Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Via Garibaldi 8]

17 hours ago, Eric B said:

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.

The redesign split up the route in a terrible way. It needs to serve Ridgewood, Glendale and Middle Village. I have a number of QM24, QM25 and QM34 riders in my advocacy group and there is even a petition circulating for these lines to stop what the  proposed in the original redesign.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-mta-queens-express-bus-redesign-middle-village-glendale-ridgewood-maspeth

Edited January 8, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

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

 

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.

You keep comparing NYC bus service to how long it would take by car and there really isn't a comparison. Trips that I take by bus to Manhattan vs what it takes by car are no comparison. By car, a trip from my area to say the Upper West Side is 10-15 minutes. By bus, it's a good 40 minutes depending on traffic. You take public transportation because in theory, it should be cheaper than driving, with the expectation that you will get to your destination by bus in a reasonable amount of time. You are trading the amount of time you spend in travel to the amount you spend to drive and wear and tear on your car.

Now reasonable amount of time is subjective, and so for some, the bus could never compete with a car. When I am absolutely in a rush or don't want to be bothered, trips to Manhattan or from it home are done by car, but you have to compare what the cost is for tolls, is parking free or is there a charge for that, gas, etc. That's all it comes down to. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

17 hours ago, Eric B said:

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.

The majority of QM24 ridership comes from Eliot Avenue (namely east of 69th Street), which is especially true during the PM rush. 

In any case, they had a split which went through Maspeth but it didn't make any stops there, go figure. In any case, I would only do a split maybe towards the height of the rush hour (so from 7 AM to 9 AM, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM type of thing), and have it Ridgewood/Glendale buses originate from Crescent Apartments, eliminating the need for the QM12 & 42 there. But if you're suggesting nothing for Eliot Avenue between 69th Street and Woodhaven Boulevard, I can't agree with that, since that just kills off a significant portion of ridership. Going down Fresh Pond Road in the PM can be a PITA, and the bus lanes help to an extent, but it's still not enough. It deters ridership to Ridgewood and Glendale in the PM, those buses are close to empty when they turn onto Fresh Pond Road. 

[R10 2952]

I can see how having the QM24 going from the LIE via Flushing Avenue to Fresh Pond Road could cause problems for the Eliot Avenue riders, but if anything, sending it off the LIE via 69th Street to Eliot Ave would be a reasonable compromise, in my opinion.  Having it go out to Woodhaven Boulevard and then backtracking is too big of a detour.

Edited January 8, 2022 by R10 2952

[N6 Limited]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You keep comparing NYC bus service to how long it would take by car and there really isn't a comparison. Trips that I take by bus to Manhattan vs what it takes by car are no comparison. By car, a trip from my area to say the Upper West Side is 10-15 minutes. By bus, it's a good 40 minutes depending on traffic. You take public transportation because in theory, it should be cheaper than driving, with the expectation that you will get to your destination by bus in a reasonable amount of time. You are trading the amount of time you spend in travel to the amount you spend to drive and wear and tear on your car.

Now reasonable amount of time is subjective, and so for some, the bus could never compete with a car. When I am absolutely in a rush or don't want to be bothered, trips to Manhattan or from it home are done by car, but you have to compare what the cost is for tolls, is parking free or is there a charge for that, gas, etc. That's all it comes down to. 

I was comparing ease of trip, not time, obviously driving in Queens is quicker than the bus. By nature of the current network, there are barely any "direct" trips to anywhere but Jamaica and Flushing. So if someone isn't going to transfer to the subway or shop at those destinations, the buses become a nuisance. At the same time you'll have activists crying about people driving instead of using public transportation.

I want to go from Hempstead Ave to Green Acres, I can take the

• Cross Island Parkway/Belt to Francis Lewis Blvd to Conduit
• Springfield Blvd to Conduit
• Francis Lewis to Conduit
• Cross Island Parkway Service rd to Linden, to Elmont Road to Hook Creek Blvd, etc.

Similar options for trips to 5 Towns, or even the DMV on Rockaway Blvd. The QT71 and connecting routes addresses all of that.

By bus now, it would be the

• Q27> Q77 >Q5. - The Q77 sucks, no one takes it outside of rush hour.
• N6 > N1, -The N1 is on 45 min headway

To 5 towns

• Take a bus to into Jamaica, then the Q113 all the way down Guy R Brewer to Rockaway.
• Take a bus to Farmers for the Q3, then take that down to Guy R Brewer to the Q113

If needed to go to Northern Blvd I could jump on the Cross Island Parkway, the closest bus that goes straight up to Northern is the Q76, but first you have to get to Hillside Ave and Francis Lewis first, and most likely need the Q12 once there.

• Q2 > Q76 with back tracking
• Q2/Q110 > Q77 > Q76
• Q110 > Q36 > Q77
• Q27 > 10 min walk to Northern or take Q31
• Various bus to Jamaica >  Q31

If they provide more connectivity in the network then they'd have more turn over on routes and reduce feeder ridership patterns.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

19 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I was comparing ease of trip, not time, obviously driving in Queens is quicker than the bus. By nature of the current network, there are barely any "direct" trips to anywhere but Jamaica and Flushing. So if someone isn't going to transfer to the subway or shop at those destinations, the buses become a nuisance. At the same time you'll have activists crying about people driving instead of using public transportation.

I want to go from Hempstead Ave to Green Acres, I can take the

• Cross Island Parkway/Belt to Francis Lewis Blvd to Conduit
• Springfield Blvd to Conduit
• Francis Lewis to Conduit
• Cross Island Parkway Service rd to Linden, to Elmont Road to Hook Creek Blvd, etc.

Similar options for trips to 5 Towns, or even the DMV on Rockaway Blvd. The QT71 and connecting routes addresses all of that.

By bus now, it would be the

• Q27> Q77 >Q5. - The Q77 sucks, no one takes it outside of rush hour.
• N6 > N1, -The N1 is on 45 min headway

To 5 towns

• Take a bus to into Jamaica, then the Q113 all the way down Guy R Brewer to Rockaway.
• Take a bus to Farmers for the Q3, then take that down to Guy R Brewer to the Q113

If needed to go to Northern Blvd I could jump on the Cross Island Parkway, the closest bus that goes straight up to Northern is the Q76, but first you have to get to Hillside Ave and Francis Lewis first, and most likely need the Q12 once there.

• Q2 > Q76 with back tracking
• Q2/Q110 > Q77 > Q76
• Q110 > Q36 > Q77
• Q27 > 10 min walk to Northern or take Q31
• Various bus to Jamaica >  Q31

If they provide more connectivity in the network then they'd have more turn over on routes and reduce feeder ridership patterns.

I agree about better connectivity, but let's not pretend that Queens residents don't have a car centric mentality. People LOVE their cars there, which is why bus ridership isn't as high as say as it could be. The poor connectivity just becomes a convenient excuse. It's like folks on Staten Island. I had family members that would even drive to the corner store. I used to think come on. You can walk there. It's like 10 minutes, but they would drive because they were used to hopping in the car and driving. 

At the same time, I'm not convinced that many people in Queens would stop driving regardless of how much better the bus network was made. Like Staten Island, there is a stigma to using any type of public transit by some in Queens. Just the way it is in some parts of NYC.

[checkmatechamp13]

On 1/7/2022 at 2:50 PM, B35 via Church said:

1) 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)....

2) 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....

3) 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...

1) FWIW when I went to the Ridgewood meeting, it was jam-packed to the point that there was a 30-60 minute wait just to get inside.

2) How about a three-way split of Woodhaven local service, with all branches passing through Lindenwood? You could have the Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach branches run across 157th Avenue, and then the Howard Beach branch running down 84th Street as planned. The Cross Bay Blvd segment can be served with an added stop at 160th Avenue on the Q52/53. 

3) I believe that was intended to be sarcastic.

On 1/7/2022 at 3:25 PM, IAlam said:

1) 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.  

2) There are routes like the QT64 that might not have been as useless if it served 188th St Fresh Meadows. 

3) 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.)

4) 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.

1) The QT31 should definitely not serve QCC. The whole point of it being a subway dash route is to travel quickly from the outer reaches to the main hub (in this case Flushing). The QT15 provides connections to Flushing and the QT71 provides connections to points south, and if either of those routes are inadequate, service should be increased accordingly. (Also, that would remove service for present-day Q26 riders, as well as riders who would've obtained Flushing-bound service along the HHE)

The QT18 should run down Braddock Avenue and provide coverage over there. The QT33 already provides a direct connection to Jamaica from QCC.

2) I wouldn't say the QT64 is useless. If anything, it needs more service considering it's supposed to cover the southern end of the Q30/31. It also covers College Point - Jamaica riders who are looking to bypass Flushing. (Though I agree it should run down 20th Avenue at the eastern end of College Point)

3) Agreed.

4) I think the deal would have to be proposed with Nassau County rather than with NICE, but I think they might actually go for it. They could reimburse the MTA for mileage between the City Line and Great Neck. (But I think alternate buses should go to Great Neck, with the other half serving Marathon Parkway & HHE as proposed). Hopefully Nassau County would utilize those savings in other parts of the county.

I accidentally deleted the part of your post relating to redundancy, but I disagree with redundancy for redundancy's sake. For starters, much of the current network doesn't have redundancy (e.g. If there is an issue with the Q23, there's no simple alternative), and there is new redundancy introduced into parts of the redesigned network (e.g. QT18 on Merrick Blvd, QT46 on Sutphin Blvd, etc)

The other issue is that issues on one corridor can affect riders on another corridor (e.g. A delay on Kissena Blvd affects both Mitchell Gardens riders and College Point riders). So it has to be carefully evaluated which corridors warrant redundancy and to what extent. (And in most of the new network, the "redundancy" is providing local service to these blue and purple routes, or providing short-turn service along the busiest portion of the route, which already exists in some cases, but is being formalized with a new number).

As for providing redundancy to the subway, I don't really see any cases where a route was entirely eliminated for paralleling the subway. If anything the QT79 parallels more of the subway than the Q102. The QT61 replaces most of the Q32, the QT60 replaces the Q60, minus the Manhattan connection (which is still available on the western end with the QT61), and the QT56 replaces the Q56.

[B35 via Church]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:04 PM, N6 Limited said:

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

Not in the slightest.

The green routes in this redesign & the red routes in this redesign do not complement each other.... The QB locals complement the QB expresses along the QBL...

On 1/8/2022 at 1:04 PM, N6 Limited said:

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.

On 1/8/2022 at 1:04 PM, N6 Limited said:

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.

This proposed network doesn't increase route connectivity, when it literally features a type of route that is designed to bring people to/from the subway faster... Having some of those routes be the only type of route along some corridor in some way, shape, or form, is not at all conducive to improving connectivity between bus routes, let alone factoring into an overall increase of route connectivity...

While I'll agree that the current network could use an enhancement in that category, this redesigned network isn't any better in that category... It's like you're looking at these proposed routes, noticing that their routings merely have different O/D pairs than those from the current network, then simply concluding that there's an increase of route connectivity... That's not how that works.... Increased route connectivity, network-wide, is far more nuanced than that....

[Cait Sith]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Not in the slightest.

The green routes in this redesign & the red routes in this redesign do not complement each other.... The QB locals complement the QB expresses along the QBL...

This proposed network doesn't increase route connectivity, when it literally features a type of route that is designed to bring people to/from the subway faster... Having some of those routes be the only type of route along some corridor in some way, shape, or form, is not at all conducive to improving connectivity between bus routes, let alone factoring into an overall increase of route connectivity...

While I'll agree that the current network could use an enhancement in that category, this redesigned network isn't any better in that category... It's like you're looking at these proposed routes, noticing that their routings merely have different O/D pairs than those from the current network, then simply concluding that there's an increase of route connectivity... That's not how that works.... Increased route connectivity, network-wide, is far more nuanced than that....

In fact, connectivity in some places have been severed pretty hard.

I'm going to be beating a dead horse with this subject for the umpteenth time.

Jamaica Hospital, for example, lost the Q24. Between the ridership bases from the Q24, Q54 and Q56, the Q24(obviously) picks up the most hospital workers next to the subway. That part of the line is now replaced by some frankensteined Q3 route that none of those people asked for, and there was a lot of opposition when it came down to that part of the route replacing the Q24. All this does now is have everyone stockpile on the Q56, which will either require an extra transfer, or a longer walk. The walk from the hospital to Atlantic Avenue is annoying enough as it is(I do that walk every day).

The new Q8 will no longer serve 165, but will in fact, serve Sutphin/Hillside. Ridership data has shown that Q8 ridership from 165 is relatively high, same for the Q6, Q9 and Q41(which is unjustly eliminated altogether given it's high ridership figures for such a route). Instead of having a least one east-west route serve 165, they instead short turn them, forcing people to either make their way to the Q56, or that Q36/110/112 abomination just to get off near 165, or to make an extra transfer. Out of the Q6/8/9/41, the Q6 is the only one that basically retains what it currently is.

Some folks will argue that yeah, that Q36/110/112 abomination will get 24/7 service. That's all fine and good, but when you look at the bigger picture, there were more cuts in terms of service and connections done to my area than there were any increases in service(The QT5 is one gigantic cut to residents who rely on the 101st Avenue corridor). The only reason that the Q112 portion of the line is getting 24/7 service, is largely because of the current Q110, and given how shoddy the current Q112 is at night, that's hardly an improvement.

And from what I've been hearing, a lot of Southeast Queens residents are not too thrilled about the "express" segments of some of those lines in the draft plan. A lot of folks are seeing it as cuts.

I've been hearing through the grapevine that they've scrapped a pretty hefty chunk of these proposals amid the backlash from basically the entire borough. For once, they seem to be taking the criticism seriously, but I'm not putting much hope in that thought.....

Edited January 11, 2022 by Cait Sith

[Q43LTD]

Is it just me, or there would have been plenty of space at Jamaica Terminal had this redesign gone through? I see the Q6, 8, 9 and 40 starting at Parsons (F), the 41 eliminated since it serves "too many narrow streets" most of the TA routes would start at Merrick and Archer or extended westward. 

[Q43LTD]

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Q2/110/112

I'm sorry, isn't the Q36 merged with those 2? I think the Q2 stays as is

[Cait Sith]

5 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I'm sorry, isn't the Q36 merged with those 2? I think the Q2 stays as is

-EDIT-

You're right, I mixed up the 2 with the 36.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Cait Sith

[Eric B]

On 1/8/2022 at 4:45 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The majority of QM24 ridership comes from Eliot Avenue (namely east of 69th Street), which is especially true during the PM rush. 

In any case, they had a split which went through Maspeth but it didn't make any stops there, go figure. In any case, I would only do a split maybe towards the height of the rush hour (so from 7 AM to 9 AM, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM type of thing), and have it Ridgewood/Glendale buses originate from Crescent Apartments, eliminating the need for the QM12 & 42 there. But if you're suggesting nothing for Eliot Avenue between 69th Street and Woodhaven Boulevard, I can't agree with that, since that just kills off a significant portion of ridership. Going down Fresh Pond Road in the PM can be a PITA, and the bus lanes help to an extent, but it's still not enough. It deters ridership to Ridgewood and Glendale in the PM, those buses are close to empty when they turn onto Fresh Pond Road. 

On 1/8/2022 at 4:55 PM, R10 2952 said:

I can see how having the QM24 going from the LIE via Flushing Avenue to Fresh Pond Road could cause problems for the Eliot Avenue riders, but if anything, sending it off the LIE via 69th Street to Eliot Ave would be a reasonable compromise, in my opinion.  Having it go out to Woodhaven Boulevard and then backtracking is too big of a detour.

I would have something else swing over from the LIE to Eliot; something heading out that way, so it wouldn't be out of the way. Again, extending the 24 further out (maybe replacing another route in the Forest Hills area, like on Yellowstone) would replace the Eliot riders. I think the current route deters riders, because it's so circituous, and says on the crowded LIE longer.

[NewFlyer 230]

25 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

Is it just me, or there would have been plenty of space at Jamaica Terminal had this redesign gone through? I see the Q6, 8, 9 and 40 starting at Parsons (F), the 41 eliminated since it serves "too many narrow streets" most of the TA routes would start at Merrick and Archer or extended westward. 

I think the QT55 and QT56 would have taken those spots currently utilized by the Q6,Q8,Q9 and Q41. There would still be a lot of space since I doubt those two routes would need any more than 4 spots in total, 2 for the Q55 and 2 for the Q56. 

I didn’t notice this before but they have the QT20 and QT47 terminating at Parsons Hillside  which is a waste in my opinion when if anything they should just have it end at Sutphin-Hillside instead. It would definitely l carry air along that portion between Sutphin Blvd & Parsons Blvd along Hillside though. I’m honestly not a fan of having the Q6 “QT20” terminate over there in general because the Q6 sees good usage along Jamaica Ave to points along Sutphin Blvd south of Archer Ave. 

Then they have the QT44, QT54 and QT60 all terminating at Parsons Blvd/Jamaica Ave completely missing the LIRR and Airtrain connection. If anything just have the QT44, QT54 and QT60 end at Sutphin Blvd JFK  and have the QT5, QT20 and QT67 terminate at Jamaica Ave and 160th Street via Jamaica Ave. Then they have the QT64 ending randomly over there at 164th street and Hillside Ave which is a huge cut because it’s not even serving the downtown Jamaica area. The Q30’s ridership isn’t the strongest in Jamaica especially outside of rush hours but it is still used more so from Jamaica than towards Jamaica. If anything they should have QT64 buses running to the LIRR-Airtrain station via Hillside with the QT16 which would benefit a lot of school kids in general. The QT65 should end over there as well since it has no business taking over the Q42’s route. 

A huge and worth while investment in my opinion is an extension of the  to 168th street which is what should have been a part of the original plans. I think this would eliminate the need of having so many bus routes traveling along Jamaica and Archer Ave’s in general. Even though this is the bus forum what do you all think about an  extension to 168th street? Would it solve some of the transit issues in Jamaica? 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

41 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

they have the QT20 and QT47 terminating at Parsons Hillside  which is a waste in my opinion when if anything they should just have it end at Sutphin-Hillside instead. It would definitely carry air along that portion between Sutphin Blvd & Parsons Blvd along Hillside

i must say that i agree wholeheartedly. those buses will carry air, however, i believe the reason they decided to terminate those lines at Parsons - Hillside is to safely/easily have buses utilize the layover area on Hillside as opposed to the current Q40 layover/turnaround at 88 Avenue & 148 street, which is a considerable nuisance. 

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Eric B said:

I would have something else swing over from the LIE to Eliot; something heading out that way, so it wouldn't be out of the way. Again, extending the 24 further out (maybe replacing another route in the Forest Hills area, like on Yellowstone) would replace the Eliot riders. I think the current route deters riders, because it's so circituous, and says on the crowded LIE longer.

Agreed, Eliot east of 69th definitely should be split off into a different service.  Only question in my mind would be where such a service could start/end; getting through the Woodhaven-LIE-Queens Boulevard intersection by road can be a major pain in the rear end during rush hours.  Only way I could see that being avoided is if some sort of future Eliot Avenue express bus had its terminus at the intersection of Eliot and 86th, or Eliot and Wetherole on the other side if DOT ever got around to reconfiguring that intersection (which I'll always doubt).  

[N6 Limited]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

This proposed network doesn't increase route connectivity, when it literally features a type of route that is designed to bring people to/from the subway faster... Having some of those routes be the only type of route along some corridor in some way, shape, or form, is not at all conducive to improving connectivity between bus routes, let alone factoring into an overall increase of route connectivity...

 

Those purple routes are local routes which become Limited along corridors they share with other routes,  they also have stops at transfer points and busy stops. How does that not improve connectivity between bus routes?

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

While I'll agree that the current network could use an enhancement in that category, this redesigned network isn't any better in that category... It's like you're looking at these proposed routes, noticing that their routings merely have different O/D pairs than those from the current network, then simply concluding that there's an increase of route connectivity... That's not how that works.... Increased route connectivity, network-wide, is far more nuanced than that....

Some of these proposed routes with different O/D pairs make connections to new routes and corridors that currently do not exist nor have direct connections, this allows increased trip options where one either has a more direct trip to certain destinations or they have more route pair options to get to various places.

[B35 via Church]

12 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Those purple routes are local routes which become Limited along corridors they share with other routes, they also have stops at transfer points and busy stops. How does that not improve connectivity between bus routes?

The purple routes serve as an attempt to improve connectivity between the bus & the subway, that operate separately/incohesively from the other 3 types of bus routes in the network (red, blue, green)... What you're trying to do here is redefine the point of those purple routes, as if they're some jack of all trades or something.... The fact that they happen to have stops at transfer points isn't some automatic guarantee that connectivity between one of those purple routes & some other bus route it'll happen to connect to, would be necessarily improved....

See, you're running on this notion that since service will be faster, connectivity would be increased network-wide.... Speed is great - it's also not the sole factor when we're talking about connectivity between two bus routes.... Can't just look at one side of the equation (a purple route, in this particular instance) & them claim that connectivity would be increased, network-wide....

14 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Some of these proposed routes with different O/D pairs make connections to new routes and corridors that currently do not exist nor have direct connections, this allows increased trip options where one either has a more direct trip to certain destinations or they have more route pair options to get to various places.

The proposing of different O/D pairs for these routes, aren't synonymous with increased trip options, network-wide..... You're concurrently conveying this sentiment of increased trip options, as if just about nobody, or at minimum, less than the majority of riders would stand to be negatively affected by anything proposed in this redesign....

[N6 Limited]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The purple routes serve as an attempt to improve connectivity between the bus & the subway, that operate separately/incohesively from the other 3 types of bus routes in the network (red, blue, green)... What you're trying to do here is redefine the point of those purple routes, as if they're some jack of all trades or something.... The fact that they happen to have stops at transfer points isn't some automatic guarantee that connectivity between one of those purple routes & some other bus route it'll happen to connect to, would be necessarily improved....

See, you're running on this notion that since service will be faster, connectivity would be increased network-wide.... Speed is great - it's also not the sole factor when we're talking about connectivity between two bus routes.... Can't just look at one side of the equation (a purple route, in this particular instance) & them claim that connectivity would be increased, network-wide....

Since the service is faster and most people on the outer ends of Queens want to get to the subway quicker and these same routes connect to all connecting bus routes, I'm not sure how it's detrimental to connectivity like you seem to suggest.

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The proposing of different O/D pairs for these routes, aren't synonymous with increased trip options, network-wide..... You're concurrently conveying this sentiment of increased trip options, as if just about nobody, or at minimum, less than the majority of riders would stand to be negatively affected by anything proposed in this redesign....

I don't ride the bus in western Queens so they can tweak as necessary (which they are working on). In the area I use the service there are increased trip options in the proposal.

[Cait Sith]

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Since the service is faster and most people on the outer ends of Queens want to get to the subway quicker and these same routes connect to all connecting bus routes, I'm not sure how it's detrimental to connectivity like you seem to suggest.

I don't ride the bus in western Queens so they can tweak as necessary (which they are working on). In the area I use the service there are increased trip options in the proposal.

When you skip major sections of the line for the sake of speed, it kinda kills the whole connectivity argument. Merrick Blvd has become a pretty significant point in that regard. It's not just about connecting to other bus lines, but connecting passengers to those services along parts of the line without the need of extra, unnecessary transfers.

Merrick Blvd as a whole has been reduced to two routes going to Jamaica Center, both of which skip stops with pretty significant ridership heading towards there. To supplement for that, they made the QT18, which makes the local stops that the Merrick Blvd purple routes skip. The problem with that is that it's not going to Jamaica Center, but towards the line, which is a prime example of disjointed service because that line does not complement any sort of service going to Jamaica Center. The vast majority of people that commute along the Merrick Blvd corridor utilizes the , & more than they do with the .

They then chose to push the essential Merrick Blvd routes over to Guy R. Brewer Blvd, which again, creates an extra, unnecessary transfer for those that needs the local service on Merrick Blvd, especially for those that are commuting with the Subway. Guy R. Brewer Blvd would see the QT13, 19, 43, and the 45, all of which complements itself with the 19 actually being the local variant of sorts. Merrick will have QT18, QT41, QT42 and to a very, very small extent, the QT65. Only the QT41 and QT42 will be going to Jamaica Center(with one of those having a longer non-stop segment). The QT18 will run towards Hillside, and the QT65 would become pointless along the small segment of Merrick Blvd it will exist at. That in itself makes Merrick Blvd go from a streamlined service, to one very disjointed serviced corridor.

When you also consider the headways along the corridors, that in itself is also a pretty significant cut in service all-around, especially with the majority running at 20-30 minute headways. All this will do is push people even further to driving their cars or potentially buying their own.

The fact that you either don't see this, or that you just outright refuse to acknowledge that for your own sake is astounding to me.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Cait Sith

[N6 Limited]

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

When you skip major sections of the line for the sake of speed, it kinda kills the whole connectivity argument. Merrick Blvd has become a pretty significant point in that regard.

Merrick Blvd as a whole has been reduced to two routes going to Jamaica Center, both of which skip stops with pretty significant ridership heading towards there. To supplement for that, they made the QT18, which makes the local stops that the Merrick Blvd purple routes skip. The problem with that is that it's not going to Jamaica Center, but towards the line, which is a prime example of disjointed service because that line does not complement any sort of service going to Jamaica Center. The vast majority of people that commute along the Merrick Blvd corridor utilizes the , & more than they do with the .

There would be 3 routes going to Jamaica Center. QT40, 41,42. 

The vast majority along Merrick Blvd utilize the  mostly because they diverted those same bus routes to Jamaica Center away from 169th street when Jamaica Center opened. Of course most riders on a route are going to use the train station they're forced to use. This gives the corridor both choices as well as added connectivity to routes along Hillside and Union Tpke.

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

They then chose to push the essential Merrick Blvd routes over to Guy R. Brewer Blvd, which again, creates an extra, unnecessary transfer for those that needs the local service on Merrick Blvd, especially for those that are commuting with the Subway. Guy R. Brewer Blvd would see the QT13, 19, 43, and the 45, all of which complements itself with the 19 actually being the local variant of sorts. Merrick will have QT18, QT41, QT42 and to a very, very small extent, the QT65. Only the QT41 and QT42 will be going to Jamaica Center(with one of those having a longer non-stop segment). The QT18 will run towards Hillside, and the QT65 would become pointless along the small segment of Merrick Blvd it will exist at. That in itself makes Merrick Blvd go from a streamlined service, to one very disjointed serviced corridor.

Guy R Brewer and Merrick would both have 4 routes. You forgot the QT40.

They pushed one route to Guy R Brewer, the rest would still run on Merrick. Right now Guy R Brewer is Isolated with no connecting routes until Farmers Blvd by the airport. The QT43 would connect the corridor to other routes, and if they extended it to Green Acres it would open up the corridor to the mall. Also the QT7 would connect all the north-south corridors and connect to Gateway.

 

 

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

When you also consider the headways along the corridors, that in itself is also a pretty significant cut in service all-around, especially with the majority running at 20-30 minute headways. All this will do is push people even further to driving their cars.

The fact that you either don't see this, or that you just outright refuse to acknowledge that for your own sake is astounding to me.

According to remix, the majority would run at 10min or less headway at peak times, and 15-25 on the mid day and post 7pm time frame. Combined, on Merrick Blvd with the QT18 on 10 min headway, that seems reasonable, about 18 buses an hour outside of rush.

The proposed service pattern would concentrate riders going past their break off points from Merrick, so they would't have to worry about serving "inner Merrick" because the QT18 would handle that and take the burden off each route.

Edited January 11, 2022 by N6 Limited

[Cait Sith]

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

There would be 3 routes going to Jamaica Center. QT40, 41,42. 

The vast majority along Merrick Blvd utilize the  mostly because they diverted those same bus routes to Jamaica Center away from 169th street when Jamaica Center opened. Of course most riders on a route are going to use the train station they're forced to use. This gives the corridor both choices as well as added connectivity to routes along Hillside and Union Tpke.

Guy R Brewer and Merrick would both have 4 routes. You forgot the QT40.

They pushed one route to Guy R Brewer, the rest would still on Merrick. Right now Guy R Brewer is Isolated with no connecting routes until Farmers Blvd by the airport. The QT43 would connect the corridor to other routes, and if they extended it to Green Acres it would open up the corridor to the mall. Also the QT7 would connect all the north-south corridors and connect to Gateway.

 

 

According to remix, the majority would run at 10min or less headway at peak times, and 15-25 on the mid day and post 7pm time frame. Combined, on Merrick Blvd with the QT18 on 10 min headway, that seems reasonable, about 18 buses an hour outside of rush.

The proposed service pattern would concentrate riders going past their break off points from Merrick, so they would't have to worry about serving "inner Merrick" because the QT18 would handle that and take the burden off each route.

1. Yes, but that doesn't equate to current day scenarios. Just because those routes were diverted from Hillside in the 80s doesn't mean anything when it comes down to this debacle of a draft plan in the current day.

2. Yeah I did forget about the QT40, but that line also proves that the corridor would still be disjointed with its non-stop segment.

3. I don't rely on the Remix information because they've changed information on that so many times for different meetings. The remix data is unreliable as it stands.

4. The QT18 would handle the parts the purple routes skip, yes, but the problem is that the line itself creates a disjointed service pattern by going North instead of going to Jamaica Center(which is what B35 via Church eloquently explained about disjointed service patterns). As it stands, all services on the Merrick Blvd corridor serves, and complements each other going to/from Jamaica Center. With this draft plan, that streamlined service gets broken up significantly and creates disjointed alternates and once again, unnecessary transfers, whereas Guy R. Brewer Blvd is both streamlined and complemented altogether, at the sacrifice of the significantly higher Merrick Blvd ridership. This is a problem when it comes to creating proper, seamless connectivity. The QT18 will either force some riders to make an unnecessary transfer, or do an even more unnecessary walk to the purple lines.

It was also stated by a majority of the community themselves at the meetings that those purple lines are looking more like cuts to service, and those folks are largely against the majority of the changes being done on that corridor.

5. The QT43 extension won't happen even if that was implemented. They did that deliberately to separate the Q5 and Q85. You hoping for such a thing is unfortunately comical, and sadly shows how much hope you have had for this disaster of a draft plan to come to fruition.

The problem we have is that you come up with all of these neat little talking points, but continue to ignore the issues with a majority of these routes by using those talking points that don't really solve anything. It comes off as not only being an MTA apologist, but the teacher's pet in that equation. What's being done to Merrick Blvd is gonna make people just say f**k it and get in their personal vehicles even more, that same thing you're trying to stop.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Cait Sith

[Eric B]

17 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Agreed, Eliot east of 69th definitely should be split off into a different service.  Only question in my mind would be where such a service could start/end; getting through the Woodhaven-LIE-Queens Boulevard intersection by road can be a major pain in the rear end during rush hours.  Only way I could see that being avoided is if some sort of future Eliot Avenue express bus had its terminus at the intersection of Eliot and 86th, or Eliot and Wetherole on the other side if DOT ever got around to reconfiguring that intersection (which I'll always doubt).  

I had in mind swinging over one of the existing routes on the LIE by having it get off on 69th St. (It would go reverse of the current direction). Like you could use the QM12 or 42, and perhaps cut it off somwehre to the east, and have the extended 24 pick up the Yellowstone portion, to balance the ridership.

[checkmatechamp13]

3 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

The QT18 will either force some riders to make an unnecessary transfer, or do an even more unnecessary walk to the purple lines.

If the Q42 were brought back in the form of a Sutphin Blvd - Brinkerhoff Avenue route (which should be done anyway as opposed to that QT65 extension that barely covers Addesleigh Park), that would basically cover the last leg of Merrick Blvd in terms of connectivity to the . And he has a point: None of the Merrick Blvd routes currently connect to the so you can't really say that there is minimal demand for the if the current setup essentially forces people onto the if they want Midtown. 

[Cait Sith]

24 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

If the Q42 were brought back in the form of a Sutphin Blvd - Brinkerhoff Avenue route (which should be done anyway as opposed to that QT65 extension that barely covers Addesleigh Park), that would basically cover the last leg of Merrick Blvd in terms of connectivity to the . And he has a point: None of the Merrick Blvd routes currently connect to the so you can't really say that there is minimal demand for the if the current setup essentially forces people onto the if they want Midtown. 

1. I never said there was minimal demand for the from that standpoint. I was talking about how the route is being structured to serve the instead of going to Jamaica Center. I'm very much aware of the fact that there are riders that transfer to the at both Briarwood and at Union Turnpike to get to the Merrick Blvd routes, which by itself, accomplishes more than what the QT18 service pattern will do. What that route is trying to do is solve problems that it by design created on its own. Before the pandemic, during the evening/night hours, the generally ran more better than the as well.

2. That idea is far better than the QT65 idea they were considering. Had they done that type of route to run to Brinkerhoff or even Linden Blvd, I wouldn't have much of a problem with this QT18. It would further prove the point that connectivity would actually be prevalent along that corridor to a slightly larger extent. They instead butchered up Merrick Blvd pretty badly.

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Cait Sith