Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

B35 via Church · January 12, 2022

7 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.

Nope, my sentiment throughout this bit with you, isn't that it's detrimental to connectivity... It's that there isn't this increase (or even a net increase) in connectivity, network-wide, like you're apparently claiming (despite the fact that you state, verbatim, that "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.").... You were the person that made the original claim that there were many routes in this redesign that open up travel across Queens, which was a blatant embellishment to begin with...

7 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

In the area I use the service there are increased trip options in the proposal.

...and there are decreased trip options in SE Queens as well... It's farcical & actually quite insulting to implicate that people won't lose 1 seat rides.

3 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.

You cannot logically argue increased connectivity network-wide, when there is an increase of people that stand to be negatively affected, network-wide.... While there are limited routes (with complementary local routes, by the way) in the current network, there aren't any subway-dash routes & any super-duper-hyper-mega limited (or whatever you want to dub those blue routes as being) routes .... How many people really reside proximate to a major xfer point anyway? That's something else this plan is rather dependent on - the willingness of pax. to hoof it out to that much less stops along these routes... "Increased" passenger activity per stop is evident (express bus riders, on some routes more than others, know all about that)... Kind of like what the NFL is doing league-wide regarding parity (I call it fake parity & acquaintances CTFU every time I say that... Lol...), what he's apparently expressing as increased connectivity AFAIC is faux increased connectivity - because it lies on the premise that getting at a stop faster on one bus, is going to increase your chances at connecting to some other route in the network that simply won't run in harmony with it.... Now the current network is shit at connectivity also, but what you don't have with the current network is 4 different, isolated, service types being randomly spread.... out.... throughout... the... entire... borough....

Whole corridors would be severed with a disjointed network... Piecemealing an entire bus network in this fashion is going to lead to even more ridership losses, for reasons you've stated earlier....

37 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

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.

It's actually not his talking points (by themselves anyway) that I take issue with.... I like some of what they're TRYING to accomplish with SE Queens (since that's his area of focus throughout this)..... The thing is that he embellishes talking points & tries his damnedest to refrain from saying anything that can be construed as negative about this redesign - even if you have more of a positive take/good outlook on the thing.... It appears to me that there is this mindset of *anything is better than the current network*, and I just can't concur with that train of thought - again, even if your outlook on the redesign is more positive....

Edited January 12, 2022 by B35 via Church

Q43LTD · January 12, 2022

23 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

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?

IIRC, the Q55 would be extended to 170 St, The Q24 and 54 are cut back to Jamaica Station. It's really another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Merrick and Brewer are oversaturated with LTD service for lack of a better term. I think the Terminal (Jamaica) would be left to bare bones:

Q1-idiotically merged with a short turned Q5, with no service on Braddock

Q2-stays as is, loses overnight service, starts at Merrick and Archer

Q3-extended west to Jamaica Hospital

Q17-wacky merges with the Q25 and 88 among others, reviving the Q75 in the process

Q36-Merged with the Q110 and 112

Q43-extended to LIJ, no service west of Merrick

Q76/77-Merged with the Q27

Q6/8/9/40- All would start at Parsons (F)

N6 Limited · January 12, 2022

9 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

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.

1. You're making arguments that all Merrick Buses should go to Jamaica Center and no one could possibly want otherwise when said buses all used to go to Hillside in the first place.

2. The proposed stops are proposals, they can add a stop if necessary. But, if you look at the QT18 they wanted to implement stop spacing anyway, so there would be only 5 local stops bypassed by the purple routes on Merrick.

3. Do they fudge the numbers in the communities they're having meetings in to make the headways look better?

4. The QT18 gives Merrick another option of (F) and Hillside. Maybe Merrick riders want to take the bus to IHOP, White Castle, various jobs along Hillside, Van Buren HS, etc, this would make that easier. Looking at the proposed stops, I doubt riders are going to transfer to take a bus one stop. Because from the look of it, the QT18 would have one stop between the purple route's limited stops.

Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives? The busiest stops that I see are the ones that the Purple routes are proposed stop at, except maybe 109th Ave, which they can simply add.

5. They noted they would monitor the implementation and make changes as necessary. (Probably not as quickly as NICE though) They're making a new draft with less dramatic changes but still implementing different route types, stop spacing, straightening routes, etc.

I'm highlighting potential positives of the plan and the Idea behind a revamped network as opposed to saying "we need to improve the bus network but don't change anything and leave the spaghetti bowl mess that it is, as is!"

Riders use the N4,N6, N24, N22 and backtrack because they're so much faster. The purple routes would increase ridership, of course some of their service spans would have to be adjusted as well.

That said, being that the pandemic hit and dropped ridership, they may use this new draft to "right size" service even more. Now, they can hide it with a "familiar" map with just increased headway across the board.

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

Right, it's like others who were bashing the QT7, "Riders want Jamaica, not the (A) train. I'm sure there are riders that would rather stay on the (A) Express where they could transfer to the QT7 or QT67 (The Q112 routing sucks) rather than transferring to the (J) and vice versa. Everyone does not want to go to Manhattan.

8 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

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.

It's one route being shifted to the (F) train on a corridor with 3 alternatives.., and the buses wouldn't be fighting for space on Archer Ave or Jamaica center. It gives the ability to through ride to Hillside Ave and vice versa, which is something not available at the moment.

It makes sense to link two routes with Bus lanes and TSP to provide reliable service with limited resources. And, many riders are going to the QB Express anyway.

9 hours 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 .

That's an interesting idea, have you suggested that to them?

Maybe the plan for the southern end of the QT65 was to Help students get to Jamaica HS?

checkmatechamp13 · January 12, 2022

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Do they fudge the numbers in the communities they're having meetings in to make the headways look better?

With Remix, I think the thing is that they can change it as errors are pointed out. (I remember at the Jamaica meeting, I pointed out some errors, and they adjusted them). Compared to the official PDFs (Existing Conditions Report, Draft Report), where even if there's errors, they have to leave them for the sake of consistency (or else they'll be accused of changing it and having "two sets of books" for making minor corrections).

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The QT18 gives Merrick another option of and Hillside. Maybe Merrick riders want to take the bus to IHOP, White Castle, various jobs along Hillside, Van Buren HS, etc, this would make that easier. Looking at the proposed stops, I doubt riders are going to transfer to take a bus one stop. Because from the look of it, the QT18 would have one stop between the purple route's limited stops.

I don't think it would be that outlandish for people to take the bus one stop (especially considering that "one stop" means a further distance than it does now). If the bus is frequent enough, and with BusTime letting you know how close the bus is, you can decide whether to walk or wait for the connecting bus. (That's what I do whenever I take the SIM4X/8X).

The other thing is, people on Merrick generally have two options to get from Parsons/Archer (or Sutphin/Archer for that matter): Purple route to the QT18, or Jamaica Avenue route to the QT18.

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives? The busiest stops that I see are the ones that the Purple routes are proposed stop at, except maybe 109th Ave, which they can simply add.

I think you could make a pretty strong case for Foch Blvd. (You could have the QT41 stop there but not the QT42, but I think it might cause a bit too much confusion, so you're probably better off having both stop there).

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

That said, being that the pandemic hit and dropped ridership, they may use this new draft to "right size" service even more. Now, they can hide it with a "familiar" map with just increased headway across the board.

This. If they really want to cut, they'll find a way.

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Right, it's like others who were bashing the QT7, "Riders want Jamaica, not the train. I'm sure there are riders that would rather stay on the Express where they could transfer to the QT7 or QT67 (The Q112 routing sucks) rather than transferring to the and vice versa. Everyone does not want to go to Manhattan.

Even for those that do want Manhattan, the (A) is generally quicker than the (J) given it's express.

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

That's an interesting idea, have you suggested that to them?

Yes, I have. Hopefully, it was in time for them to consider it (Not sure when they froze the efforts due to the pandemic, or if they had an unofficial deadline for ideas to get incorporated into the draft report). IIRC, I thought of it in January 2020, so I believe it would've been in the right timeframe.

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Maybe the plan for the southern end of the QT65 was to Help students get to Jamaica HS?

I think it was more just to through-route in Jamaica as much as possible, and they figured the connection to Linden Blvd would be useful for SE Queens, and 174th Street is a portion of the Q42 route (albeit the part closest to other alternatives, and ultimately, it only serves one Q42 stop). It wasn't 100% illogical, but I don't think the benefits provided are worth the cost of the extension.

N6 Limited · January 12, 2022

36 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

With Remix, I think the thing is that they can change it as errors are pointed out. (I remember at the Jamaica meeting, I pointed out some errors, and they adjusted them). Compared to the official PDFs (Existing Conditions Report, Draft Report), where even if there's errors, they have to leave them for the sake of consistency (or else they'll be accused of changing it and having "two sets of books" for making minor corrections).

Yeah Remix can be updated at anytime basically. I wonder if they're going to have two remix pages for both drafts or make the old draft inaccessible.

38 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't think it would be that outlandish for people to take the bus one stop (especially considering that "one stop" means a further distance than it does now). If the bus is frequent enough, and with BusTime letting you know how close the bus is, you can decide whether to walk or wait for the connecting bus. (That's what I do whenever I take the SIM4X/8X).

The other thing is, people on Merrick generally have two options to get from Parsons/Archer (or Sutphin/Archer for that matter): Purple route to the QT18, or Jamaica Avenue route to the QT18.

Yes, they would have the choice to transfer or walk, and BusTime would help them make the decision but transferring is not something they will "HAVE" to do.

Yes, and also the QT18 would have a direct stop on Jamaica Ave where they can walk down and shop and return, and not have to alight on Archer Ave.

41 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think you could make a pretty strong case for Foch Blvd. (You could have the QT41 stop there but not the QT42, but I think it might cause a bit too much confusion, so you're probably better off having both stop there).

They could add those stops in, but when you look at it, Foch Blvd is in the middle of Baisley Blvd and Linden Blvd stops and in close proximity to Guy R Brewer Blvd Routes, It's not like they have no choices.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Even for those that do want Manhattan, the is generally quicker than the given it's express.

Exactly, you're on a nice express run, and you have to alight at Broadway Junction, and join the large queue to street level, then make your way over to the escalators, make the climb, then walk over to the platform stairs, walk down the stairs and wait for the (J) , by the time you get to the (J) platform the (A) is already at Euclid Ave.

To add to that. Euclid Ave (QT5) and Lefferts Blvd (QT67) are ADA accessible.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Yes, I have. Hopefully, it was in time for them to consider it (Not sure when they froze the efforts due to the pandemic, or if they had an unofficial deadline for ideas to get incorporated into the draft report). IIRC, I thought of it in January 2020, so I believe it would've been in the right timeframe.

Yes, since that was before everything happened. They mentioned they went through the comments and will use them for the new draft.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think it was more just to through-route in Jamaica as much as possible, and they figured the connection to Linden Blvd would be useful for SE Queens, and 174th Street is a portion of the Q42 route (albeit the part closest to other alternatives, and ultimately, it only serves one Q42 stop). It wasn't 100% illogical, but I don't think the benefits provided are worth the cost of the extension.

Good points.

Through-route in Jamaica - Makes sense.
Connection to Linden Blvd - QT7
Portion of Q42 - Serves a portion, excessive turns removed. They mixed up the streets in the area years ago to prevent through traffic so, that's the furthest the route can get from Merrick while also reducing excessive turns.
Some of these extensions are not as expensive as we think if they're avoiding congested roads and actually rolling to their terminals instead of queuing though numerous traffic signal cycles or bus queues 20 buses long.

N6 Limited · January 12, 2022

22 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Nope, my sentiment throughout this bit with you, isn't that it's detrimental to connectivity... It's that there isn't this increase (or even a net increase) in connectivity, network-wide, like you're apparently claiming (despite the fact that you state, verbatim, that "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.").... You were the person that made the original claim that there were many routes in this redesign that open up travel across Queens, which was a blatant embellishment to begin with...

Well many of these routes intersect with numerous routes, that opens up trip options.

22 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

...and there are decreased trip options in SE Queens as well... It's farcical & actually quite insulting to implicate that people won't lose 1 seat rides.

I mean that's going to happen with any restructuring of a mass transit network. But if you for example, have a route where 98% of riders transfer to a subway or another bus route, and they re-structure a route to follow the highest ridership portion and then serve another corridor to allow more connectivity. Why make this dramatic cry for 2% of riders who may not even mind the change to prevent improvements to the network?

22 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You cannot logically argue increased connectivity network-wide, when there is an increase of people that stand to be negatively affected, network-wide.... While there are limited routes (with complementary local routes, by the way) in the current network, there aren't any subway-dash routes & any super-duper-hyper-mega limited (or whatever you want to dub those blue routes as being) routes .... How many people really reside proximate to a major xfer point anyway? That's something else this plan is rather dependent on - the willingness of pax. to hoof it out to that much less stops along these routes... "Increased" passenger activity per stop is evident (express bus riders, on some routes more than others, know all about that)... Kind of like what the NFL is doing league-wide regarding parity (I call it fake parity & acquaintances CTFU every time I say that... Lol...), what he's apparently expressing as increased connectivity AFAIC is faux increased connectivity - because it lies on the premise that getting at a stop faster on one bus, is going to increase your chances at connecting to some other route in the network that simply won't run in harmony with it.... Now the current network is shit at connectivity also, but what you don't have with the current network is 4 different, isolated, service types being randomly spread.... out.... throughout... the... entire... borough....

Whole corridors would be severed with a disjointed network... Piecemealing an entire bus network in this fashion is going to lead to even more ridership losses, for reasons you've stated earlier....

The entire network is already Piecemealed as a result of the way it developed. Every bus won't be in harmony, but with numerous connecting routes, dynamic route decisions can be made with BusTime and the Transit app, etc. "Oh I just missed my connection but I can stay on the bus for 5 more mins and transfer at the next connection point instead, there will be a bus a few mins after my arrival". Some of these changes actually streamlined some corridors.

There are 4 different service types that compliment each other due to the demand in each corridor has and to allow connectivity between them. Due to the nature of some travel patterns and demand, you cannot have every route at the same headway, etc, it's not an efficient use of resources.

22 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

It's actually not his talking points (by themselves anyway) that I take issue with.... I like some of what they're TRYING to accomplish with SE Queens (since that's his area of focus throughout this)..... The thing is that he embellishes talking points & tries his damnedest to refrain from saying anything that can be construed as negative about this redesign - even if you have more of a positive take/good outlook on the thing.... It appears to me that there is this mindset of *anything is better than the current network*, and I just can't concur with that train of thought - again, even if your outlook on the redesign is more positive....

Well yeah, almost anything is better than the current network :lol: . You have a disjointed service as is, routes that don't connect, routes that veer away from each other instead of connecting, routes that require unnecessary backtracking, routes that get tangled in Hubs such as Jamaica, Flushing, Jackson Heights, etc. Then, have riders, MTA and NYCDOT, etc, complain about congestion, while having 200 buses converging on the same area with redundant routing creating convoys of buses with light loads. Adding to congestion, adding to running times, adding to trip times, adding to fuel consumption, adding to rider discontent, adding to required vehicles to maintain service levels, etc.

I can acknowledge that there are negative aspects to the design and that's fine, we may not agree on what the negative aspects are. Changing a route is going to affect SOMEBODY, but is it really as drastic as you all are making it?

"OMG this route no longer goes here" Yeah, but if that segment carries air, then why not make the route more useful?

This is like when the (M) (V) merge was being discussed. "OMG IT'S A SERVICE CUT :angry: ", "OMG Broadway Brooklyn riders want to go downtown", "Who's going from Forest Hills to Middle Village!!?", etc etc. Completely ignoring the reason for the merge, the service improvement and connectivity it provided, etc.

Yes, Nassau Street and 2nd Ave (F) lost service, but it was an overall improvement for Northern Brooklyn and it caused ridership to increase.

checkmatechamp13 · January 13, 2022

2 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

1) Yeah Remix can be updated at anytime basically. I wonder if they're going to have two remix pages for both drafts or make the old draft inaccessible.

2) Yes, they would have the choice to transfer or walk, and BusTime would help them make the decision but transferring is not something they will "HAVE" to do.

3) Good points.

Through-route in Jamaica - Makes sense.

Connection to Linden Blvd - QT7

Portion of Q42 - Serves a portion, excessive turns removed. They mixed up the streets in the area years ago to prevent through traffic so, that's the furthest the route can get from Merrick while also reducing excessive turns.

Some of these extensions are not as expensive as we think if they're avoiding congested roads and actually rolling to their terminals instead of queuing though numerous traffic signal cycles or bus queues 20 buses long.

1) Considering they have that section under the "archived materials" page, I would think (and hope) that they keep the old map for reference.

2) I think of it as some of the express and local stops in Manhattan (since the orange routes seem to be trying to approximate the spacing of local subway stops, while the blue and dash portions of the purple routes seem to intend to approximate the spacing of express subway stops). Yes, technically most people can walk from 14th Street to 23rd Street, but most people would probably transfer to the local train.

3) I get all of that, but my main concern is if they use all of that as a reason to not have a route properly serving Addesleigh Park via Brinkerhoff (which doesn't require so many turns). Considering the only QT65 stop in Addesleigh Park would be right at Brinkerhoff & 174th, they might as well save the extra turns and just run the QT65 down Merrick in that case.

Or if they're really trying to cheap out (which I hope they aren't, since I do see some value in a second crosstown route north of Linden, hence why I have it running to Sutphin), then at least have the QT65 take Merrick to Brinkerhoff and serve Addesleigh Park that way. (But then you run into the issue of not connecting with any of the purple routes, so long story short a dedicated Brinkerhoff route is necessary in either case)

B35 via Church · January 13, 2022

22 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives? The busiest stops that I see are the ones that the Purple routes are proposed stop at, except maybe 109th Ave, which they can simply add.

Yes, because the thought of someone that's more proximate to a local stop along a busy corridor like Merrick wanting Jamaica Center is so preposterous... This notion that a local stop has to be as busy as that of a major intersection/xfer point is beyond unreasonable...

People that are more proximate to local stops aren't expendable as the MTA (and you too, apparently) want to make them & shouldn't be made to have their commutes exacerbated throughout an entire borough...

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Well many of these routes intersect with numerous routes, that opens up trip options.

So, a bus network that features bus routes with different O/D pairs than the current network, that offers xfers to other bus routes....

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The entire network is already Piecemealed as a result of the way it developed. Every bus won't be in harmony, but with numerous connecting routes, dynamic route decisions can be made with BusTime and the Transit app, etc. "Oh I just missed my connection but I can stay on the bus for 5 more mins and transfer at the next connection point instead, there will be a bus a few mins after my arrival". Some of these changes actually streamlined some corridors.

There are 4 different service types that compliment each other due to the demand in each corridor has and to allow connectivity between them. Due to the nature of some travel patterns and demand, you cannot have every route at the same headway, etc, it's not an efficient use of resources.

You keep harping on this bustime point as if using bustime somehow enhances this redesigned network.... Bustime doesn't make this or any other network better or worse; this is like saying that a lavatory prolongs your life or something; you can technically take a piss, a shit, or a bath anywhere.... Lol.... Anyway, sure, the current network is a result of a constant changing of routes... The current network is also decades old; the argument isn't that every route should remain exactly the same..... The thing is, when you have a new network coming out of the gate with fragmented routes based off the current network (again, even though this was supposed to be a clean slate approach), that's a problem.....

They should complement each other, but the way they've implemented these 4 different service types in the network do not have buses complementing each other.... They fragment the network; one corridor majorically gets a red/LTD route only, one corridor gets a subway-dash route only, one corridor even gets a blue route only (which is worse than a corridor only having a red or a subway-dash route).... You can't have corridors that are solely served by skip-stop variants & then claim that connectivity is increased, network-wide... That the network is more complementary than the current network (yes, that has problems in its own right)... Speaking of which (connectivity), this proposed network aims towards improving connectivity b/w the bus & the subway - at the detriment of exacerbating connectivity between buses, network-wide.... Just like you say everybody doesn't want Manhattan, everybody doesn't want the subway either....

It's interesting that you praise the routes in this redesign that streamlined some corridors, yet a route that already runs along a particular corridor in the current network (like a Q5 along Merrick Blvd) is somehow problematic...

Having every route operate at the same headway has nothing to do with anything here... That wouldn't necessarily result in a network where perfect connectivity would be achieved anyway, if that's the point you're trying to convey with that...

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Well yeah, almost anything is better than the current network . You have a disjointed service as is, routes that don't connect, routes that veer away from each other instead of connecting, routes that require unnecessary backtracking, routes that get tangled in Hubs such as Jamaica, Flushing, Jackson Heights, etc. Then, have riders, MTA and NYCDOT, etc, complain about congestion, while having 200 buses converging on the same area with redundant routing creating convoys of buses with light loads. Adding to congestion, adding to running times, adding to trip times, adding to fuel consumption, adding to rider discontent, adding to required vehicles to maintain service levels, etc.

This reads as an incoherent rant.... Reminiscent of that @NY1635 dude.

No bus network of this magnitude that isn't wholly a hub & spoke network is going to have every route xferring to one another... Honestly now.

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I mean that's going to happen with any restructuring of a mass transit network. But if you for example, have a route where 98% of riders transfer to a subway or another bus route, and they re-structure a route to follow the highest ridership portion and then serve another corridor to allow more connectivity. Why make this dramatic cry for 2% of riders who may not even mind the change to prevent improvements to the network?

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I can acknowledge that there are negative aspects to the design and that's fine, we may not agree on what the negative aspects are. Changing a route is going to affect SOMEBODY, but is it really as drastic as you all are making it?

"OMG this route no longer goes here" Yeah, but if that segment carries air, then why not make the route more useful?

Are these cumulative changes all peaches & cream as you're making it? I mean, the assertion being made with that inquiry at the end there, is that any of these changes that have been proposed are guaranteed to make these proposed routes more useful.... This isn't about simply doing away with portions of current routes that carry air by a longshot; you're fooling yourself if you think you're going to have an extensive network of routes that encompasses as much territory as Queens, that won't have portions that carry air... This is about systematically saving money off the backs of the myriad of the riding public - and no, this isn't merely about changing a couple of routes & inconveniencing a few people here or there, like you want to try to spin it, either....

You ask, are these changes really as drastic as we're making it - but yet state that almost anything is better than the current network... So if your point here is one of conveying that those that are critical of the plan as being irrational or something, you aren't being exactly impartial in your assessments just because you want to solely highlight the positives & refrain from being critical of any flaws of the redesigned network...

...and good job at minimizing those who stand to be negatively affected by what's being proposed in this redesign, with stating a small percentage that may not even mind a change that you automatically deem as an improvement.... That's essentially a slick way of saying 100% of current riders will be content with what the redesign offers... Way to invalidate the people that went out to these hearings & voiced their frustrations/critiques/problems they have with the redesign.....

N6 Limited · January 13, 2022

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) Considering they have that section under the "archived materials" page, I would think (and hope) that they keep the old map for reference.

That's good, it would be useful to compare drafts.

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

2) I think of it as some of the express and local stops in Manhattan (since the orange routes seem to be trying to approximate the spacing of local subway stops, while the blue and dash portions of the purple routes seem to intend to approximate the spacing of express subway stops). Yes, technically most people can walk from 14th Street to 23rd Street, but most people would probably transfer to the local train.

Yes, there are slight differences. A local train is typically across the platform and trains would make the trip to the next local stop in one min. If they were to walk they'd have to exit the station and begin their walk.

On the bus, depending on the headway, it may be quicker to walk, also they may want to be strategic about using a transfer. Speaking of which, the MTA should consider a new model for OMNY transfers, such as adding a 3rd transfer, or unlimited transfers in certain time frame. Unlimited metrocard use has decreased recently for obvious reasons.

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

3) I get all of that, but my main concern is if they use all of that as a reason to not have a route properly serving Addesleigh Park via Brinkerhoff (which doesn't require so many turns). Considering the only QT65 stop in Addesleigh Park would be right at Brinkerhoff & 174th, they might as well save the extra turns and just run the QT65 down Merrick in that case.

Or if they're really trying to cheap out (which I hope they aren't, since I do see some value in a second crosstown route north of Linden, hence why I have it running to Sutphin), then at least have the QT65 take Merrick to Brinkerhoff and serve Addesleigh Park that way. (But then you run into the issue of not connecting with any of the purple routes, so long story short a dedicated Brinkerhoff route is necessary in either case)

I think they wanted to use the existing stop while keeping most of the area under the "coverage" overlay. The route you propose from Sutphin would give them easy access to the LIRR as well.

They're certainly trying to be economic by more strategic use of their existing resources.

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Yes, because the thought of someone that's more proximate to a local stop along a busy corridor like Merrick wanting Jamaica Center is so preposterous... This notion that a local stop has to be as busy as that of a major intersection/xfer point is beyond unreasonable...

People that are more proximate to local stops aren't expendable as the MTA (and you too, apparently) want to make them & shouldn't be made to have their commutes exacerbated throughout an entire borough...

What 's preposterous is the prevention of modifications to routes due to a low percentage of riders who use the route compared to the majority of passengers it may benefit.

It's funny that you say that when you were perturbed that NICE added a stop to the N6X.

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

So, a bus network that features bus routes with different O/D pairs than the current network, that offers xfers to other bus routes....

Routes that have increased connection opportunities along the the entire route connect to new routes that have even more connection opportunities along the entire route. The difference is that they all don't share the same connection point at one terminal and hardly anywhere else.

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You keep harping on this bustime point as if using bustime somehow enhances this redesigned network.... Bustime doesn't make this or any other network better or worse; this is like saying that a lavatory prolongs your life or something; you can technically take a piss, a shit, or a bath anywhere.... Lol.... Anyway, sure, the current network is a result of a constant changing of routes... The current network is also decades old; the argument isn't that every route should remain exactly the same..... The thing is, when you have a new network coming out of the gate with fragmented routes based off the current network (again, even though this was supposed to be a clean slate approach), that's a problem.....

Bustime enhances bus ridership for me at least, I can see where the bus is, and I know if I have time to go to the store beforehand, I can see from the train where my connecting bus is, etc. Subway time as well, I can see if I need to speed up my entry into the subway station, etc.

The bus network was developed as Queens grew and consisted if independent bus companies competing with each other, so the routes are all over the place right now.

If some people are screaming about this redesign now, how would a "clean slate approach" make people react? :lol: I think some people were angry because their bus number changed.

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

They should complement each other, but the way they've implemented these 4 different service types in the network do not have buses complementing each other.... They fragment the network; one corridor majorically gets a red/LTD route only, one corridor gets a subway-dash route only, one corridor even gets a blue route only (which is worse than a corridor only having a red or a subway-dash route).... You can't have corridors that are solely served by skip-stop variants & then claim that connectivity is increased, network-wide... That the network is more complementary than the current network (yes, that has problems in its own right)... Speaking of which (connectivity), this proposed network aims towards improving connectivity b/w the bus & the subway - at the detriment of exacerbating connectivity between buses, network-wide.... Just like you say everybody doesn't want Manhattan, everybody doesn't want the subway either....

It's interesting that you praise the routes in this redesign that streamlined some corridors, yet a route that already runs along a particular corridor in the current network (like a Q5 along Merrick Blvd) is somehow problematic...

Having every route operate at the same headway has nothing to do with anything here... That wouldn't necessarily result in a network where perfect connectivity would be achieved anyway, if that's the point you're trying to convey with that...

The red routes are simply high use corridors with stop spacing. Subway dash routes gets people to the subway quicker because that's where the majority of ridership is going, most of them close to the city line, the subway goes half way into Queens. They may do the same with the Brooklyn Redesign for South East Brooklyn.

The QT5 is flanked on both sides by local routes, there's logic behind the proposal. The vast majority of riders do not live on 101 Ave, that alone puts them closer to the green routes that would provide local service.

I agree, everybody doesn't want the subway, that's why it's important to have connecting routes that don't require going to the subway to transfer to another bus going away from the subway.

I haven't specifically indicated in this discussion that the Q5 in itself is "problematic", however the QT18 and QT42 proposal is an interesting upgrade in service along the corridor. It appears that the QT18 would allow all trips on the QT42 to go to Green Acres. Which brings up another point, the Q5 has a couple of short turn points as it is, the QT18 is modifying/splitting the service pattern to provide the outer portion to have a speedier journey down the bus lanes, which would allow all trips to go to the Mall, and all riders to have a faster ride.

You were saying that the routes don't run in harmony with connecting routes, how would that be instituted?

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

This reads as an incoherent rant.... Reminiscent of that @NY1635 dude.

No bus network of this magnitude that isn't wholly a hub & spoke network is going to have every route xferring to one another... Honestly now.

:lol: No, he would say random unrelated statements.

I know that every route isn't going to transfer to one another, but have any of you looked at the remix map , selected the different lines and see their routings and connections?, and the routes the connections have?

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Are these cumulative changes all peaches & cream as you're making it? I mean, the assertion being made with that inquiry at the end there, is that any of these changes that have been proposed are guaranteed to make these proposed routes more useful.... This isn't about simply doing away with portions of current routes that carry air by a longshot; you're fooling yourself if you think you're going to have an extensive network of routes that encompasses as much territory as Queens, that won't have portions that carry air... This is about systematically saving money off the backs of the myriad of the riding public - and no, this isn't merely about changing a couple of routes & inconveniencing a few people here or there, like you want to try to spin it, either....

You ask, are these changes really as drastic as we're making it - but yet state that almost anything is better than the current network... So if your point here is one of conveying that those that are critical of the plan as being irrational or something, you aren't being exactly impartial in your assessments just because you want to solely highlight the positives & refrain from being critical of any flaws of the redesigned network...

...and good job at minimizing those who stand to be negatively affected by what's being proposed in this redesign, with stating a small percentage that may not even mind a change that you automatically deem as an improvement.... That's essentially a slick way of saying 100% of current riders will be content with what the redesign offers... Way to invalidate the people that went out to these hearings & voiced their frustrations/critiques/problems they have with the redesign.....

There is no way that 100% of riders will be content with what the redesign offers, that is one of my points. The MTA is a large agency with a budget in the billions, that is always crying for more and more funding from Albany. So yes, they're going to "try" to keep their costs under control. As they have said, they're trying to improve the network while being as close to "cost neutral" as possible, they have to provide service where it makes sense and pull where it doesn't.

For example, the Q84 gets light ridership east of Francis Lewis Blvd, they have threatened to "delete" the route all together a few times. In this proposal, instead of removing service from that section, they replace it with the QT73 which runs at a lower frequency. They have only so many buses, and so many Bus Operators, etc.

Cait Sith · January 13, 2022

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

The QT5 is flanked on both sides by local routes, there's logic behind the proposal. The vast majority of riders do not live on 101 Ave, that alone puts them closer to the green routes that would provide local service.

So now folks have to live ON that street to actually be acknowledged?

As someone who uses the Q8/24/41 on an almost daily basis, while living near the Q112, pushing the masses that would be screwed over by the QT5 over to Liberty or Atlantic would be an inherently bad idea, especially when you consider that a fairly large majority of Q8 riders are of the elderly. The Q112 can barely handle the rush hour crowds and Liberty Avenue traffic and the Q24(Before and after the redesign) will still be incredibly unreliable(and don't try to give me some story about how the Q24 will be better after the redesign, because nothing much is changing other than it being cut back). 101st Avenue needs a limited and a local variant and the ridership data proves it(The Q8 ranked at the 11th highest used MTA Bus route with 3.3 million people, right behind the 10th ranked Q6). The way they are going about with the QT5 is a massive step back from what they've done to even gain more ridership for the route.

On 1/12/2022 at 5:24 AM, N6 Limited said:

1. You're making arguments that all Merrick Buses should go to Jamaica Center and no one could possibly want otherwise when said buses all used to go to Hillside in the first place.

2. The proposed stops are proposals, they can add a stop if necessary. But, if you look at the QT18 they wanted to implement stop spacing anyway, so there would be only 5 local stops bypassed by the purple routes on Merrick.

3. Do they fudge the numbers in the communities they're having meetings in to make the headways look better?

4. The QT18 gives Merrick another option of and Hillside. Maybe Merrick riders want to take the bus to IHOP, White Castle, various jobs along Hillside, Van Buren HS, etc, this would make that easier. Looking at the proposed stops, I doubt riders are going to transfer to take a bus one stop. Because from the look of it, the QT18 would have one stop between the purple route's limited stops.

Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives? The busiest stops that I see are the ones that the Purple routes are proposed stop at, except maybe 109th Ave, which they can simply add.

5. They noted they would monitor the implementation and make changes as necessary. (Probably not as quickly as NICE though) They're making a new draft with less dramatic changes but still implementing different route types, stop spacing, straightening routes, etc.

I'm making the argument that Jamaica Center right now is where the vast majority of the demand stems from along that corridor. If there was a local variant COMPLEMENTING the purple line routes(which the QT18 does not), I would have no problems with the QT18 as it WOULD provide a legitimate alternative. Anyone wanting the local stops along Merrick from Jamaica Center would get screwed over pretty hard by the extra time of walking(especially when you consider the amount of elderly folks that commute along the corridor). The fact that you're not seeing that is once again, astounding to me. It's amazing how the people who actually went to the meetings see that, but you don't.

This is why I was in favor of Checkmatechamp's idea of a route going from Sutphin to Brinkerhoff, as it would serve the Jamaica Center crowd while having the QT18 being a legitimate alternative without making Merrick Blvd even more disjointed as it is under the draft plan.

Ridership data has shown that the average amount of riders that utilizes the stops between Liberty & Springfield averages between 2,500 and 5,700 riders on an average weekday(with 2019 statistics, which is what the draft is based on). The local stops averaged around 1,500 and 3,500 riders on an average weekday. That in itself is significant enough to warrant some level of service at the local stops to Jamaica Center, especially given that the Merrick Blvd corridor has averaged around 57,000 riders on an average weekday. Ridership past Springfield wanes off significantly throughout the routes, with the Rosedale and Valley Stream section peaking in the five-hundreds. The Laurelton routes has much higher ridership in that regard.

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

Bustime enhances bus ridership for me at least, I can see where the bus is, and I know if I have time to go to the store beforehand, I can see from the train where my connecting bus is, etc. Subway time as well, I can see if I need to speed up my entry into the subway station, etc.

Yeah, for you. Which is what your entire argument has been about, it's been all about you and f**k everyone else who's negatively affected.

There is still a massive amount of people both old and young that do not use bustime, or do not even know of it. So how exactly would bustime benefit those people if they don't know of it or use it? Are you going to magically convince them to use it? The MTA has advertised it above and beyond their means almost everywhere, and there's still hundreds of thousands of people who still don't get the memo.

BusTime won't enhance much for anybody, especially with how it's reliability has been tanking over time with glitches and intermittent shutdowns from time to time.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Cait Sith

B35 via Church · January 14, 2022

3 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

What 's preposterous is the prevention of modifications to routes due to a low percentage of riders who use the route compared to the majority of passengers it may benefit.

It's funny that you say that when you were perturbed that NICE added a stop to the N6X.

The amount of riders that board at local stops (compared to those that board at transfer points) isn't remotely as low as you want to make it out to be, to try to render these people insignificant, for the purpose of speeding up bus service.... A one-dimensional network where 1 bus route falls into one of 4 categories, doesn't allow for much of any options...... While there is something very wrong with leaving a specific corridor in a local bus network with only a skip-stop variant, when it comes to formulating a network, there isn't nearly anything as wrong as having a local variant run concurrent with some skip-stop variant on the same route.... That is what I'm advocating for, on the corridors that garner enough ridership where a skip-stop service like a LTD is warranted.... That promotes a complementary relationship along the same route serving the same corridor, not this nonsense where they're merging the busiest portions of 2 unrelated corridors & concocting a skip-stop service out of it... That serves as nothing more than a cost-cutting measure... You may not see or realize it through your rose colored glasses, but those that have criticized those routes of the sort (and not just on this forum either) see it plain as day....

Generally speaking, the demand for bus service stopping at local stops in the current NYC network exists... Not to the extent of that of most transfer points, but not to the extent where it's so damn low, that buses shouldn't be serving local stops at all, either

That n6x bit... The specific demand for n6x bus service to UBS arena does not currently exist.... So yes, adding stops to a skip-stop service like the n6x when the demand doesn't call for it, looms potentially wasteful for the n6x riders that are trying to get to other stops along the route... What's funny is you advocating for that same stop on the n6x, but conveying how problematic NYC's local buses are.... You apparently take such issue with local stops because they slow down the route, yet you dare want to slow the n6x down by having it make that extra stop?

3 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Routes that have increased connection opportunities along the the entire route connect to new routes that have even more connection opportunities along the entire route. The difference is that they all don't share the same connection point at one terminal and hardly anywhere else.

Throughout the network, how much of that is really the case though? You keep claiming increased/more connectivity, when the connection opportunities are different... Different, as in, there are gains with connection opportunities in some parts of the network & losses of connection opportunities in other parts of the network... Again, you're conveying that point like no current rider stands to lose some connection to somewhere & there's just nothing but gains to be had....

That second point sounds like 1] you're specifically referring to 165th st. bus terminal & 2] you take issue with feeder based networks in general.... If off-street bus terminals and/or some subway station doesn't make for ideal terminals (especially in some in-demand/high demand area), then what does? We simply don't have many malls in NYC where we can send a wad of buses to terminate at.... And why should routes connect to some other route in a network more than once (as in, mid-route, on top of at some common terminal) for?

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Bustime enhances bus ridership for me at least, I can see where the bus is, and I know if I have time to go to the store beforehand, I can see from the train where my connecting bus is, etc. Subway time as well, I can see if I need to speed up my entry into the subway station, etc.

The bus network was developed as Queens grew and consisted if independent bus companies competing with each other, so the routes are all over the place right now.

If some people are screaming about this redesign now, how would a "clean slate approach" make people react? I think some people were angry because their bus number changed.

The red routes are simply high use corridors with stop spacing. Subway dash routes gets people to the subway quicker because that's where the majority of ridership is going, most of them close to the city line, the subway goes half way into Queens. They may do the same with the Brooklyn Redesign for South East Brooklyn.

The point isn't that you (or anyone else) shouldn't use tracking-based apps, the point is that they don't enhance any bus network.... Not your use of the buses in a network, the network itself.... Nothing wrong whatsoever with being tech-savvy...

Oh, I agree with routes being all over the place as they currently stand... Some routes more than others are outdated as shit.... You will never catch me saying/claiming that every route needs to remain exactly the same.... I think most people that have perused the bus section of this forum over the years have noticed my presence in any of those separate borough proposal threads - as well as for Bee Line, NJT, NICE, & SCT.... In saying that, I don't think every single route, or virtually every single route in the current network needs to have a routing change.....

How would a clean slate approach have people react? Depends on how they deem) the quality (and the intricacies within, such as frequency) of the routes to be.... Yeah, there are going to be people that complain regardless (which sounds like that's the real point you want to make, in posing that question) - but how many of those people exist (complainers that just want to complain), compared to those that are complaining b/c they would stand to be directly affected for the worst with this redesign? This whole bit, yet again, is the whole minimizing of riders' critiques again, virtually slapping them in the face.... You have riders that have posed legitimate concerns to the MTA about how this redesigned network would be detrimental to them, and what you immediately jump to, are some people feeling some type of way about nothing more than a bus route's number? That is just as petty as whoever solely has a problem with their bus number changing....

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The red routes are simply high use corridors with stop spacing. Subway dash routes gets people to the subway quicker because that's where the majority of ridership is going, most of them close to the city line, the subway goes half way into Queens. They may do the same with the Brooklyn Redesign for South East Brooklyn.

The QT5 is flanked on both sides by local routes, there's logic behind the proposal. The vast majority of riders do not live on 101 Ave, that alone puts them closer to the green routes that would provide local service.

I agree, everybody doesn't want the subway, that's why it's important to have connecting routes that don't require going to the subway to transfer to another bus going away from the subway.

I haven't specifically indicated in this discussion that the Q5 in itself is "problematic", however the QT18 and QT42 proposal is an interesting upgrade in service along the corridor. It appears that the QT18 would allow all trips on the QT42 to go to Green Acres. Which brings up another point, the Q5 has a couple of short turn points as it is, the QT18 is modifying/splitting the service pattern to provide the outer portion to have a speedier journey down the bus lanes, which would allow all trips to go to the Mall, and all riders to have a faster ride.

You were saying that the routes don't run in harmony with connecting routes, how would that be instituted?

Yes, I get the concept of the 4 categories of bus routes they're instilling into this redesign.... IDK whether they're going to take on a similar approach as they did for the Bronx redesign, or the same basic approach as that of the Queens redesign, for Brooklyn's redesign....

There is nothing logical about having a bus route (QT5) make so few stops along 1 corridor for that length of the corridor, due to the existence of nearby routes (QT24, QT67) serving other nearby corridors.... Putting that another way, 101st av. shouldn't be some sacrificial lamb for faster service to/from Jamaica (in general), for two other/nearby corridors (Atlantic av, Liberty av, respectively)... 101st. av only allows for 1 lane of traffic each way for most the corridor; it would actually make more sense to have a corresponding/complementary skip-stop service along Atlantic itself, than along 101st av., since Atlantic has one additional lane of moving traffic each way than 101st av. does... And when I say skip-stop service, I'm by no means intimating that that many stops along Atlantic be skipped, as they're proposing for that QT5 along 101st... IDC how much speed they want to try to instill into a network, that QT5 is one of, if not the most egregious single proposal offered in this redesign....With one lane of moving traffic, that QT5 is going to be going nowhere fast anyway - much like the Q8 does....

Oh, it wasn't a direct quote (nor did I use quotes), but to wax poetic about that QT18 (and the fragmentation it offers along Merrick) intimates to me that you take issue with a route that runs along most of Merrick the way the Q5 does, compared to just the busiest/the core parts of Merrick that the QT18 does.... I also find the QT18 (separate of what it does on Hillside, which is a whole 'nother issue) & the QT42 "interesting" myself, but for a different reason.... What they're portraying is that those that live in Springfield Gdns. constitute more of the demand along/around Merrick to the (E) (J) , and those that live west of Springfield (av) would be either more open to, or have a certain latent demand for the (F) .... I find difficulty believing either, but whatever...... While I take issue with the totality of the QT18, I actually take less issue with the Merrick portion & more with the Hillside portion.... Even if they wanted to try their hand at testing waters, I would still leave the Q5 alone - and in addition, have a branch serve the (F) - kind of like the B17 Paerdegat branch does with serving the (L) ....

To that last question, of a network of this magnitude, they wouldn't (run in harmony with connecting routes).... That's the very point I'm making with that.... I wasn't intimating, or trying to leave a sort of cliffhanger, with there being some magic bullet regarding bus network construction that would have that be achieved in a large-scale network... There is no way you're going to pulse-point (which actually relies on harmony/perfect connectivity) the entire borough of Queens - or really, service solely to/from any of the major hubs in the borough (Flushing, Jamaica, LIC, etc.).... That is to be saved for much smaller networks, or sub-networks....

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

No, he would say random unrelated statements.

I know that every route isn't going to transfer to one another, but have any of you looked at the remix map , selected the different lines and see their routings and connections?, and the routes the connections have?

Alright, I'll be fair.... Although I did find that part of your post to be rather incoherent, ny1635 was a special flavor of batshit (crazy).... I can at least have a decent conversation with you, even if we strongly disagree on the merits of this thing.

Not only have I merely looked at the remix map (since the day whoever it was on here first brought it to my attention), I have it bookmarked & constantly refer to it, like it's the actual NYCT Queens bus map.... I consider myself to be a cartophile - and in conjunction with transit advocacy, I'm always on the prowl for a good bus map (even though it may feature lackadaisical/antiquated/or otherwise WTF-worthy routes within them)....

6 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

There is no way that 100% of riders will be content with what the redesign offers, that is one of my points. The MTA is a large agency with a budget in the billions, that is always crying for more and more funding from Albany. So yes, they're going to "try" to keep their costs under control. As they have said, they're trying to improve the network while being as close to "cost neutral" as possible, they have to provide service where it makes sense and pull where it doesn't.

For example, the Q84 gets light ridership east of Francis Lewis Blvd, they have threatened to "delete" the route all together a few times. In this proposal, instead of removing service from that section, they replace it with the QT73 which runs at a lower frequency. They have only so many buses, and so many Bus Operators, etc.

Lol, try to keep their costs under control..... The MTA misallocates their funds in other areas (separate of anything directly involved with providing bus & subway service), then looks to use service as the immediate scapegoat (as in, cuts) when it comes time to pay the piper... The buses are always the easier target, but as of late with covid & everything, there's been sneaky subway cuts (or trip "combinations", as they like to spin it) to boot....

The crux of that godawful impinging eyesore that's sadly classified as artwork that's pervasive in the subway can remain, and continue to be added throughout the subway system... But my (*insert departure time here*) (*insert bus route here*) towards (*insert end terminal here*) is the problem.... Bullshit.

^^ and that's aimed towards the MTA, not you.

checkmatechamp13 · January 14, 2022

5 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

1) Yes, there are slight differences. A local train is typically across the platform and trains would make the trip to the next local stop in one min. If they were to walk they'd have to exit the station and begin their walk.

2) On the bus, depending on the headway, it may be quicker to walk, also they may want to be strategic about using a transfer. Speaking of which, the MTA should consider a new model for OMNY transfers, such as adding a 3rd transfer, or unlimited transfers in certain time frame. Unlimited metrocard use has decreased recently for obvious reasons.

3) I think they wanted to use the existing stop while keeping most of the area under the "coverage" overlay. The route you propose from Sutphin would give them easy access to the LIRR as well.

4) I haven't specifically indicated in this discussion that the Q5 in itself is "problematic", however the QT18 and QT42 proposal is an interesting upgrade in service along the corridor. It appears that the QT18 would allow all trips on the QT42 to go to Green Acres. Which brings up another point, the Q5 has a couple of short turn points as it is, the QT18 is modifying/splitting the service pattern to provide the outer portion to have a speedier journey down the bus lanes, which would allow all trips to go to the Mall, and all riders to have a faster ride.

5) I know that every route isn't going to transfer to one another, but have any of you looked at the remix map , selected the different lines and see their routings and connections?, and the routes the connections have?

6) For example, the Q84 gets light ridership east of Francis Lewis Blvd, they have threatened to "delete" the route all together a few times. In this proposal, instead of removing service from that section, they replace it with the QT73 which runs at a lower frequency. They have only so many buses, and so many Bus Operators, etc

1) I agree that generally local stations are a bit easier/less complicated to get out of, compared to express stations, but I think the principal is still the same. If you look at the countdown clock and see that the next local train is in 12 minutes, you'll probably start walking, even though you would prefer to take the train.

2) Three-legged transfers are supposed to be incorporated into the redesign. For the SIM routes, they did give us some three-legged transfers but it wasn't as extensive as what was originally promised.

3) My point is that their version has it stopping specifically at Brinkerhoff (rather than another Q42 stop like say, 108th Avenue). So my proposal would literally serve the same exact stop in Addesleigh Park that they intend to serve, and then some.

4) To be fair, most would have a faster ride, but riders from the local stops heading to Green Acres would have to transfer (which may not be much of a problem heading Jamaica-bound due to the frequent QT18 service, but may be harder heading towards Green Acres, since the QT42 is somewhat less frequent than the Q5).

Still, all the transfer points are covered on the QT42, and those riders and any other ones from the limited stops would have a quicker ride.

5) Might be interesting to make a quick Excel table of which routes connect with which ones in the current system vs. the proposed system. (But of course, there's more to connectivity than sheer numbers of connecting routes, especially depending on how you count branches and so on)

6) I think it was more "Let's give the area a Flushing route instead of a Jamaica route and see how it works". They could've just as easily extended the QT41 to replicate the present-day Q84.

B35 via Church · January 14, 2022

On 1/9/2022 at 1:10 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

So in this scenario, you'd sacrifice the portion of the Q11 b/w Pitkin & 157th, to maintain (bi-directional) 84th st. service in Howard Beach, a la the QT88....

I don't remember what I called it (think I kept it as the Q11), but a good while back, I proposed a (local) route running via Lindenwood... I think I had it terminating at 157th/Cross Bay though, with some trips shooting & looping over to serve/end at Howard Beach (A) , via 157th... It was sometime after I proposed having the Q11 (normal routing north of 160th) serve both Old Howard Bch. & Hamilton Bch., with it terminating in the former.... So I wouldn't have a problem with a local route running via Lindenwood & via 157th.... I still want no part of having a route run on 84th south of Lindenwood, for reasons already mentioned....

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think it was more "Let's give the area a Flushing route instead of a Jamaica route and see how it works". They could've just as easily extended the QT41 to replicate the present-day Q84.

I don't think it has anything to do with the MTA's past threats of cutting the Q84, nor do I necessarily think it's about merely, specifically giving Cambria Hgts. a Flushing route on a trial & error bit.....

I think that's merely their *answer* to the Q27 - As in, have the SE Queens - Flushing route take Francis Lewis instead of Springfield... Saves time... The full Q27 ends at 120th/Springfield (well, technically 119th).... The problem of course, is that the riders are more proximate to Springfield than they are Franny Lou.... Francis Lewis north of Hillside for most SE Queens patrons is either an armpit to get elsewhere, or a complete afterthought... That reigns true for the Q76 & I see it being no different with the proposed QT73.... The QT73, even compared to the Q76, is a straight up service cut....

Edited January 14, 2022 by B35 via Church

checkmatechamp13 · January 14, 2022

36 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I think that's merely their *answer* to the Q27 - As in, have the SE Queens - Flushing route take Francis Lewis instead of Springfield... Saves mileage... The Q27 ends at The problem of course, is that the riders are more proximate to Springfield than they are Franny Lou.... Francis Lewis north of Hillside for most SE Queens patrons is either an armpit to get elsewhere, or a complete afterthought... That reigns true for the Q76 & I see it being no different with the proposed QT73.... The QT73, even compared to the Q76, is a straight up service cut....

I get the part about it being the QT73 intending to replace the Q27 in SE Queens, but what I'm referring to is having it run across 120th specifically. They could just as easily have the QT73 end at the current Q27 terminal (or somewhere in the 120th/Springfield/Francis Lewis vicinity) without having it run all the way down to the present-day Q84 terminal.

Hopefully they wouldn't make the same mistake that they did in the SIM redesign of "it has the same endpoints as the old Q27, so we'll just call it the old Q27 and copy-paste the whole Q27 schedule onto the new route" (well I suppose in this case it would be a service boost but of course, it would ultimately lead to some other random route getting shortchanged).

B35 via Church · January 14, 2022

4 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I get the part about it being the QT73 intending to replace the Q27 in SE Queens, but what I'm referring to is having it run across 120th specifically. They could just as easily have the QT73 end at the current Q27 terminal (or somewhere in the 120th/Springfield/Francis Lewis vicinity) without having it run all the way down to the present-day Q84 terminal.

Hopefully they wouldn't make the same mistake that they did in the SIM redesign of "it has the same endpoints as the old Q27, so we'll just call it the old Q27 and copy-paste the whole Q27 schedule onto the new route" (well I suppose in this case it would be a service boost but of course, it would ultimately lead to some other random route getting shortchanged).

...and I get that you're talking about that part of the Q84 - which is why I said "nor do I necessarily think it's about merely, specifically giving Cambria Hgts. a Flushing route on a trial & error bit"... Where the Q84 serves down along that part of the route & eventually ends, is still Cambria Hgts.... But yeah, I don't think that QT73 is much more than a Q27 replacement....

Anyway, I also don't think that there's really going to be much of any copy-paste jobs when it comes to scheduling with any of these proposed routes... I suppose that qualifies as a positive, even though service levels on these things in general leaves much to be desired...

IAlam · January 14, 2022

Oh boy I have a lot to unpack here

On 1/9/2022 at 1:10 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

First let me mention when I "suggest" these changes they really aren't changes that I want implemented and more of things that I thought they missed.

The reason I said the QT31 should have gone to QCC is because QCC can serve as a minor hub and provide more connections within the neighborhood and QCC is one of the bigger ridership generators in Eastern Queens as aside from a place like that may students aren't just going to and from Flushing or Jamaica, They could just as easily want intermediate destination that aren't served by the existing routes, in an area like this the purple routes are not just subway rushers but also local buses because the MTA neglected to add a local variant of these route. I have other issues with the QT31 but I'm not going to get into them as more against the plan as a whole. Also routes like the QT71 has other issues where it avoid major ridership generators in the south. Ie Green Acres.

Routes like the QT64 & QT65 really won't be pulling much ridership north of the LIE. While I would say their existence is completely a bad thing, What is bad is that there is no alternate route to Flushing. Essentially forcing everyone at to either go to Jamaica walk a long distance to another bus, make an extra transfer, or take an inefficient route than what they have today. The additional time spent walk and waiting for the connection will often negate any time saving you'll have. Also I haven't seen a single line in my area with majorly improved frequencies or service hours or run time. Which is what I thought the whole plan was trying to improve.

Yes while you're right there are many places without redundancy there is nothing wrong with adding it. While you're also right about a delay on Kissena affecting the branch portions. You're over looking that some branch portions can recover faster than others College Point route already has reliability issues on a normal day combine that with a delay the whole corridor is screwed over. No lets say you have the Mitchel Gardens branch too. While at first it's screwed over too, it will recover much faster than College Point and riders on the Kissena corridor would be as screwed over as one of their lines are able to run. Unlike having one route where not only is the branch screwed over but so is the corridor. Additionally reduandancy can take the form of 2 separate routes taking different paths to ultimately get to the same destination. Where an issue on one route doesn't affect the other. Especially when we live in a day an age where drivers are short all the time, and it might take years for this to recover, having different route run by different depos can make a big difference. Frankly I don't even know why all the express branches got shoved down 46th Ave as that street is congested enough as it. If anything they neglected streets like Booth Memorial which generally run traffic free.

As for the subway redundancy that was just an example of why redundancy is useful to exist. Also I have issues with the QT75 ending at Bryant Park but like before I'm not getting into specific routes because I have an issue with the plan as a whole.

On 1/10/2022 at 6:07 PM, B35 via Church said:

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...

Yes and it get's worse when its a green and blue route. *Cough* Main St. *Cough*

and when you have routes the like QT51 no good alternative and peak only.

On 1/10/2022 at 7:28 PM, Cait Sith said:

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

This has been the biggest issue so far.
Also thank you @Cait Sith and @B35 via Church for making a lot of my point for me albeit, in a much nicer response than what I originally intended to say.

On 1/11/2022 at 6:15 PM, N6 Limited said:

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.

On 1/11/2022 at 7:27 PM, 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.

You both mention how being shifted over from the (E) to the (F) should be that big a deal, but it neglects shifting from the (J) to the (F) that's a bigger deal. You can easily go from (F) to (E) but not from (F) to (J) . Maybe bringing some form of the Q42 back might help but since the plan came without it those people would be have more annoying trip.

On 1/12/2022 at 11:12 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't think it would be that outlandish for people to take the bus one stop (especially considering that "one stop" means a further distance than it does now). If the bus is frequent enough, and with BusTime letting you know how close the bus is, you can decide whether to walk or wait for the connecting bus. (That's what I do whenever I take the SIM4X/8X).

But the thing is if you miss the SIM4X/SIM8X you can just take the regular SIM4/SIM8, that's not an option for a lot of these buses the local version doesn't take you to the end of the route like the express versions do. While that does exist on some lines under the current system this takes that issue and makes it a whole lot worse. Also I know the bus time thing didn't start with you but bus time is not a solution to this problem. It is an already existing tool not something new that will change how we ride the bus.

If the bus routes had a structure that resembled lets say:

Destinations: 
A-------B-------C-------D-------E
C is a subway station
o means a bus is stopping 
x means a bus is skipping 
G for Green, R for Red, P for Purple

Route 1G (A<->C): A-o-o-o-B-o-o-o-C-------D-------E 
Route 2P (A<->C): A-o-o-o-B-x-x-x-C-------D-------E 
Route 3R (B<->D): A-------B-x-o-x-C-x-o-x-D-------E
Route 4G (C<->E): A-------B-------C-o-o-o-D-o-o-o-E 
Route 5P (C<->E): A-------B-------C-x-x-x-D-o-o-o-E

This would be a lot better because you still receive service towards the ends of the routes, maybe run less frequently run on some of routes towards the further ends, but you are not sacrificing coverage and connections while creating new ones.

On 1/9/2022 at 1:10 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

Going back to this I think NICE bus should be apart of this redesign as many queens riders connect to their service and these changes interact with people connect with their services. Especially considering we have Queens buses that already go into Long Island and the MTA wants to add more.

Edited January 14, 2022 by IAlam

Mtatransit · January 15, 2022

On 1/5/2022 at 7:14 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

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).

( A) I mean if we are going to have a route on 35th Avenue anyways, might as well keep the Q33 and Q49, which both are doing excellent for a route its length. Like I said before, QCM can simply be served by an extension of the Q29 up to Northern/81st. I can see the current Q32 or (QT61) ending at 74th Street.

(B ) The issue I see is that the Astoria Blvd bus QT81 doesn't really need to serve 108th Street, especially considering how poor the ridership currently is on the Q48, and the duplicative other service proposed to serve it

The QT58/QT6 idea, I agree with the proposal

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

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....

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...

(A ) In my opinion thats one of the better changes in this plan, The demand for Woodhaven local is significantly greater north of the (A) than south of it, both for Q11 branches and Q21.

They don't even need to extend the QT83 into Lindenwood in my opinion, it could just end at Pitkin Ave like the current Q11 short turns, that is only IF they operate QT88 with decent headways. I don't mind the routing for QT88 at all, as long as it serves Lindenwood proper and runs better than every 30 minutes off peak.

(B ) conveying the MTA's ability to come up with whatever BS they can to justify whatever they want. Took it right from my mouth

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

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

There seems to be psychologically a huge barrier when it comes to bus transfers, both time and financial. Passengers are much more willing to change trains than buses. Might be because as bad as the (R) is, nothing is bad as waiting for NYC buses, which are slow, and worst of them all unreliable and sometimes infrequent.

Force everyone to get out of the station and reswipe into the station to transfer to the local/express, and I guarantee you will see less people transferring between local to express. Especially if you offer them only one free transfer. Something definitely need to change regarding the fare media.

On 1/10/2022 at 9:51 PM, 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.

Something with the Jamaica Bus network that always bugs me is the lack of Cross Jamaica bus service. Unfortunately this plan doesn't really solves this issue.

Its easy to get TO/FROM 179th Street/Jamaica Center from the east but if you want to get further into Jamaica, you'll either have to take the subway a few stops or walk. Just look at the amount of service east of 165 St compared to the west of it.

On 1/11/2022 at 3:04 AM, 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?

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.

No issues for the purple routes from me. As long as there is a proper local supplement (even with reduced stops), and proper service span/headway. In fact, NICE bus has been doing this ever since they look over from the MTA, all the Nassau routes used to pick up/drop off every stop in Queens, and now NICE only picks up at select Limited stops in Queens. Their stop spacing (esp on the n4 which is getting ridiculous, but it seems like the people adapted, so maybe we can find a middle ground here)

On 1/13/2022 at 2:44 PM, N6 Limited said:

Bustime enhances bus ridership for me at least, I can see where the bus is, and I know if I have time to go to the store beforehand, I can see from the train where my connecting bus is, etc. Subway time as well, I can see if I need to speed up my entry into the subway station, etc.

Well bustime actually discourage me from using the bus more often than it encourage me to do so especially when you see the next four buses bunched 30 minutes from my stop

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

Generally speaking, the demand for bus service stopping at local stops in the current NYC network exists... Not to the extent of that of most transfer points, but not to the extent where it's so damn low, that buses shouldn't be serving local stops at all, either

To be fair, NYC has way too many bus stops, that I wouldn't mind if they cut some of it.

Out here on Northern Blvd, there was major stop reductions on the Q66. While inconvenient, eventually everyone seems okay with it. Definitely don't imply having limited stop spacing for every route in the city (which the Q66 in some case do now), but some cuts are definitely necessary

Mpn4179 · January 15, 2022

Per the MTA website on the Queens Bus Network Redesign:

What’s happening now and in the near future

We are excited to restart the Queens Bus Network Redesign with a “New Draft Plan,” driven by customer feedback, to be released in Q1 2022. This will be a new plan—not the Final Plan, nor the Draft Plan that was proposed in late 2019/early 2020. Throughout our extensive outreach efforts during that time, we collected and heard highly constructive feedback from the public. Comments centered around the loss of certain key subway connections, unclear schedule proposals, and wide bus stop spacing. The most frequently mentioned routes included the Q49, Q53-SBS, Q32, Q33, and Q66; however, we received both positive and negative reactions on route proposals all throughout the borough. This feedback became the primary input for the development of the New Draft Plan.

In this plan, we are working to address as many customer concerns as possible, while still balancing tradeoffs and applying network redesign strategies to improve the bus network. Additionally, we are carrying over some of the well-received elements of the original Draft Plan, while focusing more on strategies that would improve the existing network: using new route types, straightening routes, filling gaps in the bus network, creating new connections, strengthening interborough service, reallocating frequencies, prioritizing buses, and right-sizing the distance between bus stops. Yes, this is still an ambitious plan aimed at improving bus travel for Queens riders, but this version of the network will look a bit more familiar to you.

Q43LTD · January 15, 2022

Define "a bit more familiar "

checkmatechamp13 · January 16, 2022

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

The reason I said the QT31 should have gone to QCC is because QCC can serve as a minor hub and provide more connections within the neighborhood and QCC is one of the bigger ridership generators in Eastern Queens as aside from a place like that may students aren't just going to and from Flushing or Jamaica, They could just as easily want intermediate destination that aren't served by the existing routes, in an area like this the purple routes are not just subway rushers but also local buses because the MTA neglected to add a local variant of these route. I have other issues with the QT31 but I'm not going to get into them as more against the plan as a whole. Also routes like the QT71 has other issues where it avoid major ridership generators in the south. Ie Green Acres.

But in this case, the QT31 is only missing a local alternative along Hollis Court Blvd, which would be bypassed entirely under your proposal (assuming you have it running down 48th Avenue and not backtracking to QCC, which would make it even slower than the present-day Q27).

The other thing is that QCC isn't that far of a walk from HHE/Springfield (and on top of that, there's the QT12, QT75, and even the QT15, which can be used to connect to/from the QT31, if someone wanted to use that as an alternative to the QT71).

As for the QT71 itself, running to Green Acres would have it miss the connection to the QT45 (for access to Rosedale), QT68 (for access to JFK), and QT62 (for access to South Ozone Park and Five Towns). Personally, I think the QT62 should be routed via Brewer-147th-Rockaway, to put it in a more pedestrian-friendly area, and make connections easier (also, I'd add a QT13 stop at Brewer & 147th, so people can get directly to Far Rockaway from that transfer point).

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Routes like the QT64 & QT65 really won't be pulling much ridership north of the LIE. While I would say their existence is completely a bad thing, What is bad is that there is no alternate route to Flushing. Essentially forcing everyone at to either go to Jamaica walk a long distance to another bus, make an extra transfer, or take an inefficient route than what they have today. The additional time spent walk and waiting for the connection will often negate any time saving you'll have. Also I haven't seen a single line in my area with majorly improved frequencies or service hours or run time. Which is what I thought the whole plan was trying to improve.

I don't think the QT64 will perform any less poorly than the present-day Q76 (Considering it would become the only College Point-Flushing route). Bur yes, I do agree regarding the QT49/49/51.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Yes while you're right there are many places without redundancy there is nothing wrong with adding it...

Except that you'll either end up with less frequent service on the outskirts of that trunk route, or less frequent service on some other route in the network (assuming you're working within the same budget).

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

While you're also right about a delay on Kissena affecting the branch portions. You're over looking that some branch portions can recover faster than others College Point route already has reliability issues on a normal day combine that with a delay the whole corridor is screwed over. No lets say you have the Mitchel Gardens branch too. While at first it's screwed over too, it will recover much faster than College Point and riders on the Kissena corridor would be as screwed over as one of their lines are able to run.

In the case of the Q25/34 in particular, I think the QT16 will generally be more reliable, since Parsons Blvd is a wider street, and there's fewer turns and stops compared to the northern end of the Q25. But in general, I think good dispatching can resolve most of the issues (a combination of short-turning buses and sending them back in the other direction where necessary, and ideally, having a few buses on standby near hubs such as Main & Roosevelt.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Additionally redundancy can take the form of 2 separate routes taking different paths to ultimately get to the same destination. Where an issue on one route doesn't affect the other.

That type of redundancy isn't completely eliminated (e.g. QT16 vs. QT44 between Jamaica & Flushing). But in any case, there are still a decent amount of routes that are relatively closely-spaced (e.g. QT15 vs. QT17) and can be used in the event of a delay on the other route.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Especially when we live in a day an age where drivers are short all the time, and it might take years for this to recover, having different route run by different depots can make a big difference.

You can also take one route and split it between depots if necessary.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Frankly I don't even know why all the express branches got shoved down 46th Ave as that street is congested enough as it. If anything they neglected streets like Booth Memorial which generally run traffic free.

I think the issue is the catchment area (Booth Memorial has much of its catchment area filled with a park, cemetery, and golf course).

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Yes and it get's worse when its a green and blue route. *Cough* Main St. *Cough*

While I don't think the QT86 should run south of Queens Blvd, I don't see the issue with having the QT44/86 combination running along Main Street (It's no worse than the Q44 SBS and Q20 local). They just need to boost the frequency on the QT86.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

You both mention how being shifted over from the to the should be that big a deal, but it neglects shifting from the to the that's a bigger deal. You can easily go from to but not from to . Maybe bringing some form of the Q42 back might help but since the plan came without it those people would be have more annoying trip.

I didn't neglect it. That's one of the reasons I proposed the modified Q42. (And with an additional benefit of connecting to the LIRR).

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

But the thing is if you miss the SIM4X/SIM8X you can just take the regular SIM4/SIM8, that's not an option for a lot of these buses the local version doesn't take you to the end of the route like the express versions do. While that does exist on some lines under the current system this takes that issue and makes it a whole lot worse. Also I know the bus time thing didn't start with you but bus time is not a solution to this problem. It is an already existing tool not something new that will change how we ride the bus.

It's the opposite: I only take the SIM4X/8X if I miss the regular SIM4/8.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:
If the bus routes had a structure that resembled lets say:
Destinations: 
A-------B-------C-------D-------E
C is a subway station
o means a bus is stopping 
x means a bus is skipping 
G for Green, R for Red, P for Purple

Route 1G (A<->C): A-o-o-o-B-o-o-o-C-------D-------E 
Route 2P (A<->C): A-o-o-o-B-x-x-x-C-------D-------E 
Route 3R (B<->D): A-------B-x-o-x-C-x-o-x-D-------E
Route 4G (C<->E): A-------B-------C-o-o-o-D-o-o-o-E 
Route 5P (C<->E): A-------B-------C-x-x-x-D-o-o-o-E
This would be a lot better because you still receive service towards the ends of the routes, maybe run less frequently run on some of routes towards the further ends, but you are not sacrificing coverage and connections while creating new ones.

Right, but that's not even how a lot of the routes run nowadays. During rush hour, the Q36 and Q43 run all-limited and the local riders have to use the Q1/76/77. The same for the peak-direction Q46 and Q83 (and that's how most of the limited-stop routes run out on Staten Island).

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

Going back to this I think NICE bus should be apart of this redesign as many queens riders connect to their service and these changes interact with people connect with their services. Especially considering we have Queens buses that already go into Long Island and the MTA wants to add more.

Hopefully they take it into account for their redesign: https://www.nassaumobility.com/

12 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

There seems to be psychologically a huge barrier when it comes to bus transfers, both time and financial. Passengers are much more willing to change trains than buses. Might be because as bad as the is, nothing is bad as waiting for NYC buses, which are slow, and worst of them all unreliable and sometimes infrequent.

Force everyone to get out of the station and reswipe into the station to transfer to the local/express, and I guarantee you will see less people transferring between local to express. Especially if you offer them only one free transfer. Something definitely need to change regarding the fare media.

As part of the redesigns, they offer three-legged transfers for those affected. Hopefully it's a flexible policy for Queens (I just think it should be universal, not just limited to certain route combinations).

For the SIM routes, they offered a somewhat reduced/limited version of three-legged transfers for us.

12 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Something with the Jamaica Bus network that always bugs me is the lack of Cross Jamaica bus service. Unfortunately this plan doesn't really solves this issue.

Its easy to get TO/FROM 179th Street/Jamaica Center from the east but if you want to get further into Jamaica, you'll either have to take the subway a few stops or walk. Just look at the amount of service east of 165 St compared to the west of it.

Right now, the Q43 runs to the LIRR station via Hillside Avenue, and there's the Q6/8/9/41 which run from 165th Street to points west via Jamaica Avenue.

In the draft plan, riders transfer at Jamaica & Merrick to get to the Jamaica Center area.

It doesn't make sense to have every single route serve all of Jamaica, given the congestion and also the fact that most of the riders would get off at the first available subway station anyway.

2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Define "a bit more familiar "

Most like some of these QT routes will more closely resemble their present-day counterparts. (The fact that they mentioned those Jackson Heights routes suggests that they will probably be left as-is or with minimal changes).

B35 via Church · January 16, 2022

14 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

In my opinion thats one of the better changes in this plan, The demand for Woodhaven local is significantly greater north of the than south of it, both for Q11 branches and Q21.

They don't even need to extend the QT83 into Lindenwood in my opinion, it could just end at Pitkin Ave like the current Q11 short turns, that is only IF they operate QT88 with decent headways. I don't mind the routing for QT88 at all, as long as it serves Lindenwood proper and runs better than every 30 minutes off peak.

(B ) conveying the MTA's ability to come up with whatever BS they can to justify whatever they want. Took it right from my mouth

- Increasing QT88 service would overserve the eastern portion of the route.... While the demand for Woodhaven Blvd. trumps that of for Cross Bay Blvd, the demand for Lindenwood trumps that of the current Q11 routing south of Pitkin...

- What I'm asking with in snippet of mine you quoted, is - Do you believe, or classify any of the MTA's concocted BS as being smart reasoning?

14 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Something with the Jamaica Bus network that always bugs me is the lack of Cross Jamaica bus service. Unfortunately this plan doesn't really solves this issue.

Its easy to get TO/FROM 179th Street/Jamaica Center from the east but if you want to get further into Jamaica, you'll either have to take the subway a few stops or walk. Just look at the amount of service east of 165 St compared to the west of it.

You could say the same about the lack of north-south service through Jamaica.... Ironically, I just came from an area a couple hrs. ago (Trenton) whose network is more or less the opposite....

14 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

To be fair, NYC has way too many bus stops, that I wouldn't mind if they cut some of it.

Out here on Northern Blvd, there was major stop reductions on the Q66. While inconvenient, eventually everyone seems okay with it. Definitely don't imply having limited stop spacing for every route in the city (which the Q66 in some case do now), but some cuts are definitely necessary

It being done in moderation, isn't something that's being proposed in this redesign as far as stop eliminations are concerned.... They're going too far left with the systematic removal of them & I don't support it at all.

Quote

Per the MTA website on the Queens Bus Network Redesign:

What’s happening now and in the near future

We are excited to restart the Queens Bus Network Redesign with a “New Draft Plan,” driven by customer feedback, to be released in Q1 2022. This will be a new plan—not the Final Plan, nor the Draft Plan that was proposed in late 2019/early 2020. Throughout our extensive outreach efforts during that time, we collected and heard highly constructive feedback from the public. Comments centered around the loss of certain key subway connections, unclear schedule proposals, and wide bus stop spacing. The most frequently mentioned routes included the Q49, Q53-SBS, Q32, Q33, and Q66; however, we received both positive and negative reactions on route proposals all throughout the borough. This feedback became the primary input for the development of the New Draft Plan.

In this plan, we are working to address as many customer concerns as possible, while still balancing tradeoffs and applying network redesign strategies to improve the bus network. Additionally, we are carrying over some of the well-received elements of the original Draft Plan, while focusing more on strategies that would improve the existing network: using new route types, straightening routes, filling gaps in the bus network, creating new connections, strengthening interborough service, reallocating frequencies, prioritizing buses, and right-sizing the distance between bus stops. Yes, this is still an ambitious plan aimed at improving bus travel for Queens riders, but this version of the network will look a bit more familiar to you.

Every single route they mention that were of the most frequently mentioned (assuming having received negative feedback regarding them) are routes that serve Jackson Heights.... I sincerely hope they aren't just going to appease the concerns of those folks & more or less leave everything else alone.... Because that general part of Queens wasn't remotely the sole area of the redesigned network that raises question marks - and that's putting it mildly....

Anyway, would be good to know what some of the well-received elements were....

5 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Define "a bit more familiar "

Hmpf, they're leaving... one current service alone - Of which the corridor{s} that one current service serves, would've been served differently with the redesign <_< ....

checkmatechamp13 · January 16, 2022

34 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Every single route they mention that were of the most frequently mentioned (assuming having received negative feedback regarding them) are routes that serve Jackson Heights.... I sincerely hope they aren't just going to appease the concerns of those folks & more or less leave everything else alone.... Because that general part of Queens wasn't remotely the sole area of the redesigned network that raises question marks - and that's putting it mildly....

Anyway, would be good to know what some of the well-received elements were....

Hmpf, they're leaving... one current service alone - Of which the corridor{s} that one current service serves, would've been served differently with the redesign ....

Most of the meetings were jam-packed with people (It's just that Jackson Heights was the most packed, to the point where Andy Byford himself felt the need to show up...similar to Co-Op City for the Bronx plan). But I still had a pretty long wait just to get into the Ridgewood meeting (Jamaica, I got in pretty quickly, but after about 30-60 minutes or so, there was a huge crowd in the hallway).

I just hope that they don't go too far the other way, and throw out too many of the good changes in the plan. (e.g. QT4, QT6, QT7, etc)

Edited January 16, 2022 by checkmatechamp13

R10 2952 · January 16, 2022

In this Queens plan of theirs, Jackson Heights is only the tip of the iceberg. The sheer dumbf**kery that they had planned for the Maspeth-MiddleVillage-Glendale area, was something to behold in its own right.... I'm surprised the MTA spin doctors weren't greeted at those meetings by angry mobs with the proverbial torches and pitchforks.

Mtatransit · January 16, 2022

13 hours ago, Mpn4179 said:

Per the MTA website on the Queens Bus Network Redesign:

What’s happening now and in the near future

We are excited to restart the Queens Bus Network Redesign with a “New Draft Plan,” driven by customer feedback, to be released in Q1 2022. This will be a new plan—not the Final Plan, nor the Draft Plan that was proposed in late 2019/early 2020. Throughout our extensive outreach efforts during that time, we collected and heard highly constructive feedback from the public. Comments centered around the loss of certain key subway connections, unclear schedule proposals, and wide bus stop spacing. The most frequently mentioned routes included the Q49, Q53-SBS, Q32, Q33, and Q66; however, we received both positive and negative reactions on route proposals all throughout the borough. This feedback became the primary input for the development of the New Draft Plan.

In this plan, we are working to address as many customer concerns as possible, while still balancing tradeoffs and applying network redesign strategies to improve the bus network. Additionally, we are carrying over some of the well-received elements of the original Draft Plan, while focusing more on strategies that would improve the existing network: using new route types, straightening routes, filling gaps in the bus network, creating new connections, strengthening interborough service, reallocating frequencies, prioritizing buses, and right-sizing the distance between bus stops. Yes, this is still an ambitious plan aimed at improving bus travel for Queens riders, but this version of the network will look a bit more familiar to you.

I am glad Jackson Height residents spoke up. The proposed changes in that area will decimate bus service in that neighborhood. The 74th Street Shuttles works wel as it currently stand, and there should be few modifications to it (except maybe the northern part)

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

- Increasing QT88 service would overserve the eastern portion of the route.... While the demand for Woodhaven Blvd. trumps that of for Cross Bay Blvd, the demand for Lindenwood trumps that of the current Q11 routing south of Pitkin...

- What I'm asking with in snippet of mine you quoted, is - Do you believe, or classify any of the MTA's concocted BS as being smart reasoning?

You could say the same about the lack of north-south service through Jamaica.... Ironically, I just came from an area a couple hrs. ago (Trenton) whose network is more or less the opposite....

It being done in moderation, isn't something that's being proposed in this redesign as far as stop eliminations are concerned.... They're going too far left with the systematic removal of them & I don't support it at all.

- The frequency I had in my mind was every 15 minutes service on the QT88, with the split Howard/Hamilton beach getting service every 30 minutes instead of 60 minutes today

- Nope was being sarcastic in how their PR team usually operates

- I think the theory from the MTA is that if they do a mass stop removal, riders will only fight to get "some" of the stops back, therefore still cutting, yet pretending to listen, kind of like the 2010 service reduction add backs after the public hearings

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

As part of the redesigns, they offer three-legged transfers for those affected. Hopefully it's a flexible policy for Queens (I just think it should be universal, not just limited to certain route combinations).

For the SIM routes, they offered a somewhat reduced/limited version of three-legged transfers for us.

Right now, the Q43 runs to the LIRR station via Hillside Avenue, and there's the Q6/8/9/41 which run from 165th Street to points west via Jamaica Avenue.

In the draft plan, riders transfer at Jamaica & Merrick to get to the Jamaica Center area.

It doesn't make sense to have every single route serve all of Jamaica, given the congestion and also the fact that most of the riders would get off at the first available subway station anyway.

Most like some of these QT routes will more closely resemble their present-day counterparts. (The fact that they mentioned those Jackson Heights routes suggests that they will probably be left as-is or with minimal changes).

- The problem with three legged transfers is that people don't know about it. Its not a uniform systemwide policy. The only people that will know about it will be the people that were using the system when the change occurred.

Kind of like the CRT tickets in NJ, how many people still use it when transferring between 62 and 48 vs just buying a transferZ?

So yeah I agree it should absolutely be universal, or even better timed based.

- Not saying every route should be routed through Jamaica, but there should be at least some that do. Not everyone is heading out to the subway there. I was thinking of at least extending some of the express purple routes to the LIRR station from 165th Street. There should be more of a centralized transfer point in Jamaica for passenger coming west of Jamaica to continue onto routes going east of Jamaica, and so forth

N6 Limited · January 16, 2022

On 1/13/2022 at 4:22 PM, Cait Sith said:

So now folks have to live ON that street to actually be acknowledged?

As someone who uses the Q8/24/41 on an almost daily basis, while living near the Q112, pushing the masses that would be screwed over by the QT5 over to Liberty or Atlantic would be an inherently bad idea, especially when you consider that a fairly large majority of Q8 riders are of the elderly. The Q112 can barely handle the rush hour crowds and Liberty Avenue traffic and the Q24(Before and after the redesign) will still be incredibly unreliable(and don't try to give me some story about how the Q24 will be better after the redesign, because nothing much is changing other than it being cut back). 101st Avenue needs a limited and a local variant and the ridership data proves it(The Q8 ranked at the 11th highest used MTA Bus route with 3.3 million people, right behind the 10th ranked Q6). The way they are going about with the QT5 is a massive step back from what they've done to even gain more ridership for the route.

The point was that many riders are actually closer to Atlantic and Liberty than the full 2 or so blocks from 101 Ave.

I've been on crush loaded Q8s, many of them get on from the Train station at Sutphin and Archer, and from shopping along Jamaica Ave, which the QT67 will take care of. Yes they should add stops to the QT5. As for the Q24 it has to deal with traffic especially near Pennsylvania Ave, but they've been working with NYCDOT on helping to mitigate these issues, so maybe they'll add bus lanes and jump queues.

On 1/13/2022 at 4:22 PM, Cait Sith said:

I'm making the argument that Jamaica Center right now is where the vast majority of the demand stems from along that corridor. If there was a local variant COMPLEMENTING the purple line routes(which the QT18 does not), I would have no problems with the QT18 as it WOULD provide a legitimate alternative. Anyone wanting the local stops along Merrick from Jamaica Center would get screwed over pretty hard by the extra time of walking(especially when you consider the amount of elderly folks that commute along the corridor). The fact that you're not seeing that is once again, astounding to me. It's amazing how the people who actually went to the meetings see that, but you don't.

This is why I was in favor of Checkmatechamp's idea of a route going from Sutphin to Brinkerhoff, as it would serve the Jamaica Center crowd while having the QT18 being a legitimate alternative without making Merrick Blvd even more disjointed as it is under the draft plan.

Ridership data has shown that the average amount of riders that utilizes the stops between Liberty & Springfield averages between 2,500 and 5,700 riders on an average weekday(with 2019 statistics, which is what the draft is based on). The local stops averaged around 1,500 and 3,500 riders on an average weekday. That in itself is significant enough to warrant some level of service at the local stops to Jamaica Center, especially given that the Merrick Blvd corridor has averaged around 57,000 riders on an average weekday. Ridership past Springfield wanes off significantly throughout the routes, with the Rosedale and Valley Stream section peaking in the five-hundreds. The Laurelton routes has much higher ridership in that regard.

I went to one of the meetings, It was interesting and entertaining, transit talk with fellow transit riders. :lol:

I understand there are elderly folks that commute along the corridor. But what I'm also seeing is virtue signaling on behalf of others. I want to hear from the actual commuters affected in a negative way, not people who are protesting on behalf of riders who *may* be affected in a negative way when they may not even care or actually like/love the changes. And, from those who are making legit informed complaints about the draft, not "You got rid of the Q2! How am I going to get to the subway!" Also, many of the elderly along the corridor take the dollar vans anyway.

I like Checkmatechamp's idea as well, It would provide crosstown bus connections, a connection to the LIRR and open up easier use of City Ticket/Atlantic Ticket, etc. At the same time, that route would serve one local stop on Merrick ,which was your main issue about the purple routes vs QT18.

Perhaps [Most likely], local riders on Merrick Blvd are just trying to get to Jamaica Ave for shopping, or just trying to get to the QB Express, which the QT18 addresses. A lot of (J) ridership are those transferring to/from the (E) at Sutphin Blvd.

On 1/13/2022 at 4:22 PM, Cait Sith said:

Yeah, for you. Which is what your entire argument has been about, it's been all about you and f**k everyone else who's negatively affected.

There is still a massive amount of people both old and young that do not use bustime, or do not even know of it. So how exactly would bustime benefit those people if they don't know of it or use it? Are you going to magically convince them to use it? The MTA has advertised it above and beyond their means almost everywhere, and there's still hundreds of thousands of people who still don't get the memo.

BusTime won't enhance much for anybody, especially with how it's reliability has been tanking over time with glitches and intermittent shutdowns from time to time.

Well, if they don't know about bustime then they probably don't know about the redesign, they're going to be in for a surprise.

I prefer to use Transit App as it shows you all the near by routes when you open it, and it works for transit networks around the globe.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

The amount of riders that board at local stops (compared to those that board at transfer points) isn't remotely as low as you want to make it out to be, to try to render these people insignificant, for the purpose of speeding up bus service.... A one-dimensional network where 1 bus route falls into one of 4 categories, doesn't allow for much of any options...... While there is something very wrong with leaving a specific corridor in a local bus network with only a skip-stop variant, when it comes to formulating a network, there isn't nearly anything as wrong as having a local variant run concurrent with some skip-stop variant on the same route.... That is what I'm advocating for, on the corridors that garner enough ridership where a skip-stop service like a LTD is warranted.... That promotes a complementary relationship along the same route serving the same corridor, not this nonsense where they're merging the busiest portions of 2 unrelated corridors & concocting a skip-stop service out of it... That serves as nothing more than a cost-cutting measure... You may not see or realize it through your rose colored glasses, but those that have criticized those routes of the sort (and not just on this forum either) see it plain as day....

Generally speaking, the demand for bus service stopping at local stops in the current NYC network exists... Not to the extent of that of most transfer points, but not to the extent where it's so damn low, that buses shouldn't be serving local stops at all, either

That n6x bit... The specific demand for n6x bus service to UBS arena does not currently exist.... So yes, adding stops to a skip-stop service like the n6x when the demand doesn't call for it, looms potentially wasteful for the n6x riders that are trying to get to other stops along the route... What's funny is you advocating for that same stop on the n6x, but conveying how problematic NYC's local buses are.... You apparently take such issue with local stops because they slow down the route, yet you dare want to slow the n6x down by having it make that extra stop?

This is the thing, many of the local stops are being removed due to "stop spacing", so the new local stops are going to be "consolidated" and they will be mid-way between the express stops. From what I see, the all stops are going to be 3 blocks apart, and the only section with consecutive local stops and no Limited stop is between Liberty Ave and Linden Blvd, at that point, Guy R Blvd is a 5 min walk.

The QT18 is a cost cutting measure and efficient utilization of resources, which may promote ridership as it connects two disjointed corridors with through trips. The cost savings allow them to create new routes and service plans. They essentially got feedback from riders that they want a faster ride to the subway, and they said "we have all these overlapping routes on Merrick Blvd and Hillside, how can we address this concern?" and the QT18 was born.

I'm not saying ridership is so low that it doesn't matter, what I'm saying is that the local stops are flanked by express stops in the southern portion of the route and the northern portion has the Guy R Brewer corridor that's a 5 min walk away with service to Jamaica Center.

It's not that I have issues with the local stops, it's that you are acting like they have NO other options to get to Jamaica Center, if they really needed it. Many are just trying to get to Jamaica Ave or the QB Express.

As for the n6x, they reinstated one stop at the edge of the county, midway (1 mile) between two existing express stops where the bus would be waiting for a traffic signal anyway, it will not slow down the route, but will speed up travel for commuters in the area who need to go in either direction to work, not just the subway. NYC is different, because many of the traffic signals are timed to about 25 seconds of green, and each stop gets the bus caught at a red signal.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

Throughout the network, how much of that is really the case though? You keep claiming increased/more connectivity, when the connection opportunities are different... Different, as in, there are gains with connection opportunities in some parts of the network & losses of connection opportunities in other parts of the network... Again, you're conveying that point like no current rider stands to lose some connection to somewhere & there's just nothing but gains to be had....

That second point sounds like 1] you're specifically referring to 165th st. bus terminal & 2] you take issue with feeder based networks in general.... If off-street bus terminals and/or some subway station doesn't make for ideal terminals (especially in some in-demand/high demand area), then what does? We simply don't have many malls in NYC where we can send a wad of buses to terminate at.... And why should routes connect to some other route in a network more than once (as in, mid-route, on top of at some common terminal) for?

I realize there are some connections that are lost or "moved", it's evident when comparing the current map to the proposal. It would be nice if they put the current network on remix as well. By "Terminal" ,I just meant the Jamaica area in general since that's where the majority terminate. The issue with the current feeder network is that "Oh, if you don't want to go the subway, then too bad". There's a reason why cities have loop/circle line train lines, semi-circle (or outer grid-like connecting) bus lines and even interstates (beltways/loops).

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

The point isn't that you (or anyone else) shouldn't use tracking-based apps, the point is that they don't enhance any bus network.... Not your use of the buses in a network, the network itself.... Nothing wrong whatsoever with being tech-savvy...

Oh, I agree with routes being all over the place as they currently stand... Some routes more than others are outdated as shit.... You will never catch me saying/claiming that every route needs to remain exactly the same.... I think most people that have perused the bus section of this forum over the years have noticed my presence in any of those separate borough proposal threads - as well as for Bee Line, NJT, NICE, & SCT.... In saying that, I don't think every single route, or virtually every single route in the current network needs to have a routing change.....

How would a clean slate approach have people react? Depends on how they deem) the quality (and the intricacies within, such as frequency) of the routes to be.... Yeah, there are going to be people that complain regardless (which sounds like that's the real point you want to make, in posing that question) - but how many of those people exist (complainers that just want to complain), compared to those that are complaining b/c they would stand to be directly affected for the worst with this redesign? This whole bit, yet again, is the whole minimizing of riders' critiques again, virtually slapping them in the face.... You have riders that have posed legitimate concerns to the MTA about how this redesigned network would be detrimental to them, and what you immediately jump to, are some people feeling some type of way about nothing more than a bus route's number? That is just as petty as whoever solely has a problem with their bus number changing....

I agree, every routing does not have to have a routing change, but improvements should be made where possible.

Yes, riders have posed legitimate concerns to the MTA , I know the Jackson Heights area had voiced their concerns, the proposal straightened out routes and because of that they would connect to non-ADA accessible (7) stations.

I haven't actually addressed any particular rider's direct critiques, just talking points on this forum on behalf of riders.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

Yes, I get the concept of the 4 categories of bus routes they're instilling into this redesign.... IDK whether they're going to take on a similar approach as they did for the Bronx redesign, or the same basic approach as that of the Queens redesign, for Brooklyn's redesign....

There is nothing logical about having a bus route (QT5) make so few stops along 1 corridor for that length of the corridor, due to the existence of nearby routes (QT24, QT67) serving other nearby corridors.... Putting that another way, 101st av. shouldn't be some sacrificial lamb for faster service to/from Jamaica (in general), for two other/nearby corridors (Atlantic av, Liberty av, respectively)... 101st. av only allows for 1 lane of traffic each way for most the corridor; it would actually make more sense to have a corresponding/complementary skip-stop service along Atlantic itself, than along 101st av., since Atlantic has one additional lane of moving traffic each way than 101st av. does... And when I say skip-stop service, I'm by no means intimating that that many stops along Atlantic be skipped, as they're proposing for that QT5 along 101st... IDC how much speed they want to try to instill into a network, that QT5 is one of, if not the most egregious single proposal offered in this redesign....With one lane of moving traffic, that QT5 is going to be going nowhere fast anyway - much like the Q8 does....

Oh, it wasn't a direct quote (nor did I use quotes), but to wax poetic about that QT18 (and the fragmentation it offers along Merrick) intimates to me that you take issue with a route that runs along most of Merrick the way the Q5 does, compared to just the busiest/the core parts of Merrick that the QT18 does.... I also find the QT18 (separate of what it does on Hillside, which is a whole 'nother issue) & the QT42 "interesting" myself, but for a different reason.... What they're portraying is that those that live in Springfield Gdns. constitute more of the demand along/around Merrick to the , and those that live west of Springfield (av) would be either more open to, or have a certain latent demand for the .... I find difficulty believing either, but whatever...... While I take issue with the totality of the QT18, I actually take less issue with the Merrick portion & more with the Hillside portion.... Even if they wanted to try their hand at testing waters, I would still leave the Q5 alone - and in addition, have a branch serve the - kind of like the B17 Paerdegat branch does with serving the ....

To that last question, of a network of this magnitude, they wouldn't (run in harmony with connecting routes).... That's the very point I'm making with that.... I wasn't intimating, or trying to leave a sort of cliffhanger, with there being some magic bullet regarding bus network construction that would have that be achieved in a large-scale network... There is no way you're going to pulse-point (which actually relies on harmony/perfect connectivity) the entire borough of Queens - or really, service solely to/from any of the major hubs in the borough (Flushing, Jamaica, LIC, etc.).... That is to be saved for much smaller networks, or sub-networks....

That would be interesting, it's clear they're using Remix for the Brooklyn redesign as well, and they're doing those joint blue routes between the two boroughs. Come to think of it, with this Queens draft, they split the limited and local routes into distinct numbers/routes all together. I wonder if they'll do purple routes along Utica Ave or something.

With the QT5 maybe they're relying on the bus not having to pull in and out of traffic to maintain time.

I don't have an issue with a route that runs along most of Merrick. My issue is that SE queens riders asked for a quicker ride to the subway, they offered a proposal and the only complaints I've heard about the QT18 and the QT42 routing has been on this forum, not at the community meeting. "because the local route doesn't go to Jamaica Center" meanwhile it also serves Jamaica Ave and the QB Express which is where most riders are going, and provides choices to the corridor. Also, of course if all buses on Merrick Blvd go to Jamaica Center, than it's riders are going to go to Jamaica Center to get on the train.

Ok, because it seemed like you were intimating that the proposed network discards implied "harmony" in the current network.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

Alright, I'll be fair.... Although I did find that part of your post to be rather incoherent, ny1635 was a special flavor of batshit (crazy).... I can at least have a decent conversation with you, even if we strongly disagree on the merits of this thing.

Not only have I merely looked at the remix map (since the day whoever it was on here first brought it to my attention), I have it bookmarked & constantly refer to it, like it's the actual NYCT Queens bus map.... I consider myself to be a cartophile - and in conjunction with transit advocacy, I'm always on the prowl for a good bus map (even though it may feature lackadaisical/antiquated/or otherwise WTF-worthy routes within them)...

Haha, yes we are able to disagree on the proposals at hand and discuss why.

The ability to compare the current network to the proposals within Remix would be a nice addition. They're probably doing it on their planning side though.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:05 PM, B35 via Church said:

lol, try to keep their costs under control..... The MTA misallocates their funds in other areas (separate of anything directly involved with providing bus & subway service), then looks to use service as the immediate scapegoat (as in, cuts) when it comes time to pay the piper... The buses are always the easier target, but as of late with covid & everything, there's been sneaky subway cuts (or trip "combinations", as they like to spin it) to boot....

The crux of that godawful impinging eyesore that's sadly classified as artwork that's pervasive in the subway can remain, and continue to be added throughout the subway system... But my (*insert departure time here*) (*insert bus route here*) towards (*insert end terminal here*) is the problem.... Bullshit.

^^ and that's aimed towards the MTA, not you.

Fair enough, they do have the reasoning/excuse of lower fare collection.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:08 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) I agree that generally local stations are a bit easier/less complicated to get out of, compared to express stations, but I think the principal is still the same. If you look at the countdown clock and see that the next local train is in 12 minutes, you'll probably start walking, even though you would prefer to take the train.

2) Three-legged transfers are supposed to be incorporated into the redesign. For the SIM routes, they did give us some three-legged transfers but it wasn't as extensive as what was originally promised.

3) My point is that their version has it stopping specifically at Brinkerhoff (rather than another Q42 stop like say, 108th Avenue). So my proposal would literally serve the same exact stop in Addesleigh Park that they intend to serve, and then some.

4) To be fair, most would have a faster ride, but riders from the local stops heading to Green Acres would have to transfer (which may not be much of a problem heading Jamaica-bound due to the frequent QT18 service, but may be harder heading towards Green Acres, since the QT42 is somewhat less frequent than the Q5).

Still, all the transfer points are covered on the QT42, and those riders and any other ones from the limited stops would have a quicker ride.

5) Might be interesting to make a quick Excel table of which routes connect with which ones in the current system vs. the proposed system. (But of course, there's more to connectivity than sheer numbers of connecting routes, especially depending on how you count branches and so on)

6) I think it was more "Let's give the area a Flushing route instead of a Jamaica route and see how it works". They could've just as easily extended the QT41 to replicate the present-day Q84.

1) Yeah, if the bus is directly behind the bus you're on, then a transfer is more feasible. If it's 10 mins away, might as well walk, unless you have heavy bags or something.

2) They need a solution, they're making people take inefficient routes to avoid using a transfer. They think they may "lose" fares with round trips but they're adding demand to routes unnecessarily which may actually cost them more money trying to provide enough enough service.

3) Oh that's just because they're just trying to make sure most of the borough is within .25 miles of a bus stop. Turn on the layer under the Favorite Stats section.

4) It seems that the QT42 is almost on par with the Q5 on weekdays because alternate trips on the Q5 serve the mall on 15 min headway most of the day. On weekends the QT42 is slightly increased headway from 10 mins to 12, and then after 7pm or so it increases more, especially on Sunday. However, it's proposed to stop running at 10PM.

5) Yeah, that would be interesting, slightly difficult because certain routes have been merged, etc.

6) I believe they also wanted to give Francis Lewis Blvd a through route and eliminate redundant mileage on Hillside to Jamaica between the Q76 and Q77, Also, Francis Blvd Lewis would provide a quick trip to Flushing.

22 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

There seems to be psychologically a huge barrier when it comes to bus transfers, both time and financial. Passengers are much more willing to change trains than buses. Might be because as bad as the is, nothing is bad as waiting for NYC buses, which are slow, and worst of them all unreliable and sometimes infrequent.

Force everyone to get out of the station and reswipe into the station to transfer to the local/express, and I guarantee you will see less people transferring between local to express. Especially if you offer them only one free transfer. Something definitely need to change regarding the fare media.

I agree, Riders with unlimited cards may perform bus to bus, bus-subway-bus, etc, but since unlimited card purchases have declined a bit they should allow unlimited timed transfers or something to promote ridership.

On 1/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, IAlam said:

You both mention how being shifted over from the to the should be that big a deal, but it neglects shifting from the to the that's a bigger deal. You can easily go from to but not from to . Maybe bringing some form of the Q42 back might help but since the plan came without it those people would be have more annoying trip.

I agree , it would be a more annoying trip, I've taken the walk between the Jamaica Bus Terminal and Jamaica Center many times, because it's quicker than taking any bus that's beginning its trip on Jamaica Ave with the excessive dwell times. Although, I have also walked to Archer Ave and jumped on a bus turning from 168th St. I've also tried taking the Q43 to the (J) from 179th St, it was a bit slow.

22 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Something with the Jamaica Bus network that always bugs me is the lack of Cross Jamaica bus service. Unfortunately this plan doesn't really solves this issue.

Its easy to get TO/FROM 179th Street/Jamaica Center from the east but if you want to get further into Jamaica, you'll either have to take the subway a few stops or walk. Just look at the amount of service east of 165 St compared to the west of it.

The QT67 addresses that, no?

22 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

No issues for the purple routes from me. As long as there is a proper local supplement (even with reduced stops), and proper service span/headway. In fact, NICE bus has been doing this ever since they look over from the MTA, all the Nassau routes used to pick up/drop off every stop in Queens, and now NICE only picks up at select Limited stops in Queens. Their stop spacing (esp on the n4 which is getting ridiculous, but it seems like the people adapted, so maybe we can find a middle ground here)

Yes the spans may have to be addressed. Seem that after 10 they want riders to use the Green and red routes to get around.

22 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Well bustime actually discourage me from using the bus more often than it encourage me to do so especially when you see the next four buses bunched 30 minutes from my stop

---

To be fair, NYC has way too many bus stops, that I wouldn't mind if they cut some of it.

Out here on Northern Blvd, there was major stop reductions on the Q66. While inconvenient, eventually everyone seems okay with it. Definitely don't imply having limited stop spacing for every route in the city (which the Q66 in some case do now), but some cuts are definitely necessary

See, Although the buses were bunched, it helped prevent you from standing at the bus stop for 30 mins :lol: .

Have the Q66 trips improved since the stop reductions?

Edited January 16, 2022 by N6 Limited

Sign In

Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Important Information