would be helpful during G.Os to 179th, ,  excellent farebox recovery, and easy connection to Union Turnpike routes.  Hillside ave

This was supposed to be a clean slate approach.... When you intentionally concoct a piecemealed route (based off the current network) that consists of the half-ass serving of two corridors & having the subway as a common midpoint, is poor route design within a bus network.... That is the problem with this redesign in general AFAIC; these routes are drawn to operate separate of within a cohesive network, instead of as part of a cohesive network....

12 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Many of these routes open up travel across Queens and allow/simplify previously difficult or annoying trips that cars make very easy.

Such as?

Edited January 7, 2022 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

On 1/4/2022 at 5:29 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't think people were harsh at all. The redesign is supposed to be for the commuters and if it doesn't help people get around better then what's the point?  A lot of these changes essentially force people to have to make several transfers, so yes, the routes themselves may be a tad more reliable, but at the sake of people having to transfer a lot more and the more transfers, the more likely you are to be delayed, as more has to work in order to make those connections. I'm sorry, but going outside of this forum, the average rider does not want to give up that much convenience.

For as many people that utilize buses in Queens, for as physically large as Queens is, I find that there is way too many of that borough's patrons that is either too silent or too passive when it comes to public transit concerns.... It's one thing for this godforsaken CB of mine here to be rather blasé about public transit, it's another for Maspeth's/Middle Village's CB (CB5 IINM) to be so silent as it relates to this redesign... I'd say the same for that Forest Hills & Rego Park area CB (regardless of the existence of the QBL)....

On 1/4/2022 at 10:16 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

My biggest issue is with the QT88. The Q11/21 complement each other. That's not the same as duplication or redundancy. That's basically saying that every route with a branch (Q15/15A, Q30, Bx1/2, B38, Bx40/42, Bx4/4A etc) is duplicating the other one when that isn't the case.

The biggest problem I have with how they plan on handling Woodhaven/Cross Bay local service, is that they're apparently equating the demand for Lindenwood {[with the Q11's portion south of Pitkin] & [the Q21's portion south of Lindenwood]}.... The one thing I do like about the QT83 is that it's a short turn Q11 with slightly more coverage... If you're going to have the route have that coverage, it may as well serve Lindenwood & end there, instead of bypassing it to stub terminate at 157th/Cross Bay...

I never mentioned it on here (at least I don't think I did), but I would try my hand at having:

• The QT83 directly serve, and terminate somewhere inside Lindenwood...
• The QT88 retain the eastern portion of the route (Old Howard Bch.), and after having served Rockaway Blvd , run straight down Cross Bay to 164th to terminate... Same terminal as the current Q21/Q41.... For the turnaround, buses would go 164th > 84th > 165th > back to Cross Bay....

So instead of having the Q11/Q21 complement each other north of Rockaway Blvd. subway, I would have one solid local route run north of that point instead (as in, the QT83) - to have the QT88 locally serve Cross Bay Blvd, with the QT83 providing some coverage along Cross Bay, before turning off for Lindenwood...

I say this to say, I have always gotten the sense that residents don't really care for buses over on 84th in residential Howard Beach, and that that service would by way more appreciated/utilized by having it run on Cross Bay... Although it certainly doesn't help, I don't think they shun buses solely because Q21's & Q41's operate uni-directionally out there....

On 1/5/2022 at 2:00 PM, Mtatransit said:

When MTA is trying to cut service to duplicate corridor the justification is transferring is good, when they are cutting/combining service the justification is they are trying to serve new markets. Pretty smart reasoning I gotta say

Not sure what you're qualifying as smart reasoning on the MTA's part here..... To me, this reads as if you're conveying the MTA's ability to come up with whatever BS they can to justify whatever they want, is smart reasoning.... Please tell me that's not what you're conveying... LOL...

[IAlam]

12 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The QT18 Is logical, Frequent service on the inner portion of heavily used routes with bus lanes, basically the Subway Setup on a couple of levels, where the middle of the route is "downtown, get in and out of downtown Jamaica, and the purple routes are "express" to the outer end like the  and  . It also provides connections to many routes, goes direct from Hillside to Merrick, bypassing terminal operations in Jamaica, narrow streets like Archer, will get good peak ridership in both directions, nice turn over at 169th st , may encourage through ridership trips, provide options  to riders on on Merrick between Jamaica Center and Hillside, would be helpful during G.Os to 179th, ,  excellent farebox recovery, and easy connection to Union Turnpike routes.  Hillside ave

 

Many of these routes open up travel across Queens and allow/simplify previously difficult or annoying trips that cars make very easy.

 The  was a "service cut', not all are bad.

The busways on Jamaica and Archer wouldn't be needed as much if 100s of buses weren't rolling down said corridors providing redundant service with light loads. Instead of riders at various stops letting various buses pass and get stuck in traffic, they could simply board the first QT67 they see to move along Jamaica Ave. Lets not forget most SE Queens bus service went to The Jamaica Bus Terminal to serve shopping, the  at 168th St and the   on Hillside, Jamaica Center stub kind of screwed that up. Also, we have free transfers now and they'd be smart to institute unlimited transfers within a certain time frame with OMNY.

The QT18 like many other routes in the proposal has a terminal in a bad location. The could've easily gone to QCC and had it terminate there and provided service to the both the college and school that's near by as well as create more of an appeal to ride towards the end of a the line and have more connections and provide more one seat rides. Same with QT31 is should've also served QCC.

On top of that routes that go through a major town center ie Flushing, Jamaica, QCM... all are subject to reliability issues. 
The Q20/44, Q25/34, and Q65 all suffer from major reliability issues right now. These buses get stuck in traffic so they end up leaving Flushing late. Most of the time because of the number of ppl getting on and off at Flushing buses tend to catch up and start bunching. The solution for routes like the Q20/44 was to add a bit of a layover in Flushing, but now if you have a day where the bus is early it'll just sit there and annoy anyone who is just crossing through. But routes like the Q25/34 are so unreliable that the Q17 pick up most of the slack. You can easily tell when people will usually line up for the Q17 when they see no bus on Main St. With a route like the QT81, there is no way it would be reliable going down Roosevelt and 108 so for Q19 riders they now get a slower route than what they have now. 

 

On 1/6/2022 at 8:39 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Back in 2010, as you know, they axed a bunch of service Citywide, local and express. There were a number of neighborhoods negatively impacted by that, especially in Southern Brooklyn where I'm from. I wrote to some elected officials such as Senator Golden (we met a few years ago in person at his office in Bay Ridge shortly after I started my advocacy group), Assemblymen, etc. and we discussed how we were going to work together to restore a bunch of local and express lines. I think it was the B2 (weekends), B4, B37, X27 & X28 (weekends), and the B64. They agreed to restore most of the lines over time, as we would circulate petitions and elected officials would continue to follow-up with requests, backed also by the union, but the X28 was the most difficult to get restored. 

First they said there wasn't enough money. Then they said there wasn't enough ridership, despite having restored the X27 fully years earlier. We waited and I started circulations petitions again because there was always chatter from commuters that wanted the line restored and could not take the subway because they were not ADA accessible. The most vocal people were mainly in Dyker Heights, which was one of the main reasons they had the X17C pick-up in Bay Ridge on weekends. The  came back and said those people can just take the  train. After multiple requests and the threat of a lawsuit because of a lack of ADA accessible subway stations, the  then softened their stance, and suddenly, there was enough ridership to run the X28 on weekends. LOL Now they didn't bring back the same level of frequency, but it still runs at reasonable headways.

The B37 was also a tough one to get back. I used to get e-mails from then Councilman Vincent Gentile and a bunch of other people, including the union that represents Ulmer Park Depot. It was the union that was also helpful in getting a number of the other lines I mentioned restored, as they stood with the communities and elected officials and kept pressing the  to restore the service, so six years later we got the X28 back and today, just about everything that was cut that I originally pushed to get restored in Southern Brooklyn is back, though the B37 was truncated Northbound. Still better than what it was. What I learned was to be persistent and patient. 

If anyone loses bus service in Queens in this redesign, that is the approach they should take as well.

I wish we could petition to bring back the X51 that route is would be extremely useful for me today as the former stops are very close to me  But nowadays there is a shift towards the  appeal of going to/from Flushing as much has changed in the last decade. More so that I honestly It'd probably be stay afloat today if it still existed and maybe have enough to support off-peak service. Maybe even a downtown version would be able to work too. With how crowded  has gotten today it's impressive how everyone just gets dumped there to the point where during peak hours train would leave there with no seats. But there aren't many alternatives the QM3 service is abysmal and doesn't even serve Flushing proper for some reason. It'd maybe be nice if there was a stop at Main and Union to provide alternative service. On top of that the LIRR service to Flushing and nearby stations was just terrible during the morning peak hours. pre covid you'd have to wait more than 30 min for a train to the city. I'm definitely seeing a lot more ppl taking the LIRR to/from Flushing than I used to especially after the city ticket launched, so there is a demand for premium service to Flushing. It's just too bad the X51 was eliminated when I was still in grade school so I never got a chance to ride it.


My biggest issue with this redesign is that they went to prioritized a grid network over a hub network. Because of how the bus network operated for decades brining in people to places like Flushing and Jamaica. These places became destinations within themselves, growing beyond the subway connections they provide. Not everyone going to Flushing or Jamaica is going to the station. There are many intermediate destination before getting to the station or even after the station that people want to go to. A lot of these non green lines will take you out of the neighborhood before making its next stop. Also are smaller town centers that would create excellent mini hubs and transfer points. There are routes like the QT64 that might not have been as useless if it served 188th St Fresh Meadows. Then you have routes like the QT14 which would be more useful extended to Fresh Meadows, rather than being combined with the Q10 and having the QT11 do it. Instead you get the QT87 which looks like it only exist to fill in the gaps. (Like a lot of the 70-80's routes.)

In NE Queens the some of the major town centers are:
These are the routes than need more than 1 or 2 stops to serve the town center.
- Flushing 
- Jamaica

Moderate town centers:
These can be served by at least 1 stop but any bus in the grid system should not bypass it and instead divert there if nearby.
- Fresh Meadows (188th St & LIE)
- Bayside (~Bayside LIRR or Bell & Northern they're close by)
- Queens Village (~Queens Village LIRR)
- Green Acres (Not in NE Queens but relevant for some routes.)
- Great Neck (Great Neck LIRR LIRR) - Yes I know this is Nassau but if the MTA want's to serve North Shore all day there is no reason the MTA can't cut a deal with NICE and replace the n20G which is mainly utilized by Queens residents.

Minor town centers:
Nearby routes should try to serve it or terminate if reasonable.
- College Point (20th Ave from College Point Blvd to Whitestone Expy)
- Bay Terrence
- QCC (Includes Springfield & LIE)
- Queens Village (Springfield & Hillside)
- SJU (Union & Utopia)
- Queens Village (Springfield & Hillside)

One of the other my other grips are the way stop reductions are being handled. While I don't mind having some stops eliminated to speed up service what makes it unbearable is when they then combine it with stop reductions in the express (LTD/SBS) services as well and then offer a reduced frequency. In corridors with the Blue routes the stops are so far apart that most people would have to take the local if they aren't lucky enough to be by a major transfer point. But these local are are operating with terrible headways or are non existent in some cases. This makes it extremely difficult to make local trips within your own neighborhood. If you're child or a senior citizen trying to make a short trip it becomes very difficult especially now that your service is less frequent and probably doesn't stop where you need to go. It seems like most of the frequency is being poured into super limited buses which the elimination of both local and limited stops disincentivizing anyone that needs to make a short trip. Public transit it for everyone and not just those that are going across the boro.

Another issue is the lack of redundancy, if anything this plan thought us why different variations of each service exist in the first place. Having an express and local version of the same route isn't a bad thing whether it's called the same route or not doesn't matter. But what does is when you eliminate most if not all redundancy you just create a huge potential for disruptions to be even worse than they are now. If there are road closures, accidents, lack of BO's, etc... on one route another can pick up the slack. When I see express routes without local counter parts it makes me question what are the people that are too far from an express stop are supposed to do? Especially when that express service is peak only with no local counterpart. During other hours of the day these people are more or less stranded or forced to take a very inefficient route that they'd otherwise not have to make under the current network. Any gain from speed increase from less stops is basically eliminated when a passenger has to then transfer. Not only that a bus route can provide redundancy for a subway line. If either the QBL or Flushing line get disrupted the only alternative for a lot of ppl is the bus. Routes that parallel the subway not only provide a local service to a "limited service" but can sometimes be the only back up when all else fails. See like lack or redundancy in the network it just makes you question do they think that every bus will be able to run the exact route on time without any issues?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

For as many people that utilize buses in Queens, for as physically large as Queens is, I find that there is way too many of that borough's patrons that is either too silent or too passive when it comes to public transit concerns.... It's one thing for this godforsaken CB of mine here to be rather blasé about public transit, it's another for Maspeth's/Middle Village's CB (CB5 IINM) to be so silent as it relates to this redesign... I'd say the same for that Forest Hills & Rego Park area CB (regardless of the existence of the QBL)....

I think part of it could be the thinking that if service is lost, people think they can just drive. That may be true, but the one thing I learned years ago is, in NYC, if you have limited transportation, your neighborhood becomes far less desirable. When my service was cut on Staten Island, I saw firsthand how people in my neighborhood struggled to get to and from work. Commutes were much longer - a good hour or more added round trip because of the cuts and combining of routes. The neighborhood was never the same. Some trips I found I was forced to go by car to another express bus line. I got tired of dealing with all of that, and it ultimately led to me moving. I was used to being able to just walk to my express bus and not have to worry about where to park every day. There are a number of people that complain about their cars being vandalized because people get pissed about commuters parking on their block and taking up the street parking. I thought about all of that. I said to myself, do you want to deal with slashed tires or someone keying your car? lol

You look at neighborhoods like Co-op City. The residents there get it. If their bus service is cut or altered considerably, it would negatively impact thousands of residents, many of whom are seniors, so they would become further isolated. Same thing in my area, which is why people showed up in the hundreds when they proposed to cut service drastically. They also understand that property values would decrease because without good bus service, you're cut off from everything.

Talking about Maspeth, they for years have wanted some sort of express bus. The  shut that down. I think a year or two ago, I reached out to Senator Addabbo about it and it never gained any traction. The late night service is esp. helpful in Queens. If I had to go back to the City by subway, it would take me much longer from Kew Gardens or Forest Hills vs the express bus.

One thing I want to stress to people that live in Queens. Don't think for a second that the  doesn't have an objective, which is to cut their budget on your back. You have a vision of what you think your home lines should be like and the  has their own. The people that speak up the loudest are the ones that will keep their service, and don't accept the idea that it's ok if they cut one or two buses because I can tell you from experience, it isn't. You will feel the impact.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[N6 Limited]

57 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

This was supposed to be a clean slate approach.... When you intentionally concoct a piecemealed route (based off the current network) that consists of the half-ass serving of two corridors & having the subway as a common midpoint, is poor route design within a bus network.... That is the problem with this redesign in general AFAIC; these routes are drawn to operate separate of within a cohesive network, instead of as part of a cohesive network....

Many of those red routes have overlapping service, they're short turns for the busiest sections of a route, but the whole plan provided connectivity.

  

On 1/2/2022 at 6:54 PM, bobtehpanda said:

LMAO, this is a hell of a take.

This screwed over a lot of riders. As an example, the whole blue/red subway-express vs local thing was unnecessarily complicated. Splitting a long bus route subway feeder bus may have its merits, but not at the cost of totally preventing riders from the outer half of the route to get off at the inner half without a bus transfer. Making the subway expresses closed-door with limited connections to intermediate stops and destinations would've screwed over a lot of riders.

The sections where the red routes run are limited sections for the purple routes, not complete bypasses. There probably wouldn't have been much of a problem because the busiest stops would have been accessible.

57 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Such as?

QT71  covers Springfield Blvd and Bell Blvd. North-South route that connects all crossing routes and allows a connection to Merrick Blvd Bus (QT42), Northern Blvd (QT17) and various routes around Rockway Blvd for Far Rockaway, etc.

For example. Hempstead Ave to Green Acres. 

Now: Q27 > Q77 > Q5.

Plan: QT71 > QT42

Queens Village/Cambria Heights/Springfield Gardens to 5 towns

Now: Various Buses to Jamaica or to Q3 > Q113

Plan: Qt71 > QT62

Etc, etc.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 hours ago, IAlam said:

The QT18 like many other routes in the proposal has a terminal in a bad location. The could've easily gone to QCC and had it terminate there and provided service to the both the college and school that's near by as well as create more of an appeal to ride towards the end of a the line and have more connections and provide more one seat rides. Same with QT31 is should've also served QCC.

On top of that routes that go through a major town center ie Flushing, Jamaica, QCM... all are subject to reliability issues. 
The Q20/44, Q25/34, and Q65 all suffer from major reliability issues right now. These buses get stuck in traffic so they end up leaving Flushing late. Most of the time because of the number of ppl getting on and off at Flushing buses tend to catch up and start bunching. The solution for routes like the Q20/44 was to add a bit of a layover in Flushing, but now if you have a day where the bus is early it'll just sit there and annoy anyone who is just crossing through. But routes like the Q25/34 are so unreliable that the Q17 pick up most of the slack. You can easily tell when people will usually line up for the Q17 when they see no bus on Main St. With a route like the QT81, there is no way it would be reliable going down Roosevelt and 108 so for Q19 riders they now get a slower route than what they have now. 

 

I wish we could petition to bring back the X51 that route is would be extremely useful for me today as the former stops are very close to me  But nowadays there is a shift towards the  appeal of going to/from Flushing as much has changed in the last decade. More so that I honestly It'd probably be stay afloat today if it still existed and maybe have enough to support off-peak service. Maybe even a downtown version would be able to work too. With how crowded  has gotten today it's impressive how everyone just gets dumped there to the point where during peak hours train would leave there with no seats. But there aren't many alternatives the QM3 service is abysmal and doesn't even serve Flushing proper for some reason. It'd maybe be nice if there was a stop at Main and Union to provide alternative service. On top of that the LIRR service to Flushing and nearby stations was just terrible during the morning peak hours. pre covid you'd have to wait more than 30 min for a train to the city. I'm definitely seeing a lot more ppl taking the LIRR to/from Flushing than I used to especially after the city ticket launched, so there is a demand for premium service to Flushing. It's just too bad the X51 was eliminated when I was still in grade school so I never got a chance to ride it.


My biggest issue with this redesign is that they went to prioritized a grid network over a hub network. Because of how the bus network operated for decades brining in people to places like Flushing and Jamaica. These places became destinations within themselves, growing beyond the subway connections they provide. Not everyone going to Flushing or Jamaica is going to the station. There are many intermediate destination before getting to the station or even after the station that people want to go to. A lot of these non green lines will take you out of the neighborhood before making its next stop. Also are smaller town centers that would create excellent mini hubs and transfer points. There are routes like the QT64 that might not have been as useless if it served 188th St Fresh Meadows. Then you have routes like the QT14 which would be more useful extended to Fresh Meadows, rather than being combined with the Q10 and having the QT11 do it. Instead you get the QT87 which looks like it only exist to fill in the gaps. (Like a lot of the 70-80's routes.)

In NE Queens the some of the major town centers are:
These are the routes than need more than 1 or 2 stops to serve the town center.
- Flushing 
- Jamaica

Moderate town centers:
These can be served by at least 1 stop but any bus in the grid system should not bypass it and instead divert there if nearby.
- Fresh Meadows (188th St & LIE)
- Bayside (~Bayside LIRR or Bell & Northern they're close by)
- Queens Village (~Queens Village LIRR)
- Green Acres (Not in NE Queens but relevant for some routes.)
- Great Neck (Great Neck LIRR LIRR) - Yes I know this is Nassau but if the MTA want's to serve North Shore all day there is no reason the MTA can't cut a deal with NICE and replace the n20G which is mainly utilized by Queens residents.

Minor town centers:
Nearby routes should try to serve it or terminate if reasonable.
- College Point (20th Ave from College Point Blvd to Whitestone Expy)
- Bay Terrence
- QCC (Includes Springfield & LIE)
- Queens Village (Springfield & Hillside)
- SJU (Union & Utopia)
- Queens Village (Springfield & Hillside)

One of the other my other grips are the way stop reductions are being handled. While I don't mind having some stops eliminated to speed up service what makes it unbearable is when they then combine it with stop reductions in the express (LTD/SBS) services as well and then offer a reduced frequency. In corridors with the Blue routes the stops are so far apart that most people would have to take the local if they aren't lucky enough to be by a major transfer point. But these local are are operating with terrible headways or are non existent in some cases. This makes it extremely difficult to make local trips within your own neighborhood. If you're child or a senior citizen trying to make a short trip it becomes very difficult especially now that your service is less frequent and probably doesn't stop where you need to go. It seems like most of the frequency is being poured into super limited buses which the elimination of both local and limited stops disincentivizing anyone that needs to make a short trip. Public transit it for everyone and not just those that are going across the boro.

Another issue is the lack of redundancy, if anything this plan thought us why different variations of each service exist in the first place. Having an express and local version of the same route isn't a bad thing whether it's called the same route or not doesn't matter. But what does is when you eliminate most if not all redundancy you just create a huge potential for disruptions to be even worse than they are now. If there are road closures, accidents, lack of BO's, etc... on one route another can pick up the slack. When I see express routes without local counter parts it makes me question what are the people that are too far from an express stop are supposed to do? Especially when that express service is peak only with no local counterpart. During other hours of the day these people are more or less stranded or forced to take a very inefficient route that they'd otherwise not have to make under the current network. Any gain from speed increase from less stops is basically eliminated when a passenger has to then transfer. Not only that a bus route can provide redundancy for a subway line. If either the QBL or Flushing line get disrupted the only alternative for a lot of ppl is the bus. Routes that parallel the subway not only provide a local service to a "limited service" but can sometimes be the only back up when all else fails. See like lack or redundancy in the network it just makes you question do they think that every bus will be able to run the exact route on time without any issues?

The X51 used to have a good ridership base, but it was the change in demographics that killed the route. Flushing years ago still had a demographic that remembers how bad the subways were, not just the crime issues, but poor service in general, and those people had no problem paying a bit more for the express bus.  When they started moving out, the people moving in could care less, especially since the subway had improved considerably at the time and was safer as well. You are right though. The  train can be a disaster at times. I had several colleagues that I used to work with that lived in Queens. One lived in Mitchell Gardens and alternated between the now QM20 and the  and there was another one that lived closer to the  line. There were other people, but I remember these two the most because they complained in the office the most when the  line was a mess. Whenever there was a problem, they were pretty much SOL if they needed the train and just had to wait until whenever. Our subway lines really need to be modernized AND we need to have alternatives to take the strain off. More ferries, more buses, etc. to allow for a system that isn't overloaded. It's very hard to add capacity, modernize, etc. with such an antiquated system that is overtaxed.

The QM3 is really there to serve Little Neck and Douglaston, as those areas are furthest away from the subway. Even so, I believe that the  feels that they could get away with just pushing those commuters onto the LIRR (and I have a sizable amount of QM3 riders in my advocacy group - they do use those three trips, but some alternate between the LIRR and QM3 depending on what is going on) so that they could cut their operating budget further, so while several elected officials in Northeast Queens have called for more express bus service on lines like the QM3, QM5, etc., the  would be reluctant to do so, just because of the sheer volume of express bus lines Queens already has. These redesigns aren't just about faster service. The  wants to see what they can get rid of as well that riders won't make a stink about. Their operating budget continues to grow and they are going to see where they can cut to try to claw some of those expenses back.

Staten Island has no real rail service aside from the SIR, but it's a different story in Queens, so if residents aren't vocal there, they will try to see what they can get away with. That's how they think. We created a flier for each express bus line in my group for the Bronx and for Queens when the original redesigns came out to highlight exactly what the  was trying to do. When people in Queens realized what was on the table, they called their elected officials and raised hell, and that is why you saw all of the elected officials in Queens slamming the plan. On every flier that we created, we looked to see the areas that the express buses ran through, which elected officials covered those areas, and then we listed the elected officials with their phone numbers to call them. That was extremely effective. That is why you saw some of the  planners saying that they heard from riders loud and clear. If this plan stinks, we'll do the exact same thing.

The other thing that you note is network coverage. That is something that the  wants riders to choose. Do you want more frequent service or more network coverage? They aren't stupid. If you ask the average rider, they will say they want frequent service. Who wants to wait long for a bus? Nobody. They know this too, so they can argue that OH, but the riders said loud and clear that they want more frequent service, and we can't possibly offer both options, as we don't have the money for both. What they are really thinking about is trying to maximize how many people that can pack onto each bus. That is exactly what they set out to achieve on Staten Island. By reducing network coverage, you eliminate options and force riders to have fewer lines, so then it's either that or nothing. It's great for the  because they can reduce costs with fuller buses, but when something happens with service, the riders suffer with longer waits and fewer options to work around any disruptions. 

Going back to the QM3, I think a slight restructuring and some marketing could boost ridership to then allow for service to be expanded to run longer the way that it used to years ago. You could have some trips serve former areas that the X51 served, but perhaps have Super Express trips for the folks further out. If they reduced the fare, they'd get more riders. That is something I have written the previous governor about and I will continue to petition for. In their response, the  argued that they simply can't reduce the fare, offer a monthly pass or restore things like the previous hours that the senior discount was in place. I don't buy it. If they really wanted fuller buses, they'd reduce the fare, which would mean more revenue and more ridership using existing service.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Eric B]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Talking about Maspeth, they for years have wanted some sort of express bus. The  shut that down. I think a year or two ago, I reached out to Senator Addabbo about it and it never gained any traction. The late night service is esp. helpful in Queens. If I had to go back to the City by subway, it would take me much longer from Kew Gardens or Forest Hills vs the express bus.

They really should just reconfigure the QM24 so that it gets off the LIE in Maspeth and heads straight to Fresh Pond, instead of going all the way out to Elmhurst/Rego Park, and then coming back west. (They'll probably say there wouldn't be enough riders on a direct route, but they can extend it further from where it ends now, perhaps toward Forest Hills). 

I don't remember what changes the redesign plans called for, if any.

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Many of those red routes have overlapping service, they're short turns for the busiest sections of a route, but the whole plan provided connectivity.

Exactly what makes the network disjointed.

8 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

QT71  covers Springfield Blvd and Bell Blvd. North-South route that connects all crossing routes and allows a connection to Merrick Blvd Bus (QT42), Northern Blvd (QT17) and various routes around Rockway Blvd for Far Rockaway, etc.

For example. Hempstead Ave to Green Acres. 

Now: Q27 > Q77 > Q5.

Plan: QT71 > QT42

Queens Village/Cambria Heights/Springfield Gardens to 5 towns

Now: Various Buses to Jamaica or to Q3 > Q113

Plan: Qt71 > QT62

Etc, etc.

Nah, you said many of these routes... All you got for me is the QT71 & an xfer from it to the QT62 & a subway-dash route?

The plan simply doesn't accomplish what you're claiming that it does, as far as opening up travel across Queens (even with those blue routes).... You can argue making travel faster system-wide, but opening up travel I can't give you... Matter fact, some people would argue this redesign would accomplish the exact opposite for them...

The problem I have with your assessment of this redesign is that you're giving the entirety of the plan far too much credit, but your comments throughout these discussions have been limited to the SE Queens region... It would be one thing if this was only a SE Queens redesign, but this redesign offers (or takes away, depending on your vantage point) changes throughout the entire borough.....

[N6 Limited]

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Exactly what makes the network disjointed.

That's like saying the  and  make the QBL disjointed.

 

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Nah, you said many of these routes... All you got for me is the QT71 & an xfer from it to the QT62 & a subway-dash route?

The plan simply doesn't accomplish what you're claiming that it does, as far as opening up travel across Queens (even with those blue routes).... You can argue making travel faster system-wide, but opening up travel I can't give you... Matter fact, some people would argue this redesign would accomplish the exact opposite for them...

The problem I have with your assessment of this redesign is that you're giving the entirety of the plan far too much credit, but your comments throughout these discussions have been limited to the SE Queens region... It would be one thing if this was only a SE Queens redesign, but this redesign offers (or takes away, depending on your vantage point) changes throughout the entire borough.....

There are many more examples, which is why I put "etc, etc". It opens up travel because it increases route connectivity around the borough, something that the current network lacks.

To be fair, most of my bus ridership has been in SE Queens, and the plan provides more connections in SE Queens and into neighboring sections (NE Queens, SW Queens, Far Rock) that I've needed at times. I cannot give experienced rider feedback in the other sections. But when I compare easy trips I've taken by car the current bus network makes those same trips cumbersome. So when people say "oh, no one is going from here to there", When the bus network makes it prohibitive then yeah, that's going to be the case. When people go "Oh I can go here with one transfer now" or "without going through Jamaica or Flushing", "Oh I Can get to Brooklyn quickly now" etc etc, trips start opening up.

I understand the reason for the hub and spoke model, and on the subway that's how it is currently, but on a bus you really don't want to be on longer than you have to (especially NYC snail buses), so if a new network allows more connectivity where you no longer have to take a trip to the hub only to come back out when you could have taken a more direct trip with less traffic which could save up to 50% or more travel time, that seems like a plus.

Edited January 8, 2022 by N6 Limited