Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Mtatransit]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is because

• there is too much congestion to run buses through reliably, or for more buses from the east or wherever to go through
• there is no space for layovers for additional buses running through Jamaica
• the bus runtimes for all the routes terminating in Jamaica are too long to combine with other routes. What would you combine that would have a reasonable runtime and reliability?

If you were to ask me, I would prefer most of the Hillside bus routes to end at the current  terminus at Parsons Archer with a couple of routes going crosstown along Hillside/Jamaica Avenue, ending at Sutphin Blvd instead of terminating them at 169th. Of course these routes will still serve the  stations. 

The way they can go about it is to have all the purple routes terminate at 169th/Parson Archer, and have one red (frequent bus) cross Jamaica. Like combing the Hillside with the Sutphin bus instead of combining the Hillside and the Merrick Bus

The current network except for a couple of routes, serves the subway pretty decently, but not Jamaica proper.

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Mtatransit

[Q43LTD]

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

As I understand it, Liberty av is the northern border of S. Ozone Park & the southern border of S. Richmond Hill....

Let me be specific then... The Q41 & the Q112 aren't even used interchangeably b/w Rockaway Blvd & Liberty/127th.

From what I understood, 109 was the divider for South Richmond Hill and South Ozone Park. I guess you could go as far as saying the 41 and 112 aren't used interchangeably between Jamaica Center and Ozone Park

[Cait Sith]

1 hour ago, Q43LTD said:

From what I understood, 109 was the divider for South Richmond Hill and South Ozone Park. I guess you could go as far as saying the 41 and 112 aren't used interchangeably between Jamaica Center and Ozone Park

Nah, it's largely Liberty until 116th, where 101st becomes the divider until 120th.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Cait Sith

[N6 Limited]

The first draft would certainly help in this case. Numerous routes which connect to the  which connect to other routes.

New Routes which would be helpful in this scenario:

QT7, QT67, QT18, QT68/QT39 swap.

To a lesser extent: QT73

[Cait Sith]

6 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The first draft would certainly help in this case. Numerous routes which connect to the  which connect to other routes.

New Routes which would be helpful in this scenario:

QT7, QT67, QT18, QT68/QT39 swap.

To a lesser extent: QT73

You're putting way too much faith into those routes.

They'd barely make a dent with that issue, especially since that issue happened at night after 9pm.

The proposed night/base headways(30 minute headways) of all of those routes won't help much at all, and lets not forget the possibility of missing buses, which is becoming more common...

And considering that their baseline headway is 30 minutes or "better". I don't see them being any more frequent than 20 minutes, if that's what they mean by "better".

Edited January 27, 2022 by Cait Sith

[Lex]

5 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

You're putting way too much faith into those routes.

They'd barely make a dent with that issue, especially since that issue happened at night after 9pm.

The proposed night/base headways(30 minute headways) of all of those routes won't help much at all, and lets not forget the possibility of missing buses, which is becoming more common...

And considering that their baseline headway is 30 minutes or "better". I don't see them being any more frequent than 20 minutes, if that's what they mean by "better".

Especially that QT7, which not only had f*ck all to do with Jamaica proper, but was a joke of a proposal for a basic concept (a bus not tied to Manhattan serving Linden Boulevard west of Merrick Boulevard, a concept that was dropped when the severely underdeveloped Q9A/Q89 was canned) that I didn't actually hate...

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Especially that QT7, which not only had f*ck all to do with Jamaica proper, but was a joke of a proposal for a basic concept (a bus not tied to Manhattan serving Linden Boulevard west of Merrick Boulevard, a concept that was dropped when the severely underdeveloped Q9A/Q89 was canned) that I didn't actually hate...

The Q9A/89 was a midday-only bus that was duplicated by a bunch of other routes, and was so infrequent that most of the time, you would be better off walking for its short "unique" portion along Linden Blvd. The QT7 is reasonably frequent and connects with an entirely different subway line compared to the routes it intersects. 

Furthermore, the present-day Q7 is one of the most cost-efficient routes in that part of Queens, so it makes sense to have a similar route on an alignment slightly to the north. 

Of course, the QT7 should make more stops (at least 130th Street and 143rd Street, and probably 111th Street) to more effectively serve intermediate areas, but I have no doubt it will get its share of riders.

Edited January 28, 2022 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

10 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

They'd barely make a dent with that issue, especially since that issue happened at night after 9pm.

That's the first thing that came to mind when I saw that post of his

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The Q9A/89 was a midday-only bus that was duplicated by a bunch of other routes, and was so infrequent that most of the time, you would be better off walking for its short "unique" portion along Linden Blvd. The QT7 is reasonably frequent and connects with an entirely different subway line compared to the routes it intersects. 

Furthermore, the present-day Q7 is one of the most cost-efficient routes in that part of Queens, so it makes sense to have a similar route on an alignment slightly to the north. 

Of course, the QT7 should make more stops (at least 130th Street and 143rd Street, and probably 111th Street) to more effectively serve intermediate areas, but I have no doubt it will get its share of riders.

The Q7 serves a completely different set of people than the proposed QT7 would; Linden Blvd vs. Rockaway Blvd is not all that comparable.... Furthermore, on the current Q7, the masses that take that route are not coming from too far north (off some other bus) to xfer to it, to get to the ... I don't foresee any significant enough of a shift in ridership trends that'll have SE Queens patrons gunning for 's, over 's, 's, and 's....

Edited January 28, 2022 by B35 via Church

[Lex]

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The Q9A/89 was a midday-only bus that was duplicated by a bunch of other routes, and was so infrequent that most of the time, you would be better off walking for its short "unique" portion along Linden Blvd. The QT7 is reasonably frequent and connects with an entirely different subway line compared to the routes it intersects. 

Furthermore, the present-day Q7 is one of the most cost-efficient routes in that part of Queens, so it makes sense to have a similar route on an alignment slightly to the north. 

Of course, the QT7 should make more stops (at least 130th Street and 143rd Street, and probably 111th Street) to more effectively serve intermediate areas, but I have no doubt it will get its share of riders.

You're not exactly refuting my point about the Q9A/Q89.

As for the QT7, well, all signs point to it being a particularly egregious mismatch between the route's character and which weight class it was thrown in. Between the route's O/D pair, the highly residential nature of its primary corridor, lack of a dedicated local, and the frequencies ranging from little better to flat-out worse than the QT71's, it would make far more sense as a green route than a blue one. Even the QT40 proposal actually had decent stop spacing on Linden Boulevard (average of 1,021 feet, well within the optimal range of 880-1,320 feet, whereas the QT7's stop spacing only dips remotely appreciably below 2,640 feet between Merrick and Guy R Brewer Boulevards).

[checkmatechamp13]

@Lex I still don't see anything similar between the Q89 and QT7 other than the fact that they both serve some portion of Linden Blvd. If anything, that adds yet anothet point in favor of the QT7 since it actually covers more of Linden Blvd.

I agree 100% on the stop spacing. It shouldn't be missing so many connection points.

@B35 via Church I don't think it has to be any huge percentage shift to give the QT7 a reasonable amount of ridership. I mean look at the frequency of buses still going towards Jamaica at the central part of the route (Sutphin/Brewer/Merrick). Shoot, even the individual purple routes (QT40/46/47) are a little bit more frequent than the QT7. You look at the corner of Merrick & Linden during rush hour, and they have about 30 buses per hour scheduled towards Jamaica, and 4 buses per hour towards Ozone Park. So in total that's a bit over 10% of the service in the area going towards the QT7. I don't think it's totally outlandish for the QT7 to capture 10% of the transit ridership of the areas proximate to Linden Blvd (or conversely, for it to bring out some latent demand that causes a 10% increase in ridership)

[Lex]

59 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@Lex I still don't see anything similar between the Q89 and QT7 other than the fact that they both serve some portion of Linden Blvd. If anything, that adds yet anothet point in favor of the QT7 since it actually covers more of Linden Blvd.

That's because you're basically assuming that I'm talking about the entire Q89 when I specifically singled out Linden Boulevard.

[checkmatechamp13]

21 hours ago, Lex said:

but was a joke of a proposal for a basic concept (a bus not tied to Manhattan serving Linden Boulevard west of Merrick Boulevard, a concept that was dropped when the severely underdeveloped Q9A/Q89 was canned) that I didn't actually hate...

I think my misunderstanding comes from reading too much sarcasm into this quote.

Re-reading this, your position seems to be

1) That the basic concept of a non-express route serving Linden Blvd west of Merrick is a concept that you don't disagree with.

2) That concept was dropped when the Q89 was eliminated.

3) The QT7 is a poor implementation of that concept, due to the wide stop spacing and relatively infrequent service.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church I don't think it has to be any huge percentage shift to give the QT7 a reasonable amount of ridership. I mean look at the frequency of buses still going towards Jamaica at the central part of the route (Sutphin/Brewer/Merrick). Shoot, even the individual purple routes (QT40/46/47) are a little bit more frequent than the QT7. You look at the corner of Merrick & Linden during rush hour, and they have about 30 buses per hour scheduled towards Jamaica, and 4 buses per hour towards Ozone Park. So in total that's a bit over 10% of the service in the area going towards the QT7. I don't think it's totally outlandish for the QT7 to capture 10% of the transit ridership of the areas proximate to Linden Blvd (or conversely, for it to bring out some latent demand that causes a 10% increase in ridership)

There's a disconnect here.

My argument was specific to SE Queens folks abandoning (commuting to Jamaica for) Jamaica area subways for the train in-particular.... You are speaking to overall (potential) QT7 usage... I'm not arguing that the QT7 wouldn't garner enough ridership to justify its existence (or as you put it, a reasonable amt. of ridership)....

[Lex]

55 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think my misunderstanding comes from reading too much sarcasm into this quote.

Re-reading this, your position seems to be

1) That the basic concept of a non-express route serving Linden Blvd west of Merrick is a concept that you don't disagree with.

2) That concept was dropped when the Q89 was eliminated.

3) The QT7 is a poor implementation of that concept, due to the wide stop spacing and relatively infrequent service.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

That's exactly it.

[Krocyoin]

I just wanna say why in the hell did they just remove the only express route on Northern Boulevard, the QM3, every time I see that bus pass by, it's always full, so I don't get why the Queens Bus Redesign didn't have a QM3 replacement, luckily that was scrapped. Oh and another thing, to get to Fort Totten, I just have to take the Q13 from my house, with this, I would now have to take the QT17 to the QT71, then walk 4-5 blocks to Fort Totten, when currently I can just take the Q13. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 hours ago, Krocyoin said:

I just wanna say why in the hell did they just remove the only express route on Northern Boulevard, the QM3, every time I see that bus pass by, it's always full, so I don't get why the Queens Bus Redesign didn't have a QM3 replacement, luckily that was scrapped. Oh and another thing, to get to Fort Totten, I just have to take the Q13 from my house, with this, I would now have to take the QT17 to the QT71, then walk 4-5 blocks to Fort Totten, when currently I can just take the Q13. 

They want those QM3 riders to take the LIRR, but there are a decent amount of QM3 riders and they are in my advocacy group. We'll circulate petitions if need be when the new redesign comes out.

[Krocyoin]

Yeah they should leave the QM3 alone to be honest, and any route on Northern Blvd east of Flushing-Main Street.

[Krocyoin]

And QM3 only has a very low ridership because it only has 3 trips in the AM rush hour and 3 trips in the PM rush hours, if more trips were added, like lets say 6 in each direction, the ridership would go up. 

[Future ENY OP]

I took a ride through Ridgewood on Wednesday and something struck me to ask can the Q39 use an extension to either Crescent Street-East New York and or Bushwick/Ridgewood Terminal (Thoughts)

[B35 via Church]

On 2/17/2022 at 12:20 AM, Future ENY OP said:

I took a ride through Ridgewood on Wednesday and something struck me to ask can the Q39 use an extension to either Crescent Street-East New York and or Bushwick/Ridgewood Terminal (Thoughts)

The Q39 is basically a coverage route in Ridgewood... Aside from space restraints at/around Ridgewood Terminal, the Q39 would be somewhat redundant to the Q58 b/w say, Grand av & Ridgewood Term. if it were to be extended there... In other words, you wouldn't put much of a dent in Q58 usage b/w that stretch if the Q39 were to run over to Ridgewood Term.... The demand is clearly for Fresh Pond over Forest....

As far as running it to Crescent , even less people would consider taking Q39's over B13's in that part of Brooklyn, compared to Queens patrons ditching Q58's for Q39's b/w Ridgewood Term. & that Grand av./Flushing av. area.... B13 goes on a grand tour (lol) of Ridgewood, while the Q39 serves a low-demand part of Ridgewood.... Brooklynites from around the (or take some bus to get to the ) I can't see getting off at Crescent for a Q39 to get to Maspeth or LIC....

Hate to put it like this, but I have believed for the longest that the Q39 south of Myrtle av. mainly exists to have the thing turnaround/layover more feasibly (than if it were to stop dead at Myrtle itself) - which is funny, because even the current layover scenario on that end of the route leaves much to be desired....

[Future ENY OP]

26 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The Q39 is basically a coverage route in Ridgewood... Aside from space restraints at/around Ridgewood Terminal, the Q39 would be somewhat redundant to the Q58 b/w say, Grand av & Ridgewood Term. if it were to be extended there... In other words, you wouldn't put much of a dent in Q58 usage b/w that stretch if the Q39 were to run over to Ridgewood Term.... The demand is clearly for Fresh Pond over Forest....

As far as running it to Crescent , even less people would consider taking Q39's over B13's in that part of Brooklyn, compared to Queens patrons ditching Q58's for Q39's b/w Ridgewood Term. & that Grand av./Flushing av. area.... B13 goes on a grand tour (lol) of Ridgewood, while the Q39 serves a low-demand part of Ridgewood.... Brooklynites from around the (or take some bus to get to the ) I can't see getting off at Crescent for a Q39 to get to Maspeth or LIC....

Hate to put it like this, but I have believed for the longest that the Q39 south of Myrtle av. mainly exists to have the thing turnaround/layover more feasibly (than if it were to stop dead at Myrtle itself) - which is funny, because even the current layover scenario on that end of the route leaves much to be desired....

That B13 is sure as hell a grand tour through Ridgewood. (Luckily it doesn't cover Glendale or Maspeth), but the ever thought of the Q39 of possibly extending to it's current terminal and possibly entering the confines of East New York or Bushwick ( I see how the current route is designed and it's obscure terminal) . This is where the B18 did very well years ago in the area of Cypress Hills and Ridgewood. It gave a layer of coverage currently that the B13 is doing this loop around ridgewood.  However, what I would possibly like to see with the Q39 is an extension of coverage into Brooklyn, perhaps Bushwick on the line or into Highland Park on Highland Blvd and Jamaica Ave. (A reasonable terminal for the 39).  There's current development occurring right now on the Bushwick/Ridgewood line (Cypress Avenue) that can use some additional bus service. 

[Eric B]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The Q39 is basically a coverage route in Ridgewood... Aside from space restraints at/around Ridgewood Terminal, the Q39 would be somewhat redundant to the Q58 b/w say, Grand av & Ridgewood Term. if it were to be extended there... In other words, you wouldn't put much of a dent in Q58 usage b/w that stretch if the Q39 were to run over to Ridgewood Term.... The demand is clearly for Fresh Pond over Forest....

As far as running it to Crescent , even less people would consider taking Q39's over B13's in that part of Brooklyn, compared to Queens patrons ditching Q58's for Q39's b/w Ridgewood Term. & that Grand av./Flushing av. area.... B13 goes on a grand tour (lol) of Ridgewood, while the Q39 serves a low-demand part of Ridgewood.... Brooklynites from around the (or take some bus to get to the ) I can't see getting off at Crescent for a Q39 to get to Maspeth or LIC....

Hate to put it like this, but I have believed for the longest that the Q39 south of Myrtle av. mainly exists to have the thing turnaround/layover more feasibly (than if it were to stop dead at Myrtle itself) - which is funny, because even the current layover scenario on that end of the route leaves much to be desired....

I'd rather straighten everything out, and have the 39 take Gates directly from Forest, and the 13 take a more direct route, and then pick up the 39's route, down towards Cooper, and then continue from there. (And I'd rather see a "58 bypass" that also takes Gates to Forest, and then heads all the way across on Eliot. (IIRC, they actually had parts of these ideas on that plan that came out two years ago before COVID, and up to those hearings. They even had whatever replaced the 39 stay off of Fresh Pond, and take the short cut between Eliot and Rust St., which I had long suggested, and someone was at the meetings afterward saying it might not make the turns, but I hoped they could still work that out, because Fresh Pond can be ridiculous with the traffic).

[B35 via Church]

21 hours ago, Eric B said:

I'd rather straighten everything out, and have the 39 take Gates directly from Forest, and the 13 take a more direct route, and then pick up the 39's route, down towards Cooper, and then continue from there. (And I'd rather see a "58 bypass" that also takes Gates to Forest, and then heads all the way across on Eliot. (IIRC, they actually had parts of these ideas on that plan that came out two years ago before COVID, and up to those hearings. They even had whatever replaced the 39 stay off of Fresh Pond, and take the short cut between Eliot and Rust St., which I had long suggested, and someone was at the meetings afterward saying it might not make the turns, but I hoped they could still work that out, because Fresh Pond can be ridiculous with the traffic).

I don't necessarily have a problem with doing away with those turns onto/off of Myrtle that the B13 makes by having it adopt the Q39's route south of Gates.... However, I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting the Q39 do in Ridgewood after having it take Gates from Forest.... As far as the Q58, I'd leave the thing on Fresh Pond - but the MTA needs to make up its mind as to where around Ridgewood Terminal the thing terminates at....

If you're referring to the redesign, they broke up the Q39.... The proposed route that runs via Rust get to LIC (QT77) wouldn't even serve Ridgewood - from Rust/Grand, they have it doing the current Q39 route on down to Eliot, where it turns off to do the current Q38 Eliot leg, to end at QCM.... I still don't get the rationale behind that part of it, myself...

[Eric B]

I had forgotten what the temporary route number was, but what I was talking about was that they actually had one from Eliot take 60th St/Ln to 59th Dr. which leads right into Rust. That's a shortcut, and would avoid going further out of the way to the traffic of Fresh Pond. Someone was worried about the turns, but it's no worse than many of the other turns they make.

[jaf0519]

According to the MTA, the New Draft Plan will be released tomorrow. I’m surprised, I was expecting them to wait until the 31st. Hopefully they fixed the major issues and didn’t scrap some of the actual improvements that they got right the first time.