Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[RailRunRob]

20 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

300 minutes = 5 hours = no overnight service

Duh! Makes perfect sense. 

20 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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

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

Yeah for sure Some of these new routes travel pretty far into Brooklyn. Pertaining to the QT5 just trying to get into the head of the planners just thinking about the new transfer  options that would open for Flatbush,East Flatbush and Brownsville riders. Im sure there won't be to many people traveling across Church from extreme western neighborhoods (Ie Sunset park) for a connection to the QT5 but it opens up options for ENY,Ozone Park as well as points beyond for riders on the eastern end of the B35 and even the B8 and B15 if they Survive as is with the Brooklyn redesign. There had to be some type of data from current stats that hinted that service should be extended into Brownsville. Just thinking.

Edited January 1, 2020 by RailRunRob

[Union Tpke]

10 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

And, if they just have people tap on the doors using OMNY, the supposed benefit of all-door boarding will disappear. We might have to go back to SBS machines at every stop.

@QM1to6Ave What was not clear about my post?

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Rapid Services? We ain't San Francisco...

I'll let the MTA live with this one....

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Overall thoughts:

• Losers: the MTA just basically said "f**k you" to everyone east of the Clearview

Odd way to spell Hudson...

8 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Just playing devils advocate for a second and approaching it from a planning standpoint. I can psychologically understand why someone would just create this shock and awe by renaming everything. This forces every rider from day one to forget everything thing they knew about the old network and start over.  For example if I keep the Q10 and now it doesn't go to JFK and also runs via Jewel Ave it's not the Q10 peoples mind plus the Q64 riders. Years and years of habit is hard to break easier to just start over you odn thave Expectations from the old setup. It's really the lesser of two evils but in the long run people should adapt. Notice most of the routes that have the same exact routing do keep there numbers 24,37,56,58 etc which makes sense from a riders perspective it's the same route they've always known. All in IMO of course working in the UX field I can visualize  the process of understanding the rider and some of the exercises the designers might have gone through. There probably other internal organization and area plus the 4 different route types guided the numbering structure as well. Interesting none the less. Your point is taken going to be a mess for abit.

Archangel here....

If I were to be forced to forget everything I knew about the old network by renaming everything, then what relevancy does having some of the proposed routes maintain the route numbers of the current routes (they may have the exact routings of) have?

8 hours ago, 7-express said:

The replacement QT48 should at the very least have a service span extension because the current proposals only cater to the 9-5 worker.  I would argue that the QT48 route should remain in Mitchell-Linden with the old Q34 routing because it doesn't drastically slow down the run times much vs the Q20, since that entire area is stop-sign controlled with less dwell time at signals and reduced traffic.

Perhaps there's a correlation to the service cuts from off the QMT163 & the addition of this QT48 local service, running along that same stint of Willets Point blvd. operating peak hours only.....

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

8 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM

• The most productive routes are mostly short and straight. They also tend to traverse through high-activity areas and make connections with subway lines and other key bus routes.

They have come to believe that ALL PRODUCTIVE ROUTES must be straight. So then they look at a map, and say, oh, the Q49 must not be doing well. Then they go about through-running local buses through areas. LOL at the QT18!

• Close bus stop-spacing hinders high-ridership routes by slowing down the bus.

So they slash bus stops for all routes, high and low ridership.

• Many bus routes try to serve several different purposes at once, serving none of the individual purposes well.

Tell me how the QT11 or QT18 are not serving different purposes at one. I will take advantage of the QT11 if I need to go somewhere in Corona, or if subway service is screwed up and I don't want to transfer from the E or F to the 7. Anyway, expect heavy turnover in Kew Gardens and Forest Hills. It seems like they want to slash the number of bus operators. By having longer routes, B/Os can be more "productive." No need for turnaround loops, no need for breaks.

• Even with bus routes covering most of the borough, there are opportunities to improve system connectivity and provide easier access to places in the borough that customers want to go.

By eliminating all service off-peak on some routes, requiring people to take advantage of 15-20 minute headways on grid-routes, so instead of getting to Flushing or Jamaica in a straight line, people will have to take a tour of Queens to get where they need to go, 90° at a time. There better be bus shelters at each stop. Otherwise, this plan is literally going to be stranding the borough's disabled and elderly. Oh, how nice, the subway will be 50% accessible. Do these planners consider that most of the borough is nowhere near an accessible stop, never mind any subway stops? People will have to walk longer to stops, will have to wait twice as long, and will require one or two more transfers to just get to the subway. If the gridded routes ran FREQUENTLY AROUND THE CLOCK, and if there were bus shelters, then this might be a worthwhile trade-off. I am going to be contacting my electeds about this garbage, and will urge them to get the Legislature to add about $5 million in operating funds to Queens so this is not a zero sum game.

Point #1: ...and creating indirect routes of their own, on top of it.... Imagine that.

Point #2: ...with the expectation that all those same riders that constitute & patronize that high ridership route, will willfully continue to do so.... Faster buses at the expense of (some) being inconvenienced with increased stop spacing couldn't possibly be a hindrance to anyone, to the point where they may not even consider taking buses anymore....

Point #3: I called that out before (don't remember which thread/discussion on here) & I still can not get over this talking point... The only way they can combat, or rectify this "problem", is by implementing a network comprised of literally thousands of point-to-point bus routes.... Ridiculous....

Point #4: There wouldn't be much of any issue here with that talking point of theirs - if they didn't dismantle some of the current connectivity throughout the network that's beneficial to thousands upon thousands of riders on a particular route, let alone across many other routes.... I mean, ridership habits can change, but to me, this plan seems want to induce (more) transfers, than they want to eliminate the current amount of xferring going on....

You can't tell me that you want to redesign the entire network, to then tell me about improving system connectivity..... Baby, meet bathwater.

7 hours ago, paulrivera said:

....All kidding aside, I just thought of something regarding the Q44 and Q50 that I wanted to point out (I ain't using that QT stuff because that's too much typing for nothing.)

The Q44 being extended to Fordham is going to be a cost-neutral move because they're going to take the mileage on the Jamaica end and tacking it onto the Bronx end, and the Q50 going to LGA will be pure cost savings because in addition to it already not going into Co-op City during off-hours, the Q48 portion of the route is going to have less frequent service (30 minute off-hours Q50 vs. 20 minute off-hours Q48)

I'm predicting the new Q50 will be like an / situation, where to the bean counters it's technically a service cut that saves money, but once people find out about it, it's going to attract some new riders. Plus, there's a potential benefit to not having two routes laying over in Flushing clogging up the streets.

Fordham Plaza's gonna be a circus with the Bx15,17, Bee-Line 60/61, and now the Bx34 and Q44 all turning and laying over within a block of each other tho...

If the QT44 is cost neutral, it isn't due to anything solely mileage related..... The distance between Merrick/Archer & Jamaica Center is significantly less than the distance between the Bronx Zoo & Fordham Plaza....

The QT50 however, yeah, the MTA's clearly pocketing money from that....

6 hours ago, danielhg121 said:

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

 

I don't believe they're intentionally setting some of these routes up for failure.... I believe their intent going in, is that the redesigned/redrawn  network (express & local) will actually loom more beneficial than the current network....

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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

This completely ignores people living on any other street, though, and it's not as if the bus routes are 1/4 mile apart to cover everywhere sufficiently.

[QM1to6Ave]

30 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

@QM1to6Ave What was not clear about my post?

Absolutely nothing, it is perfectly clear and I totally agree LOL. I was using the "confused" emoji to express my confusion at the MTA's stupidity, not you 

[+Young+]

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Overall thoughts:

• Losers: the MTA just basically said "f**k you" to everyone east of the Clearview. Particularly for the eastern Queens routes, I'm worried because it doesn't look like they specify the peak-of-peak headways, and when you have buses full on Union Turnpike every 2 minutes during that rush and the MTA is saying 10 for the entire morning that worries me.

I really hope this is fake because if I still lived where I did I'd buy a car, immediately.

First of all, nice analysis!

Second, believe it or not, I live in the Northern part of Queens, just off of the Clearview. Therefore, although I did not "quote" everything you typed, one of the things you need to consider is the ridership levels, both currently and historically. Just like with the current Q26, one of the primary reasons why they cut the bus service during the day was because no one was riding it! Same thing for the current Q12. During the day you'll see the articulated buses, and during the overnight you'll see the regular 40-foot buses. As far as the Q30 is concerned, since the ridership past Springfield Blvd. wasn't that impressive, every other Q30 weekday bus now goes to QCC, which is nice for those college students coming from Jamaica. During the Spring and Fall semesters, there are quite a few people on those buses, which puts a smile on my face. As far as the weekday bus bunching is concerned, when going towards Jamaica, that's a different story.

Third, if you've ever been to this portion of Queens, one of the other things you need to realize is that most of us have access to an automobile, compared to other portions of Queens, such as along the Queens Blvd. corridor or off of the line, or along Union Turnpike, Hillside Ave and Jamaica Ave. where this is not the case. As a perfect example, when I donate platelets on the weekends, I have a choice of either a 15 to 20 minute drive to the Lake Success Donor Center in Nassau County, or a 45 - 60 minute commute to the Upper East Side Donor Center in Manhattan. The reports that are at the top of this webpage reflect this as well.

That's all for now...

Edited January 1, 2020 by +Young+

[RailRunRob]

16 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Archangel here....

If I were to be forced to forget everything I knew about the old network by renaming everything, then what relevancy does having some of the proposed routes maintain the route numbers of the current routes (they may have the exact routings of) have?

Simplification If the new route is pretty much the same as the old one we love and remember to keep it." Oh, this go's to Parkchester, right? good ole 44" If it doesn't and causes more confusion and than it's worth memory wipe and completely renumber. "She ain't the old Q20 you remember why don't you try this nice new QT86 did you know it go's to Atlas Mall as well? Let me tell you all about it." New product new name.

Edited January 1, 2020 by RailRunRob

[NewFlyer 230]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

For the Q52/Q53:

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

Yeah if anything the Q52 should be the one eliminated while the Q53 remains. The east side of Cross Bay Blvd already has the Q22 and the  even thought is not always frequent and reliable. The Rockaway Park side has the shuttle which is not heavily utilized in comparison to Q53. The one good thing I like about the Woodhaven Blvd situation is that there seems to be two routes running down Woodhaven again, which is how it should be now. I don’t know how I feel about the buses not continuing on Broadway from Woodhaven. I suppose buses can terminate at Queens Blvd only if the bus that runs via Broadway is frequent which I honestly doubt.

 

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

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

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

EDIT

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

Usage really depends on whether the  is running alright and whether or not the B20 came a few minutes before the Q24. There is a difference in usage between buses heading towards Jamaica and buses heading towards Patchen Ave. Buses towards Patchen carry more than Jamaica bound buses though. Most buses are never usually more half full though. I’ve seen buses carry air and buses with about 10 people on it.

[Lawrence St]

29 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Yeah if anything the Q52 should be the one eliminated while the Q53 remains. The east side of Cross Bay Blvd already has the Q22 and the  even thought is not always frequent and reliable. The Rockaway Park side has the shuttle which is not heavily utilized in comparison to Q53. The one good thing I like about the Woodhaven Blvd situation is that there seems to be two routes running down Woodhaven again, which is how it should be now. I don’t know how I feel about the buses not continuing on Broadway from Woodhaven. I suppose buses can terminate at Queens Blvd only if the bus that runs via Broadway is frequent which I honestly doubt.

 

Usage really depends on whether the  is running alright and whether or not the B20 came a few minutes before the Q24. There is a difference in usage between buses heading towards Jamaica and buses heading towards Patchen Ave. Buses towards Patchen carry more than Jamaica bound buses though. Most buses are never usually more half full though. I’ve seen buses carry air and buses with about 10 people on it.

The problem is, is that with this new redesign they're never going to be able to balance out service on both sides unlike the time when they had the Q21 go to Arvene and the Q53 to Rockaway Park.

Honestly, they should have the QT88 run from Old Howard Beach to Howard Beach, then down Cross Bay to Arvene during rush hours, or just leave the Q52/53 the way they are.

[aemoreira81]

Off the bat, I see it as a bad idea to end all routes on Woodhaven short of Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue. The proposed headways north of there are not sufficient to handle the crowds, and the subway alternative is not ADA compliant. I would be surprised if this remains in the final form. If anything, I would propose swapping the Q52 and Q53 terminals on the south end (and also shorten the Q. The only "slow" portion of the route is north of Whitney. The proposed QT63 would be swamped with transfer traffic as the subway is not an option for Elmhurst Hospital for many bus riders, nor can the Q63 in proposed headways even come close to handling transfer traffic. Those Q53 buses are arriving with a full-seated load into Elmhurst Hospital due south.

I also see no bus service to the central terminal area as a bad idea, given that I don't see the PANYNJ increasing bus services to compensate for the loss of all MTA services to T5. On weekends when the AirTrain is scheduled for a total shutdown, those shuttle buses sometimes cannot be accessed because of crowds.

Also, there should be a Little Neck Parkway service at least for network coverage. The n6 would also need to become open-door along Hempstead Avenue to make up for removed Hempstead Avenue local service.

Edited January 1, 2020 by aemoreira81

[Lawrence St]

7 minutes ago, aemoreira81 said:

Off the bat, I see it as a bad idea to end all routes on Woodhaven short of Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue. The proposed headways north of there are not sufficient to handle the crowds, and the subway alternative is not ADA compliant. I would be surprised if this remains in the final form. If anything, I would propose swapping the Q52 and Q53 terminals on the south end (and also shorten the Q. The only "slow" portion of the route is north of Whitney. The proposed QT63 would be swamped with transfer traffic as the subway is not an option for Elmhurst Hospital for many bus riders, nor can the Q63 in proposed headways even come close to handling transfer traffic. Those Q53 buses are arriving with a full-seated load into Elmhurst Hospital due south.

Also, there should be a Little Neck Parkway service at least for network coverage. The n6 would also need to become open-door along Hempstead Avenue to make up for removed Hempstead Avenue local service.

Wait theres no more Little Neck Pkwy service anymore? It's going to become 2010 all over again...

[B35 via Church]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

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

This is despicable.

The planners have constraints.... This blatant slashing of service is coming from the top....

5 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Lost in all this is that Penn Station just lost their bus access to/from 5th/Madison (that sees great usage during rush hours) since the QT75 now ends at Bryant Park (unless they extend the M4 back to Penn Station under this plan)

There was the M10 from (alongside) MSG, then the M4 from Penn, now the (tentative) removing of the Q32 from Penn.... Even when I was a kid, I have always felt like the M4 & the Q32 were long-term temporarily ending over at Penn, don't know why.... My belief is that the M10 was forced from serving MSG any longer... Hope the same thing isn't going on over at Penn.....

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

For the Q52/Q53:

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

40 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Yeah if anything the Q52 should be the one eliminated while the Q53 remains. The east side of Cross Bay Blvd already has the Q22 and the  even thought is not always frequent and reliable. The Rockaway Park side has the shuttle which is not heavily utilized in comparison to Q53.

I've made that point so many times on here... Good to see others realizing it.... Patrons west of the Hammels Wye have much more to lose with the Q53 gone, over those that stand to be affected by any Q52 removal.... The Q22 OTOH is more vital on that end of the Rockaways, than it is on the Rockaway Park end.... I'm still noticing people xfer off WB Q22's to catch the NB Q53... Even if these are people on the Q22 emanating east of Arverne, you'd think they'd get xfer for the Q52....

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

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

Of course it is... I don't think anyone is claiming or implicating through their analyses that the current network should remain unscathed....

Our concern is that they're doing more harm than good with something that's already good.... That isn't to say they aren't, or haven't addressed any faults with the current network....

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

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

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

EDIT

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

Ever since they're reinstated the Q24 west of Broadway Junction, usage has considerably improved (even to my surprise)....

2 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Simplification If the new route is pretty much the same as the old one we love and remember to keep it." Oh, this go's to Parkchester, right? good ole 44" If it doesn't and causes more confusion and than it's worth memory wipe and completely renumber. "She ain't the old Q20 you remember why don't you try this nice new QT86" 

Using your example here, "The good ole 44" is a remembrance of something from the old network.... It's a facet from the same old network that you (in your devil's advocate argument) "can psychologically understand why someone would just create this shock and awe by renaming everything. This forces every rider from day one to forget everything thing they knew about the old network and start over."

I haven't forgotten everything, if that good ole 44 still exists for me to eloquently refer to it like that.... Lol....

I get your ultimate point about simplification.... Maybe it's not your intent, or that I'm missing something, but as that post in question read, the point I'm making is that your devils advocate argument sounds rather contradictory.

40 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Usage really depends on whether the  is running alright and whether or not the B20 came a few minutes before the Q24. There is a difference in usage between buses heading towards Jamaica and buses heading towards Patchen Ave. Buses towards Patchen carry more than Jamaica bound buses though. Most buses are never usually more half full though. I’ve seen buses carry air and buses with about 10 people on it.

That used to be the case... Now it's the opposite... I take the B20 to/from the Pizza hut up in Ridgewood & I've been noticing people passing up B20's for Q24's like it's nothing... Lol..... Not to say nobody uses the B20 along B'way, but the Q24 is the main show again....

9 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Honestly, they should have the QT88 run from Old Howard Beach to Howard Beach, then down Cross Bay to Arvene during rush hours, or just leave the Q52/53 the way they are.

They should have gone back to the drawing board with that QT88 - and it has a branch, on top of it... Easily the most useless route proposed in this plan.... Virtually nobody's going to use that shit along 84th, south of Lindenwood.... If they had full autonomy, the Q21 & Q41 wouldn't even be running in that immediate area, west of Cross Bay in Howard Beach.... Having a route come up from the Rockaways to serve Rockaway Park via Cross Bay, to descend back down to Old Howard isn't that much better.... The Q88 is an infinitely worse version of the Q38....

11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wait theres no more Little Neck Pkwy service anymore? It's going to become 2010 all over again...

Only between HHE & LIRR Little Neck on that QT87 (73rd av route)...

[EastFlatbushLarry]

3 hours ago, Lennyj17 said:

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

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

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

I'm not absolutely ready to begin assuming what exactly DOB has in store for express runs in Queens Division, but along this line of thinking, i will say is this: this boro by boro redesign is the "perfect opportunity" (tongue in cheek) for a few things to occur re: depots 1) activation of Far Rockaway as it's own independent yard, no longer remaining codependent to JFK 2) closing Casey Stengel (if that's even still a thing... i don't agree with it personally)  3) closing Yonkers (not a move i agree with at all) all in all I'm going to refrain from turning this into another speculation based rant, but it's technically something to ponder seeing as this proposed network is being branded as being rebuilt from scratch

Edited January 1, 2020 by EastFlatbushLarry

[RailRunRob]

40 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Using your example here, "The good ole 44" is a remembrance of something from the old network.... It's a facet from the same old network that you (in your devil's advocate argument) "can psychologically understand why someone would just create this shock and awe by renaming everything. This forces every rider from day one to forget everything thing they knew about the old network and start over."

I haven't forgotten everything, if that good ole 44 still exists for me to eloquently refer to it like that.... Lol....

I get your ultimate point about simplification.... Maybe it's not your intent, or that I'm missing something, but as that post in question read, the point I'm making is that your devils advocate argument sounds rather contradictory.

I think some of it is perception as well. Of the local routes roughy, 82% are brand new or renumbered routes in my book that very much qualifies as shock and awe again that's from my POV. The comment that spawned that particular response was based around possibilities of leaving most of the route numbers the same or close to the same and they didn't understand why they needed to renumber. Thus my response "I can psychologically understand why someone would just create this shock and awe by renaming everything. This forces every rider from day one to forget everything thing they knew about the old network and start over." With 82% of your old world destroyed your essentially starting over even with the outliers from a design standpoint.100% vs 82% But I can also understand if you're looking at it from an absolute standpoint you could make the argument with 15 or so outlines. Won't play devil's advocate on that one tho lol.

Edited January 1, 2020 by RailRunRob

[N6 Limited]

33 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

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

Good Point, so these routes, especially if quick have the ability to increase ridership.

 

38 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

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

It became a relief route and a one seat ride

 

39 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

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

I'm sure they were, it connected to the Jamaica Bus Terminal, and they cut the line short before Archer Ave opened, the Archer extension should have at least went to Merrick Blvd.

Yes, most buses stopped at the Jamaica Bus Terminal and served 169th street before being moved to Jamaica Center

[Lawrence St]

39 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Good Point, so these routes, especially if quick have the ability to increase ridership.

 

It became a relief route and a one seat ride

 

I'm sure they were, it connected to the Jamaica Bus Terminal, and they cut the line short before Archer Ave opened, the Archer extension should have at least went to Merrick Blvd.

Yes, most buses stopped at the Jamaica Bus Terminal and served 169th street before being moved to Jamaica Center

The whole Archer Av line is a complete joke in my opinion. The fact that it took away a subway and a loss of multiple bus connections because it was suppose to be this "grand new subway line" and serve neighborhoods and it didnt really meet that promise and finished only two subway stations is just absurd. That's it? An absolute joke.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Lawrence St

[Eric B]

I like a lot of what I see.

They finally extend the 55 the rest of the way to Jamaica, the 58 and QT6, all the way to Roosevelt Ave., having the Glendale express route use 69th St. instead of goign all the way over to Woodhaven, using 59Pl./60 St. between Metropolitan and Flushing, instead of Fresh Pond (which I never thought they would do), and straightening out the route to LIC.

But I believe this new QT6 should use Eliot Avenue instead of Grand, which is torturous during the daytime. The 58 will remain for Grand Ave. and the QT6 would be good for direct service to Queens Mall and Flushing.
Also, I think the QT77 [replacing the Q39] should come into Ridgewood, taking the same route as the QT80, and both should perhaps take Gates Ave. to Forest instead of Myrtle.

[Around the Horn]

Archer Avenue was supposed to go much much further...

They only ended up building about 1/3rd of it

[NewFlyer 230]

Speaking of Archer Ave, how did Archer Ave look before the bus terminal was constructed and before  and  trains started running under it? Can never find any pictures of it, only Jamaica Ave.

35 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The whole Archer Av line is a complete joke in my opinion. The fact that it took away a subway and a loss of multiple bus connections because it was suppose to be this "grand new subway line" and serve neighborhoods and it didnt really meet that promise and finished only two subway stations is just absurd. That's it? An absolute joke.

There are so many other promises that were made that were never met. A Queens super express, the second system, the extension of the Hillside Ave line to Springfield and possibly the Nassau Border,  south of Jamaica. When I think about it there was so much potential but not enough money, that’s why it took so many generations literally to build just 3 stops on the 2nd Ave line. 
 

The bus system in Queens has to unfortunately pick up the slack for the lack of subway service in many parts of Queens. And buses are slow and many of them do to much in terms of their roles.
 

Edited January 1, 2020 by NewFlyer 230

[Lawrence St]

25 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Speaking of Archer Ave, how did Archer Ave look before the bus terminal was constructed and before  and  trains started running under it? Can never find any pictures of it, only Jamaica Ave.

There are so many other promises that were made that were never met. A Queens super express, the second system, the extension of the Hillside Ave line to Springfield and possibly the Nassau Border,  south of Jamaica. When I think about it there was so much potential but not enough money, that’s why it took so many generations literally to build just 3 stops on the 2nd Ave line. 
 

The bus system in Queens has to unfortunately pick up the slack for the lack of subway service in many parts of Queens. And buses are slow and many of them do to much in terms of their roles.
 

I think they should have never tore down the 2nd Av Elevated until they actually built the 2nd Av subway. But I'm getting off topic here.

Had the Archer Av subway been built like it was suppose to, or not built at all, a lot of the routes to the east side of Queens would look a whole lot different.

[paulrivera]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The planners have constraints.... This blatant slashing of service is coming from the top....

Express buses aside, we in the Bronx came off easy.

This does reek of a low-key "2010 doomsday" scenario tho I'm not gonna lie.

We shouldn't have to kick and scream to keep decent bus service and keep the from making every bloody bus route have 125% loading guidelines and having stops every half mile like the subway. If every bus route has the same loading guidelines as the subway, you're just going to end up losing everyone that's not a 9-to-5-er.

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church My guess is they get off the Q22 at Cross Bay because they have the option of the Q52 & Q53, as opposed to just the Q52 in Arverne.

[NewFlyer 230]

25 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church My guess is they get off the Q22 at Cross Bay because they have the option of the Q52 & Q53, as opposed to just the Q52 in Arverne.

The Q53 is also more frequent than the Q52 is. 

[SubBus]

Wow...

The Q3 goes to Jamaica Hospital via Parsons-Archer

The Q77 have no subway connection...

The Q85 runs down Guy Brewer and terminate at Rosedale LIRR...

The Q111 Farmers short turn is 24/7.

The Q111 Rosedale is limited while the Q113 is local...

Bye bye Q114...

[NY1635]

The MTA could just keep the codes but renumber them similar to Cali. 1-88-Locals 83-100-Limited and 100 and above Express. 

QT sounds more like cutie. Did a woman right the code?

The should build the expressways similar to Cali. The Pasadena Expressway and Oil Fields are still my favorite story.

Moses is a gifted amateur but those Oil Execs are professional salesmen.

The state is trying to figure out a way to get rid of Moses's name since Long Islands hate him.

They liked Vanderbilt's Private Motor Parkway system better since they were made for personal use and drag racing.

Long Island is famous for racing culture, we can't have that cause it scares locals. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by NY1635