Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[SubBus]

Interesting stuff....

: I'm glad that they left this route alone.  Although they remove my former stop, I can see why....

/: Make sense with minor extension into Elmont....

/: Like the swap of southern terminals.  Also like the minor extension of the further into Rosedale...

: Like the change to New Lots  terminal.  Kind of a throwback (Q21A).  Will it layover with the / on Livonia or at the bus stop on New Lots? 

: Throwback to the pre Archer Ave subway days with the old B22 terminal by the BBQs.   Will it be tight on 89th Ave with the traffic/parking? 🤔  The cutback to Broadway Junction for the B53?  Idk....

//: All terminate at 170th and Jamaica.   Interesting...

: I think that it should be extended to Laurelton LIRR via current routing....

//: Is it necessary to get rid of the  designation? I would have kept the  Farmers short turns as is.  The Rosedale would have been the . The  would have remained as the Far Rockaway service....

 

That is all for now...

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by SubBus

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Alright, so here's my thoughts on routes in Flushing, Fresh Meadows, and NE Queens (here's the first part of my comments of routes in Central Queens)

Q12, Q13 - Not exactly sure how this is helpful, and on top of that, would push more people east of 165th Street on the Q13 if anything. Also, sucks if you're anywhere on Sanford and want to head further out east (but not to Nassau). I would keep them as they currently are, I don't see that much complaining with the existing pattern anyways, since the Q13 covers a lot of Northern Boulevard anyways. 

Q16, Q61, Q62 fiasco - The rationale behind this specific routing is kinda dumb, honestly. They say they're sending the Q16 down College Point Blvd it's for space, but they're kicking the Q16 out of its place to have both the Q61 and Q62 routes take its place, the former which is a peak hour route, and the latter which isn't much better with its atrocious off-peak headways. That's a very inefficient use of existing space. On top of that, the Q62 doesn't even have to exist as a route, it's not necessary. Literally have the Q16 begin where it current does in Flushing (39th Ave between 138th & Union Streets), and keep it going to Fort Totten, with all trips via Utopia Parkway. That's roughly the same it'll take to have Q16 buses operate as proposed in this draft plan, give or take a few minutes. 

All those resources that would be freed up from the Q62, I would use to boost the Q61, which if anything, should have been the one route receiving the full time service on the basis of providing coverage (they're already gutting QM20 off-peak service on that corridor with the same plan, you would think they would compensate with SOME service in that area). In any case, I also think that the Q61 should not be a "rush route", I don't think it has the ridership to warrant it. 

Q17 - I'm perfectly fine with wanting to retain the section between Flushing and Fresh Meadows separate from the Fresh Meadows - Jamaica portion, and I understand that. Personally though, I think Union Turnpike is a weird location to end it. Anyways, what I would do is extend it instead to 230th Street & 69th Avenue in Oakland Gardens (replacing the Q26 and Q27 on their respective portions; see my Q26/Q27 comments below for more of an explanation). 

Q19 - There's no reason why such a routing survived the first route. There's no purpose besides attempting to reduce layover space. They love to throw the reliability argument when it suits a specific proposal, when it comes to others (especially with the proposed Q25 and Q44), *crickets*. What I would do is split the route as follows:

• Q19 - Astoria Projects to Main Street  Station, as proposed in the draft plan between both points
• Q15 - Main Street  Station to 150th Street & 7th Avenue

Q20 - Overall not a bad route except for the southern portion of the route. I don't know why they would think Briarwood is a better terminal than Union Turnpike subway. However I do share the same concern that College Point Retail Center is left with only the Q76. The Q17 on 130th Street is not that close from most parts of the place, it's pretty huge. I would extend the Q25 there instead (see below for more specifics).

Q23 - Those peak frequencies may be sufficient for Union Turnpike, but that's gonna overserve 108th Street, even though I think 108th Street should use more service than it currently gets. Problem is short-turning service may provide less bus service than it currently gets on 108th Street, but that's what you get when combining two routes like this. What I would do is the following:

• Q23 - Ditmars Blvd & 23rd Avenue to either Crescent Apartments or Glendale Atlas Park Mall, via Yellowstone Blvd south of Austin Blvd, with a boost to rush hour service.
• Q29 - Union Turnpike  to 188th Street & 64th Avenue

Q25 - Wow, they have this route really doing the most with it being the local for both Merrick Boulevards and Kissena Boulevards. I would have those segments separated from each other for the sake of reliability. Also, whatever happensI would also extend the route on its northern end, operating via Whitestone Expressway and 20th Avenue to serve College Point Center to replace the Q20A. It would still serve the beloved NY Times processing plant, lol. I would have it end with the Q76. Also, regardless what ends up happening (split or not), you don't need the Q5, Q85, and Q25 on Merrick during overnight hours. 

Q26, Q27, Q78 - I don't really have that much of an objection to most of what's being proposed here, with the Q26 and Q27. However, I think that the stint on 73rd Avenue makes the route less appealing than when it used the LIE, since it misses that commercial area around HHE. I don't know if that route change from the first draft was done to solidify the ridership on the Q78 route, but I would have the Q26 operate via HHE between Francis Lewis & Springfield Blvds. If the goal is to want a route along 73rd Avenue serving Flushing, what I would do instead is have the Q17 serve 73rd Avenue, and that part of Oakland Gardens that they have the Q27 doing as well. This way the Q26 stays on Horace Harding, and the Q27 can terminate at HHE (which would compensate for the Q17 extension). In addition to serving Flushing, the Q17 serves various other trip generators (or passes near them), including the Fresh Meadows commercial area, various public schools (FLHS, Ryan, P.S. 173), and Queens College, not to mention commercial Kissena Boulevard, and that would loom more useful for more people than the intermediate area along 46th Avenue / Hollis Court Blvd. I would potentially have the Q27 replace the Q88 out to Little Neck instead (see Q73, Q88 for more comments on this part). 

Q28 - Since I would have the Q13 "rush" route operate on Northern Blvd instead of Sanford Ave, I would have the Q28 operate as a local route. It's not that long of a route anyways, so it's not the end of the world.

Q31 - I have no problem with the route south of the LIE at all, and I'm fine with the route operating as it is up to Northern Boulevard. I'm not really into that portion north of Northern. I would probably have it serve more of Francis Lewis Boulevard instead, and maybe perhaps also serve Auburndale LIRR directly in the process. I was thinking of perhaps operating via Utopia Parkway, Station Road, 192nd Street, Francis Lewis Boulevard to/from Cross Island Parkway. 

Q65 - Don't know how I feel about having buses rerouted onto Sanford Avenue, because although there's a bit of a commercial area that's hard to get with north-south service in that area around Broadway LIRR, I don't know how much demand is there for such a service (my guess is not a lot). Also you're not gonna get people walk to the bus from Sanford Ave to Broadway LIRR, lol. Honestly, I would be more inclined to support such a change, if it serve a little more of Northern Blvd. So have the Q65 operate via 162nd Street, Northern Blvd, and Roosevelt Avenue between Main Street  station and 46th Avenue. That way it hits more of the shops and businesses along 162nd Street and Northern Blvd, and in Murray Hill, plus  you also directly serve Broadway LIRR Station. 

As far as that whole bit south/east of Jamaica Center, completely unnecessary. If there's anything I would do to the Q65, is perhaps extend the route south of Jamaica LIRR to replace the Q60. That's roughly the same mileage & runtime they give for this draft Q65, and it lessen the blow of deleting the Q60 south of Archer Ave (from my comments in my first sequence of posts). 

Q73 - They can relabel this route however they want, this route I personally see not working out very well, except south/west of Queens Boulevard (because it happens to replace part of a route, lol). So they're not having the route go out to Little Neck (they apparently swapped the Q73 and the Q88 past Springfield), but again, who exactly does this serve? This is not an adequate replacement for the Q88 in any way shape or form, and having straight routes like this isn't for the better if it doesn't serve much of anything but exclusively residential areas. It misses most of the Fresh Meadows apartment complexes (and the commercial area too), and looks more like a route dependent on taking away from existing ridership bases more than anything. 

What I would do this route, is have it take Horace Harding between either Utopia Parkway or 188th Street (I'm leaning more Utopia Parkway) to Springfield Blvd. If it does take Utopia Parkway, perhaps it may be better suited to operate out to Little Neck instead of the Q88, IDK. But I don't have too many problems with operating this route up to Springfield Blvd. In addition with the Q23 proposal, I would have the Q73 operate along Metropolitan Avenue and terminate at Woodhaven Boulevard (service to Crescent Apartments would be served by the Q23 branch to Crescent Apartments, see my comments above).

Q88 -  Okay, so they have this route operate 24/7, which btw is amazing. However what I'm not really too much of a fan of several things. First off, I personally wish this route still connected to/from NICE routes (at least went out to Hillside Ave) so that I don't have to rely on the f**king train, to then connect to the  train, to then connect to a NICE bus on weekends with how goddamn atrocious both subway lines are on weekends, but whatever. Regardless of that, I don't agree with straightening it out on Horace Harding completely. It should still serve 73rd Avenue between 188th Street and Springfield Boulevard.

I also don't know if it's necessary to have the Q88 serve Little Neck. I'm not familiar with Q30 ridership patterns in that area out east, but I think if there's any destination which I think potential riders would be more inclined to use or, it's a bus to Flushing instead of the Q30 to Jamaica. This means I would have the Q27 replace the Q88 east of Springfield, while having the Q88 terminating at QCC. 

 

I'll probably comment on SE Queens, the Rockaways, and Western Queens later on. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Q43LTD]

So this was the (MTA)'S definition of a bit more familiar...

[Gotham Bus Co.]

11 hours ago, IAlam said:

For the Express buses we need better frequencies 10,12,15,20,30, or 60 none of this 23 min, 16 min, or 90 min off peak stuff....

The 23s and 16s are probably average headways over the peak one or two hours, rather than actual scheduled headways.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

35 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Q26, Q27, Q78 - I don't really have that much of an objection to most of what's being proposed here, with the Q26 and Q27. However, I think that the stint on 73rd Avenue makes the route less appealing than when it used the LIE, since it misses that commercial area around HHE. I don't know if that route change from the first draft was done to solidify the ridership on the Q78 route, but I would have the Q26 operate via HHE between Francis Lewis & Springfield Blvds. If the goal is to want a route along 73rd Avenue serving Flushing, what I would do instead is have the Q17 serve 73rd Avenue, and that part of Oakland Gardens that they have the Q27 doing as well. This way the Q26 stays on Horace Harding, and the Q27 can terminate at HHE (which would compensate for the Q17 extension). In addition to serving Flushing, the Q17 serves various other trip generators (or passes near them), including the Fresh Meadows commercial area, various public schools (FLHS, Ryan, P.S. 173), and Queens College, not to mention commercial Kissena Boulevard, and that would loom more useful for more people than the intermediate area along 46th Avenue / Hollis Court Blvd. I would potentially have the Q27 replace the Q88 out to Little Neck instead (see Q73, Q88 for more comments on this part). 

Q28 - Since I would have the Q13 "rush" route operate on Northern Blvd instead of Sanford Ave, I would have the Q28 operate as a local route. It's not that long of a route anyways, so it's not the end of the world.

Q31 - I have no problem with the route south of the LIE at all, and I'm fine with the route operating as it is up to Northern Boulevard. I'm not really into that portion north of Northern. I would probably have it serve more of Francis Lewis Boulevard instead, and maybe perhaps also serve Auburndale LIRR directly in the process. I was thinking of perhaps operating via Utopia Parkway, Station Road, 192nd Street, Francis Lewis Boulevard to/from Cross Island Parkway. 

 

doesn't need to serve the commercial strip around Springfield/HHE if Q27 and Q78 are there. (Besides, 73rd Ave is probably faster during daylight hours.)

 

- I find Sanford to be faster during rush hours.   I think the idea is to have Q12 be the full-Northern route and anything else that joins Northern be a "rush" route.

 

 - The part Utopia between Crocheron and 32nd Avenues is narrow and bumpy. Those folks will cry "NIMBY" (even without stops along the way).

 

[ViaWaterViaChurch]

My reaction to the express routes:

I'm glad they kept most of the pickups the same.  I think they should have split the QM24/25/34 to two portions like they did in the last plan but as a frequent rider of that bus I think the majority of the ridership comes from Eliot Avenue.

In general I like what they did with the Rego Park buses instead of having them meander all around the LIE before finally getting on.

I understand the logic behind the pickups on Queens Blvd for the QM7 but feel bad for those riders as it's already almost 2 hours to to 188th from downtown.  Most people in Fresh Meadows are probably better off taking the QM8 for more direct service.  I'm very curious to see if taking the LIE to 188th Street will be faster than going down Queens Boulevard and Union Turnpike, this is a question I've pondered for years.

I think the QM2/20/32 should be put on the BQE and GCP/Astoria Blvd.  Why do the majority of Super Express Bus runs go this way but your agency's plan puts them back on the LIE?  This makes no sense.

Also, they will seriously have to do something about Van Dam Street if EVERY midtown bus will be going down there and turning onto the LIE now.  This will cause serious backups along Van Dam and other capacity issues if this is not addressed. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Also I wonder how will the divisions be affected with this redesign. Which will be MTA Bus which will be NYCT? The city still writes a blank check each year for MTAB routes, so I would imagine the MTA will have a financial incentive to classify as many routes as possible to MTAB? Not sure how it would work there

in discussions I've had with my shop steward and other ranking members of TWU, this entire redesign, regardless of if certain lines retain the exact routing, headway or designations, gives the authority full control of what lines/runs go where, specifically between Bus Company & TA/OA. in regards to Queens, it's my understanding that routes will be assigned based on proximity, and not hold to the depot alignments prior to whenever the redesigned network is implemented. with that being said, anything can (and usually does) change, and in my opinion, based on some of the line consolidations that are proposed, i definitely see Bus Company depots losing out on lines & runs, UNLESS there's going to be significant amount of lines being split between TA & Bus Co. yards in order to accommodate everyone. if not, i can definitely see a potential "messy" situation for all unions affected (TWU & the ATU Locals) 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, ViaWaterViaChurch said:

My reaction to the express routes:

I'm glad they kept most of the pickups the same.  I think they should have split the QM24/25/34 to two portions like they did in the last plan but as a frequent rider of that bus I think the majority of the ridership comes from Eliot Avenue.

In general I like what they did with the Rego Park buses instead of having them meander all around the LIE before finally getting on.

I understand the logic behind the pickups on Queens Blvd for the QM7 but feel bad for those riders as it's already almost 2 hours to to 188th from downtown.  Most people in Fresh Meadows are probably better off taking the QM8 for more direct service.  I'm very curious to see if taking the LIE to 188th Street will be faster than going down Queens Boulevard and Union Turnpike, this is a question I've pondered for years.

I think the QM2/20/32 should be put on the BQE and GCP/Astoria Blvd.  Why do the majority of Super Express Bus runs go this way but your agency's plan puts them back on the LIE?  This makes no sense.

Also, they will seriously have to do something about Van Dam Street if EVERY midtown bus will be going down there and turning onto the LIE now.  This will cause serious backups along Van Dam and other capacity issues if this is not addressed. 

That split you're calling for was vehemently opposed by other QM24, QM25 and QM34 riders and made no sense, as it also split up the service. If one line doesn't run, riders on that part of the route are screwed. You don't even explain what you like about the split and what made sense to do it. 

[7-express]

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Q16, Q61, Q62 fiasco - The rationale behind this specific routing is kinda dumb, honestly. They say they're sending the Q16 down College Point Blvd it's for space, but they're kicking the Q16 out of its place to have both the Q61 and Q62 routes take its place, the former which is a peak hour route, and the latter which isn't much better with its atrocious off-peak headways. That's a very inefficient use of existing space. On top of that, the Q62 doesn't even have to exist as a route, it's not necessary. Literally have the Q16 begin where it current does in Flushing (39th Ave between 138th & Union Streets), and keep it going to Fort Totten, with all trips via Utopia Parkway. That's roughly the same it'll take to have Q16 buses operate as proposed in this draft plan, give or take a few minutes. 

 

All those resources that would be freed up from the Q62, I would use to boost the Q61, which if anything, should have been the one route receiving the full time service on the basis of providing coverage (they're already gutting QM20 off-peak service on that corridor with the same plan, you would think they would compensate with SOME service in that area). In any case, I also think that the Q61 should not be a "rush route", I don't think it has the ridership to warrant it.

My take is that the Q62 should just be canned and the Q16 should go via Francis Lewis/Willets Point at all times to Fort Totten.  The Crocheron end already gets covered by the Q28 so it's not really providing any new coverage.

The Q61 should be moved from Fort Totten and instead should follow the QM20 routing down Willets Point to Utopia and then 26th Avenue to Bay Terrace.

This would cover both legs of the current Q16 while expanding local service options along the QM20 corridor.

[Cain]

I agree with the Q16 opinions, they should repurpose the buses from Q62 to other needed areas in NE Queens - just let Q16 continue serving Ft Totten up Utopia.

Q19 is a strange line... I feel like it should be more limited service like instead of local. That cross town route connects two major neighborhoods.

Q44 going to Fordham is nice but that area is always congested with double parking and traffic - probably going to cause the whole service to suffer with delays. That area needs a busway or center running bus lanes. It is still an important artery for car traffic, unfortunately.

Q50 Co-op loopy seem so inefficient but I understand bus service should have priority for one seat rides for elderly and limited mobility folks. Thinking a circulator type route for the Co-op area seems like a better idea.

Having Q16, 61, 62, and 28 turning into Union St is always problematic - it needs some transit priority. The buses gets bogged down with traffic significantly and the police station there think they can park their cars anywhere and everywhere.

Having the Q31 straightened out as N/S service is nice.

Possibly unpopular opinion? Bus service should be free on weekends or at least Sunday. They should try a one month pilot and see if economic activity picks up in local businesses and downtowns.

Question:

Is there a higher resolution map of the redesign somewhere?

[Lawrence St]

Why is the QM15 not a branch of the QM16? It seems a waste to have an express running over there for only 4 blocks.

[EastFlatbushLarry]

Just now, Lawrence St said:

Why is the QM15 not a branch of the QM16? It seems a waste to have an express running over there for only 4 blocks.

I'm assuming the 15's existence is predicated on the fact that lindenwood residents don't/didn't want to fight for limited seats on 16's & 17's emanating from the rockaways 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

10 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

I'm assuming the 15's existence is predicated on the fact that lindenwood residents don't/didn't want to fight for limited seats on 16's & 17's emanating from the rockaways 

 

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why is the QM15 not a branch of the QM16? It seems a waste to have an express running over there for only 4 blocks.

The QM16 and QM17 used to make many more stops along Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvd. Residents from the Rockaways fought hard to get the number of the QM16 and QM17 stops cut back since the QM15 serves Lindenwood and Howard Beach already. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

13 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The QM16 and QM17 used to make many more stops along Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvd. Residents from the Rockaways fought hard to get the number of the QM16 and QM17 stops cut back since the QM15 serves Lindenwood and Howard Beach already.

exactly. i remember when the 16 & 17 used to loop thru lindenwood with the 15

[Gotham Bus Co.]

35 minutes ago, 7-express said:

My take is that the Q62 should just be canned and the Q16 should go via Francis Lewis/Willets Point at all times to Fort Totten.  The Crocheron end already gets covered by the Q28 so it's not really providing any new coverage.

The Q61 should be moved from Fort Totten and instead should follow the QM20 routing down Willets Point to Utopia and then 26th Avenue to Bay Terrace.

This would cover both legs of the current Q16 while expanding local service options along the QM20 corridor.

 

Might be simpler to keep the  on Utopia and let the Q61 cover Willets Point to/from the Fort.

 

[NBTA]

34 minutes ago, Cain said:

I agree with the Q16 opinions, they should repurpose the buses from Q62 to other needed areas in NE Queens - just let Q16 continue serving Ft Totten up Utopia.

Q19 is a strange line... I feel like it should be more limited service like instead of local. That cross town route connects two major neighborhoods.

Q44 going to Fordham is nice but that area is always congested with double parking and traffic - probably going to cause the whole service to suffer with delays. That area needs a busway or center running bus lanes. It is still an important artery for car traffic, unfortunately.

Q50 Co-op loopy seem so inefficient but I understand bus service should have priority for one seat rides for elderly and limited mobility folks. Thinking a circulator type route for the Co-op area seems like a better idea.

Having Q16, 61, 62, and 28 turning into Union St is always problematic - it needs some transit priority. The buses gets bogged down with traffic significantly and the police station there think they can park their cars anywhere and everywhere.

Having the Q31 straightened out as N/S service is nice.

Possibly unpopular opinion? Bus service should be free on weekends or at least Sunday. They should try a one month pilot and see if economic activity picks up in local businesses and downtowns.

Question:

Is there a higher resolution map of the redesign somewhere?

I agree with either Sunday or the least used weekday being free.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, EastFlatbushLarry said:

exactly. i remember when the 16 & 17 used to loop thru lindenwood with the 15

Yeah the QM15 is long enough. I needed it for a while commuting to Woodhaven. I couldn't imagine coming from the Rockaways and having to make so many stops. Just made more sense to add more QM15 service. Even with the reduced stops, the QM16 and QM17 are both long trips.

[EastFlatbushLarry]

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah the QM15 is long enough. I needed it for a while commuting to Woodhaven. I couldn't imagine coming from the Rockaways and having to make so many stops. Just made more sense to add more QM15 service. Even with the reduced stops, the QM16 and QM17 are both long trips.

absolutely. those 16's and 17's do rather well as is. and the 15 is no slouch even with the Woodhaven stops. i used to commute to 100 street depot from lindenwood on a somewhat regular basis some years back (QM15 to 3rd Avenue, then 101,102 or 103 to work) it was actually one of the best experiences i had riding any bus, express or local. and I'm not just speaking about early morning commutes.. I was on the am extra list so the 15 was my go-to between 6 & 11am. 

[Santana04]

2 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

in discussions I've had with my shop steward and other ranking members of TWU, this entire redesign, regardless of if certain lines retain the exact routing, headway or designations, gives the authority full control of what lines/runs go where, specifically between Bus Company & TA/OA. in regards to Queens, it's my understanding that routes will be assigned based on proximity, and not hold to the depot alignments prior to whenever the redesigned network is implemented. with that being said, anything can (and usually does) change, and in my opinion, based on some of the line consolidations that are proposed, i definitely see Bus Company depots losing out on lines & runs, UNLESS there's going to be significant amount of lines being split between TA & Bus Co. yards in order to accommodate everyone. if not, i can definitely see a potential "messy" situation for all unions affected (TWU & the ATU Locals) 

This going to be interesting because the different unions and the difference on how the runs in mta bus are scheduled compared to TA 

[limitednyc]

what do you think about the revised b57?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, Santana04 said:

This going to be interesting because the different unions and the difference on how the runs in mta bus are scheduled compared to TA 

 

24 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

absolutely. those 16's and 17's do rather well as is. and the 15 is no slouch even with the Woodhaven stops. i used to commute to 100 street depot from lindenwood on a somewhat regular basis some years back (QM15 to 3rd Avenue, then 101,102 or 103 to work) it was actually one of the best experiences i had riding any bus, express or local. and I'm not just speaking about early morning commutes.. I was on the am extra list so the 15 was my go-to between 6 & 11am. 

Yeah the QM15 is a pretty quick ride when Woodhaven Blvd moves and a much faster alternative to taking the subway, since there would be numerous transfers involved.

As far as how the work is split up, I do wonder what the unions have to say in general because there is no question that a lot of service would be lost overall meaning less work, and that may hit the smaller depots particularly hard that have unions with less pull.

[EastFlatbushLarry]

5 minutes ago, Santana04 said:

This going to be interesting because the different unions and the difference on how the runs in mta bus are scheduled compared to TA 

for this reason (this topic specifically) is why i was initially reluctant to speak on the network redesigns, because i can't help but wonder what will end up where and in what capacity, because that determines how effective and efficient these "new" ideas are

[EastFlatbushLarry]

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

As far as how the work is split up, I do wonder what the unions have to say in general because there is no question that a lot of service would be lost overall meaning less work, and that may hit the smaller depots particularly hard that have unions with less pull.

THIS. there could easily be scenarios where depots could/could've gone bye-bye if work is/was assigned a certain way. there's still a healthy amount of anxiety pertaining to the potential for b/o's to flip from Bus Company to TA based solely on work availability or the lack thereof. it's still rather early, however, there are alot of moving parts (unions) in Queens Division and it's a healthy discussion nevertheless. i sincerely hope all parties affected are in fact paying attention. 

[Kingsbridgeviewer382]

1 hour ago, Cain said:

I agree with the Q16 opinions, they should repurpose the buses from Q62 to other needed areas in NE Queens - just let Q16 continue serving Ft Totten up Utopia.

Q19 is a strange line... I feel like it should be more limited service like instead of local. That cross town route connects two major neighborhoods.

Q44 going to Fordham is nice but that area is always congested with double parking and traffic - probably going to cause the whole service to suffer with delays. That area needs a busway or center running bus lanes. It is still an important artery for car traffic, unfortunately.

Q50 Co-op loopy seem so inefficient but I understand bus service should have priority for one seat rides for elderly and limited mobility folks. Thinking a circulator type route for the Co-op area seems like a better idea.

Having Q16, 61, 62, and 28 turning into Union St is always problematic - it needs some transit priority. The buses gets bogged down with traffic significantly and the police station there think they can park their cars anywhere and everywhere.

Having the Q31 straightened out as N/S service is nice.

Possibly unpopular opinion? Bus service should be free on weekends or at least Sunday. They should try a one month pilot and see if economic activity picks up in local businesses and downtowns.

Question:

Is there a higher resolution map of the redesign somewhere?

The Q44 is avoiding Fordham Road entirely as the bus is running to Fordham Plaza, where the Bx15 and 17 terminate now. It runs via 3rd Ave & East 182nd St before returning to it original routing to Queens. If it were to run along the Bx9 routing, I would of been worried about traffic and delays on the Q44.

[Cain]

Ah, I see it on the Remix map now. It was not clear on the pdf. Thanks.

Still - Fordham Rd in that area could use center running bus lanes, it is always congested. Any other plan would just be ruined by double parking.