Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

They have to keep this facade for caring about the everyday commuter up, in order to sell (the ones that don't know any better, or refuse to come to grips as to what's going on with this agency) the BS that they've been perpetually doing so for decades....

Some people will always think that. I'll never understand it. BrooklynBus knows first hand because as you know, he worked for the  , so if anyone knows, he does. There are some people that genuinely care at the , but those people usually aren't the decision makers. That's the problem.

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Some people will always think that. I'll never understand it. BrooklynBus knows first hand because as you know, he worked for the  , so if anyone knows, he does. There are some people that genuinely care at the , but those people usually aren't the decision makers. That's the problem.

Truer words were never spoken my friend. He and I go way back but later on in life in our transit careers I've found that his insight in bus operations and management coincide with what my rabbi and mentors spoke about on the RTO side. Those who really know about operations in either department are ignored or exiled to some job with no clout or voice. Things got so bad in my case that my rabbi created a job for my C/R and I where we reported for work for almost 3 months to a location with no local supervision and the  line Supt. and his deputy didn't even realize we worked their line. I took my screen name from the last TA trainmaster and my rabbi who was in line to ascend to that title before the title was eliminated  and a bunch of yes men were put in charge. BrooklynBus has mentioned a few times in the past that that things had gotten so bad intradepartmental between those who actually cared about service vs the brownnosers who took their orders from the cost cutters. I , personally, became very cynical toward the  and by extension NYCT, because there were people in the TA who grew up in the 5 boroughs and still lived there who would not step up for the local residents. I'm glad that people like B35 and yourself and a few others are wise to the game being played transit-wise. My take. Carry on.

[shiznit1987]

A couple more suggestions regarding Central/Western Queens: 

The MTA needs to stop it's obsession with long routes. Instead, keep things simple: 

Instead of merging the Q21 with the northern section of the Q29, make the section of the Q47 north of Jackson Heights/Roosevelt merge with the northern section of the Q29 so you have one route running down from Marine Air Terminal -> 74th/75th sts -> Jackson Hts/Roosevelt Sta --> Roosevelt Ave -> Hampton St -> 90/92nd Sts to Queens Center Mall. This is a much more manageable route. 

Keep the proposed Q63 on Broadway the whole way between 21st st and Queens Center Mall. Divert the Q66 down 48st to stop at 46st-Bliss  so as to a) cut the Q66 short b) improve reliability and c) give an extra subway connection on top of the Northern Blvd  

Keep the Q80 as a route running between Jackson Hts/Roosevelt Ave Sta and Cooper Ave-Glendale using the existing Q47 routing. 

Scrap the Q68 altogether. Send Steinway Q101 buses over the Queensborough to Penn Station Manhattan. Ditto the Q69. This will take massive pressure off the  

Ditch the current B53 plan. Instead, run the B53 from Marcy Ave-Williamsburg  to Jackson Hts-Roosevelt. via Kent/Wyhte Aves -> Franklin St -> Greenpoint Ave -> Roosevelt Ave. This better serves Brooklyn/Queens connectivity. 

The B62 doesn't need to go all the way to Astoria Houses. Beef up Q69 service and have people connect at Queens Plaza. 

[7-express]

17 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

For the QM20, there really isn't a need for weekend service and they should just keep the QM2 as is with the same service and service pattern serving Mitchell Gardens. I have used the QM2 both in Whitestone and in Bay Terrace, and there is enough ridership to keep the same headways and keep the Mitchell Gardens part with the ridership it gets. They are just trying to make the route more direct taking the service road, but there is little ridership there, so even with the turns to get through Mitchell Gardens, the riders it gets from there makes it worth it, as it doesn't take that long to do that part of the route. There are also people further up on Parsons that use that stop by 20th Av. There are co-ops there and homeowners who take it. Never tons of people, but still more than it would get on the service road.

It just seems they were arbitrarily cutting segments off just to meet their performance metrics for reducing number of turns even if it didn't make a ton of sense or save all that much time.  Like when the original draft plan moved the Q44-SBS to the Whitestone Expressway service road but then wiped out the opportunity to serve the relatively dense areas between Linden Place and 14th Ave.

They could probably get away with slashing midday QM2 service (AM till 3 PM) down to hourly service as long as they kept the QM20 midday service as is.

[FLX9304]

If the QM65 comes in play, it should be a fourth NYCT express bus operated from QV since that route starts from Cambria Heights. Plus, the first NYCTA route from Queens to serve downtown Manhattan 

[Bill from Maspeth]

Here is what transit is doing by eliminating service on Calamus Ave. and eliminating the back and forth of the Q18 between 65th St. and 69th St.   And I know some of you guys just don't want to hear it. 

 

They don't want buses on narrow streets that can't pass each other.  Calamus Ave. is very narrow. The b/o's don't want to be accused of snapping off car mirrors anymore!  Same reason why the Q39 was taken off Maspeth Ave. a number of years ago and residents of that area have a long walk to a bus as a result. If a garbage truck or ambulance or oil delivery truck is working on these narrow streets it may not be possible to pass these vehicles and a long delay will result.  They want to buses to move along.  Also I don't like the extension of B57 service along 69th St., Irregardless that the route no longer going to IKEA.  Even though it will not be the only route there (thankfully), on time and service consistency will be horrid because of all the traffic on Flushing Ave.  It is horrid as it is without this extension.  

[BrooklynBus]

12 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

If that were the case, they would've been delighted when the pandemic cut their ridership by as much as 90% at one point. 

They would have been delighted if it were possible for them to politically cut their service by 90 percent. But they barely cut service at all so buses that were previously jam packed were running virtually empty. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You're 100% correct. Unfortunately, there are brown nosers and gullible types that seem to think that the  is so vested in their customers. They are vested in keeping their costs down. 

By that logic, MTA should want to reduce costs to zero by eliminating all service.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

They would have been delighted if it were possible for them to politically cut their service by 90 percent. But they barely cut service at all so buses that were previously jam packed were running virtually empty. 

You are absolutely correct. Bus service (local and express) has always been about political clout. I was in a meeting last week where the subject came up, and someone who used to have a lot of clout at the  noted how they were able to get more bus service for their community.  If this person was not a former board member, I don't think they would've ever gotten that bus service in their neighborhood.

1 hour ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

By that logic, MTA should want to reduce costs to zero by eliminating all service.

If they could, they would eliminate as much bus service as possible and push as many people onto the subway as possible, and that includes the local buses too. One subway car alone can hold roughly a good two bus loads of people, so you can eliminate costs that way considerably. This is an agency that promised that they would NOT cut bus service to places like hospitals and yet they proposed to do just that in their redesign, a bus line that took thousands of hospital workers AND patients to that hospital every year. They were content to remove the bus entirely from that area because they wanted to get "their customers to Midtown quicker". Meanwhile, the majority of their ridership comes from that hospital on that line now, so spare me with the notion that they are so customer centric. They care about their bottom line, period. The only reason they reversed course was because hundreds of angry commuters came to an emergency Town Hall meeting with hundreds of signatures that they had circulated for a petition to stop them from cutting their service. 

9 hours ago, 7-express said:

It just seems they were arbitrarily cutting segments off just to meet their performance metrics for reducing number of turns even if it didn't make a ton of sense or save all that much time.  Like when the original draft plan moved the Q44-SBS to the Whitestone Expressway service road but then wiped out the opportunity to serve the relatively dense areas between Linden Place and 14th Ave.

They could probably get away with slashing midday QM2 service (AM till 3 PM) down to hourly service as long as they kept the QM20 midday service as is.

Yes. My issues with these redesigns is, they do not know how many riders use each stop. There is no way that they can know because they don't use the buses enough. Looking at BusTime is nice, but it doesn't tell the whole story of ridership patterns. They would be lucky if they saved maybe five minutes tops not serving Mitchell Gardens, but they would be losing riders overall because as I said, those service road stops don't really get anybody, so you are essentially cutting your own ridership (either on purpose or via ignorance). Either way it's unacceptable. I've spoken with them enough to know that the planners have their own ideas of how these routes should run and they are looking at how they can reduce run times and reduce turns first and foremost. Making routes straighter doesn't automatically mean that tons of time will be saved, but they would rather do that and cut their ridership base in the process to save a few minutes tops. We had a Zoom meeting a few weeks ago regarding the Queens Redesign with concerned riders and other advocates and a major sticking point came from the disabled and seniors who would lose their service or be forced to walk much further. There are people that are disabled that depend on these buses to get work and they cannot take the subway because of their disability and trying to navigate around with other buses would mean several transfers and a much longer commute. 

There is some digging happening regarding things like stop distance and other guidelines. I want to look into these things further to see if what the  is proposing is contractually legal. It's not right either way.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[BrooklynBus]

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You are absolutely correct. Bus service (local and express) has always been about political clout. I was in a meeting last week where the subject came up, and someone who used to have a lot of clout at the  noted how they were able to get more bus service for their community.  If this person was not a former board member, I don't think they would've ever gotten that bus service in their neighborhood.

If they could, they would eliminate as much bus service as possible and push as many people onto the subway as possible, and that includes the local buses too. One subway car alone can hold roughly a good two bus loads of people, so you can eliminate costs that way considerably. This is an agency that promised that they would NOT cut bus service to places like hospitals and yet they proposed to do just that in their redesign, a bus line that took thousands of hospital workers AND patients to that hospital every year. They were content to remove the bus entirely from that area because they wanted to get "their customers to Midtown quicker". Meanwhile, the majority of their ridership comes from that hospital on that line now, so spare me with the notion that they are so customer centric. They care about their bottom line, period. The only reason they reversed course was because hundreds of angry commuters came to an emergency Town Hall meeting with hundreds of signatures that they had circulated for a petition to stop them from cutting their service. 

Yes. My issues with these redesigns is, they do not know how many riders use each stop. There is no way that they can know because they don't use the buses enough. Looking at BusTime is nice, but it doesn't tell the whole story of ridership patterns. They would be lucky if they saved maybe five minutes tops not serving Mitchell Gardens, but they would be losing riders overall because as I said, those service road stops don't really get anybody, so you are essentially cutting your own ridership (either on purpose or via ignorance). Either way it's unacceptable. I've spoken with them enough to know that the planners have their own ideas of how these routes should run and they are looking at how they can reduce run times and reduce turns first and foremost. Making routes straighter doesn't automatically mean that tons of time will be saved, but they would rather do that and cut their ridership base in the process to save a few minutes tops. We had a Zoom meeting a few weeks ago regarding the Queens Redesign with concerned riders and other advocates and a major sticking point came from the disabled and seniors who would lose their service or be forced to walk much further. There are people that are disabled that depend on these buses to get work and they cannot take the subway because of their disability and trying to navigate around with other buses would mean several transfers and a much longer commute. 

There is some digging happening regarding things like stop distance and other guidelines. I want to look into these things further to see if what the  is proposing is contractually legal. It's not right either way.

Absolutely correct. If they want to find out usage for any bus stop, they have the data or can get it, but it might be a lot of work they don't want to do. When they eliminated my bus stop in 2003 because soneone well connected with DOT asked for it to be removed, I complained. (The lady actually threatened to sue me personally in the local newspaper if I got the MTA to return the bus stop.) The MTA told me that 54 people used the stop in a day. I counted all the bus trips and that meant only one out of six buses even stopped there. So the remaining buses saved about ten seconds each, much less time than the extra walking required by those 54 people and the chance of missing a bus. 

[bobtehpanda]

On 4/13/2022 at 1:57 AM, B35 via Church said:

This is exactly why I don't see the need for a route like that proposed Q26... It sacrifices overall patronage too much for speed, which isn't as big a problem on the Q27....

I think the problem is more how to do rider distribution on the Q27. West of QCC even on weekends it's not uncommon to have lots of people passed up on 46th and 48th Av because the bus is full coming from QCC and points east.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the split will be okay, since it more or less splits the Q27 into its three distinct rider bases, QCC to Flushing, SE Queens to Flushing, and SE Queens to QCC.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 4/15/2022 at 1:02 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

@BM5 via Woodhaven I think part of it is just that they aren't super familiar with those areas and figure that if the current QM12 stops at 98th Street (when the pedestrian bridge is at 99th Street) and the current QM8X doesn't stop west of 188th Street, then they might as well have the new routes do the same.

In any case, they probably figure that the QM8 will take virtually all of the Fresh Meadows riders from the QM7, thus leaving space for the riders along Queens Blvd. Plus with the impacts of work from home on ridership, I don't find that assumption to be too outlandish. If they need a couple of extra trips at the height of rush hour to handle the combined ridership, it's still more efficient than running it as two separate routes. (Plus it's simpler for the passengers to understand, rather than having remember that they take the QM7 if they leave work at 2pm but the QM11 if they leave at 4pm). The other thing of course is that some of the people getting on the QM11 along Queens Blvd may actually live closer to Yellowstone Blvd (either side of QB) or 108th Street, but they walk down to Queens Blvd because that's where the bus happens to stop.

For the HHE corridor, I think they're better off having the QM5/8/35 make a few extra stops as far west as Main Street (or College Point Blvd, but I think Main Street would be better). Leave the QM11/12/42 covering the areas west of Flushing Meadows Park, and the QM5/8/35 covering areas east of there. Off-peak, you can have the QM5C covering the whole corridor. 

 

That in highlighted, is a problem. It's the same way they're doing this bus stop removal process too (part of which has already started on the Q66), just removing existing stops and not really fine-tuning and looking at whether those stops are adequate or not. They're the one's that are getting paid to do this, so you would think that they take the time to look into these things. Like I don't expect them to know every neighborhood like the back of their hand, but when there's various instances of visibly poor planning (those are just some of the instances in this plan), it just shows that it's not being taken all too seriously (and it's just done to meet some metric / deadline). 

I still think combining all QM7/QM11 service into one route is a bad idea, I'll give them that perhaps some of the early & late buses can, but not all. I've seen the loads on the QM11 myself, they can carry, and the QM7 is a fairly long route. Having to deal with both corridors means a lot more time accelerating/decelerating, more dwell time, and longer trip times for a lot of the Union Turnpike riders. As far as distinguishing what bus to take, it really wouldn't be all that of an issue, because the majority of QM11 riders today would still be taking a QM11 bus. Also, the QM7X notation would serve to let riders know that the bus is skipping Queens Boulevard. Inbound is clearly not an issue, because it would be the same route, regardless of designation. 

As far as walking down to Queens Boulevard, the other thing though is that walking down to Queens Boulevard would be the faster option, because the bus doesn't have to meander around Rego Park and LeFrak City. That's a considerable amount of time saved, and I don't see too many people gunning for their proposed QM11 for that reason. I see most of them shifting to that QM7. Same thing goes for south of Queens Boulevard, the decreased walking distance may not be worth the additional time it takes headed through Forest Hills, Rego Park, and LeFrak City. Might as well keep the service on Queens Boulevard and provide as much service as possible, while taking into consideration trip times. 

What you're saying regarding the HHE corridor, I was thinking about doing that with the QM8, but IDK how much it would run up the travel time. Certainly couldn't be any worse than the existing QM8, but still. Although having the QM8 in that area would be a game changer to people who need Downtown, especially since it's very inconvenient to get there by bus/subway from those areas. 

Issue with dividing the Horace Harding corridor the way you outlined is that there's demand in Rego Park for bus service, and I think it should be preserved there (and not take the QM12 away from there). The QM10 in the PM mainly drops-off along 63rd Road and that's about it. On the QM12, hardly anyone gets off at the 98th Street stop. So that segment on it's own wouldn't hold, and tying the QM12/QM42 there would increase runtime for a minute increase in ridership. I have the HHE bus (coming from Utopia Parkway) do that, because it would still be a fairly fast pick-up/drop-off segment with those stops in place (and I believe the QM5 can handle 188th Street and points east on without needing extra stops). For reference, the Q88 during the rush takes about 20-25, sometimes up to 30 minutes from QCM to Utopia Parkway (that's in line with what's scheduled IINM). The express bus isn't making as many stops along the way, so it would be quicker to get between the two points. 

On 4/15/2022 at 5:38 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

To be clear, the QM21 was brought back because QM21 riders raised hell in Rochdale Village. I have quite a few QM21 riders in my group. We created fliers and they spread them around. They don't want any combo, so that was brought back. Same with the QM18.

For the QM20, there really isn't a need for weekend service and they should just keep the QM2 as is with the same service and service pattern serving Mitchell Gardens. I have used the QM2 both in Whitestone and in Bay Terrace, and there is enough ridership to keep the same headways and keep the Mitchell Gardens part with the ridership it gets. They are just trying to make the route more direct taking the service road, but there is little ridership there, so even with the turns to get through Mitchell Gardens, the riders it gets from there makes it worth it, as it doesn't take that long to do that part of the route. There are also people further up on Parsons that use that stop by 20th Av. There are co-ops there and homeowners who take it. Never tons of people, but still more than it would get on the service road.

Regarding the QM21, ultimately it's their fight, although I wonder why they are against such a combo (reliability/seat availability concerns)?

My thinking for the QM20 is that it serves various areas that don't have bus service, or adequate service since the Q16 is branched in that area and frequency-wise is crap (and it's only getting worse with what they proposed in this plan), plus it serving Bay Terrace and Mitchell Gardens (which are pretty dense and potential ridership generators). Sunday service is whatever, it's likely not gonna be a lot, but IMO I would have tried out with having some Saturday service out, especially since once again. they're making the local bus service in that area even worse. I would have the QM2 serve Parsons regardless too, no disagreement there. 

On 4/15/2022 at 5:38 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Having the QM1 run makes sense because the QM5 does too much, but after the QM1 stops, they should have the QM6 serve the are west of 188th St. It's direct and it's quicker than the QM5, plus the QM6 could use that ridership. 

Yes they have the QM5 doing the most with what it serves and how it serves it, although I don't see how having off-peak QM1 service is a solution to that situation. 

Thing is, as far as off-peak service goes, a lot of the ridership on both the QM5 and QM6 comes from east of 188th Street (on many buses it's a majority, or an overwhelming majority). The QM6 could use the ridership from Union Turnpike west of 188th Street since it's just not as strong as the QM5. I've been on several QM5s which had almost every row taken before deviating to serve the Fresh Meadows Apartments (on 188th Street), I cannot say the same thing about the QM6. 

Weekend QM1 service I see it not doing much better than the current QM4, if not worse. The QM5 and QM6 as is don't pick up that heavy on the segment west of 188th Street, and replacing both with the QM1 would make it a service cut, driving some riders away. Might as well fill up those QM6s as much as possible instead of capping its ridership potential for a negligible drop in trip time (which doesn't even save a bus). The resources used for QM1 off-peak service would be much better off used to preserve QM4 service, with several modifications to boost up ridership at little to no cost (such as running it to Fresh Meadows and stopping along Queens Boulevard). 

On 4/15/2022 at 5:38 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The QM10/QM12 combo is just them trying to cut back on resources. Some QM10 riders in my group are not happy. We got a lot of people calling their elected officials last time. We will see how many people call this time. It was very effective and so far the fliers are being spread via social media and some people are printing them and handing them out on the express buses.

Yeah. they're combining the routes and also reducing the headways at the same time. I understand QM10 riders being upset (and especially QM12 riders too), I just hope the end product isn't them retaining both of the routes as is (especially the QM10, that would be waste). That's why I proposed to have the QM10 run out to Utopia Parkway via Horace Harding, in order to increase ridership on the route while preserving most of the existing QM10 route (some QM10 riders would instead use the QM12). 

[Future ENY OP]

16 hours ago, FLX9304 said:

If the QM65 comes in play, it should be a fourth NYCT express bus operated from QV since that route starts from Cambria Heights. Plus, the first NYCTA route from Queens to serve downtown Manhattan 

By the time the Queens Re-design is deployed.. Queens Village could lose the 63 & 64 back to Jamaica depending if the depot is ready by the time plan is implemented.  This QM65 Downtown variant is going to be very interesting.

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I think the problem is more how to do rider distribution on the Q27. West of QCC even on weekends it's not uncommon to have lots of people passed up on 46th and 48th Av because the bus is full coming from QCC and points east.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the split will be okay, since it more or less splits the Q27 into its three distinct rider bases, QCC to Flushing, SE Queens to Flushing, and SE Queens to QCC.

The crux of the issue is that the Q27 can't (realistically), wholly address that latent demand along Springfield south of 120th... The demand for Flushing along the vast majority of Springfield doesn't supersede that (not saying that you were saying that, just making the point as an aside).... If we're to talk about rider distribution, we're talking about having some group of riders doing some sort of transferring, regardless... Question is, how far down Springfield should that magical point be at....

36 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

That in highlighted, is a problem. It's the same way they're doing this bus stop removal process too (part of which has already started on the Q66), just removing existing stops and not really fine-tuning and looking at whether those stops are adequate or not. They're the one's that are getting paid to do this, so you would think that they take the time to look into these things. Like I don't expect them to know every neighborhood like the back of their hand, but when there's various instances of visibly poor planning (those are just some of the instances in this plan), it just shows that it's not being taken all too seriously (and it's just done to meet some metric / deadline).

4 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Absolutely correct. If they want to find out usage for any bus stop, they have the data or can get it, but it might be a lot of work they don't want to do. When they eliminated my bus stop in 2003 because soneone well connected with DOT asked for it to be removed, I complained. (The lady actually threatened to sue me personally in the local newspaper if I got the MTA to return the bus stop.) The MTA told me that 54 people used the stop in a day. I counted all the bus trips and that meant only one out of six buses even stopped there. So the remaining buses saved about ten seconds each, much less time than the extra walking required by those 54 people and the chance of missing a bus. 

They selectively use data to justify what they want to accomplish & nothing more.

Edited April 16, 2022 by B35 via Church

[Future ENY OP]

The B57 is very interesting.  But the loss of service to Wegmans and the area surrounding Farragut Houses is very interesting to say the least. I understand the TA wants to streamline the service along Flushing Ave. But, eliminating the service around the Farragut Houses area would defeat the purpose for the complex. Those bus stops in the area are well used. I'm personally glad that the 57 is returning back to it's original terminal in Downtown Brooklyn, but guessing what's gonna be done with the Red Hook variant still remains to be seen but maybe a revival of the B75 and B77. The B62 has no business in Astoria (making up for the failed BQX light rail connection, and I don't think NYC will ever have the infrastructure to produce light rail material)

Personally, Red hook needs back the B75, and B77 and reduce the B61 plainly a Park Slope- Downtown Brooklyn route without the Red Hook variant. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Future ENY OP

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

1. I still think combining all QM7/QM11 service into one route is a bad idea, I'll give them that perhaps some of the early & late buses can, but not all. I've seen the loads on the QM11 myself, they can carry, and the QM7 is a fairly long route. Having to deal with both corridors means a lot more time accelerating/decelerating, more dwell time, and longer trip times for a lot of the Union Turnpike riders. As far as distinguishing what bus to take, it really wouldn't be all that of an issue, because the majority of QM11 riders today would still be taking a QM11 bus. Also, the QM7X notation would serve to let riders know that the bus is skipping Queens Boulevard. Inbound is clearly not an issue, because it would be the same route, regardless of designation. 

2. Regarding the QM21, ultimately it's their fight, although I wonder why they are against such a combo (reliability/seat availability concerns)?

3. My thinking for the QM20 is that it serves various areas that don't have bus service, or adequate service since the Q16 is branched in that area and frequency-wise is crap (and it's only getting worse with what they proposed in this plan), plus it serving Bay Terrace and Mitchell Gardens (which are pretty dense and potential ridership generators). Sunday service is whatever, it's likely not gonna be a lot, but IMO I would have tried out with having some Saturday service out, especially since once again. they're making the local bus service in that area even worse. I would have the QM2 serve Parsons regardless too, no disagreement there. 

4. Yes they have the QM5 doing the most with what it serves and how it serves it, although I don't see how having off-peak QM1 service is a solution to that situation. 

Thing is, as far as off-peak service goes, a lot of the ridership on both the QM5 and QM6 comes from east of 188th Street (on many buses it's a majority, or an overwhelming majority). The QM6 could use the ridership from Union Turnpike west of 188th Street since it's just not as strong as the QM5. I've been on several QM5s which had almost every row taken before deviating to serve the Fresh Meadows Apartments (on 188th Street), I cannot say the same thing about the QM6. 

Weekend QM1 service I see it not doing much better than the current QM4, if not worse. The QM5 and QM6 as is don't pick up that heavy on the segment west of 188th Street, and replacing both with the QM1 would make it a service cut, driving some riders away. Might as well fill up those QM6s as much as possible instead of capping its ridership potential for a negligible drop in trip time (which doesn't even save a bus). The resources used for QM1 off-peak service would be much better off used to preserve QM4 service, with several modifications to boost up ridership at little to no cost (such as running it to Fresh Meadows and stopping along Queens Boulevard). 

5. Yeah. they're combining the routes and also reducing the headways at the same time. I understand QM10 riders being upset (and especially QM12 riders too), I just hope the end product isn't them retaining both of the routes as is (especially the QM10, that would be waste). That's why I proposed to have the QM10 run out to Utopia Parkway via Horace Harding, in order to increase ridership on the route while preserving most of the existing QM10 route (some QM10 riders would instead use the QM12). 

1. That QM7 proposal is already pissing some people off. I have one lady in my group that is going crazy. The concern is that their commute will be even longer than what it is. It is already a long ride from Fresh Meadows to Downtown. Adding those stops along Queens Blvd, which as I'm sure you know has become MUCH slower with the Vision Zero changes, bike lanes and the like could make that trip easily two hours one way. I would say that with the changes on Queens Blvd, my trips to Queens were a good 20-30 minutes longer than before, and this was with the QM1, QM5 or QM6. One idea floating around is to have that new QM65 bus make those stops. It would be a new ridership base and quite frankly, it isn't clear how much ridership will come from Southeast Queens, so like the QM18, it may be very dependent on getting ridership from Queens Blvd to survive. It's actually a good idea. Time will tell what is decided.

2. It's very simple. The people in Rochdale Village want the bus as is, that is serving that entire housing complex. It currently loops around Rochdale Village and so if it doesn't do that, then someone would lose their stop. I know people were quite upset about it and raised hell. They circulated the flier we created for sure. You will notice that quite a few routes are not changing that much. They have focused more on cutting the frequencies since they received a lot of negative feedback from elected officials about the routes and the cuts to the spans. There are also quite a few concerned QM3 riders that have joined and are contacting their elected officials to keep that route.

3. Here's the problem with the QM20. Personally I'm all for keeping it, but even during the week, ridership is not bursting at the seams on those off-peak trips, so getting the  to run the QM20 on weekends would be next to impossible, precisely for that reason. Right now, the focus is on trying to keep the QM20 during the week and keeping the current QM2 service during the week and on weekends. I also want to push for earlier QM2 and QM20 service because quite a few people are annoyed that they have to drive to Union Turnpike for a QM5. The other request is Downtown service covering the Bay Terrace, Bayside, Whitestone, Beechhurst area.

4. The QM1 should run because it would take the strain off of the QM5. The QM5 gets more ridership than the QM6, as it serves a number of co-ops and such. Not having to loop around and serve Fresh Meadows just makes sense. I think the  realized that too. I've taken QM5 and QM6 trips to the end of the line. The QM5 made me want to pull my hair out. Just wayy too much. It's much better starting with pick-ups and drop-offs at 188th. I would keep the QM6 running from Main St to Lake Success, as it is very fast along Union Turnpike, provided the driver moves. Furthermore, it just doesn't get as much ridership, even with the North Shore Towers crowd. More low density along Union Turnpike (more homes and fewer co-ops). For whatever reason, the co-ops by Main St don't draw as many express bus riders as one would think. The folks in that area seem content to take the bus to the subway overall. I do however agree that a weekend QM1 won't do much. Catchment area is not that big and despite that large complex by 188th, the ridership isn't what it once was there, BUT something has to serve it. If you don't have the QM1 there, I could see people being pissed and raising hell. Co-ops tend to have a lot of clout. The residents attend in large numbers at community board meetings and are very vocal. 

You see some of these housing complexes were created with the promise that they would have good transportation, usually in the form of express bus service. You take that away, and the value of those co-ops is not nearly as high because now you've got to take a bus to the subway, which could be a much longer trip. That's pretty much the deal with places like Parkchester and a number of other housing complexes in Queens and elsewhere. The  knows this too, but they want to see how much they can get away with. I mean the North Shore Towers is another example where they advertise right on their website that they have express bus service right outside the buildings.  Having service cut could make people re-think buying there.

5. We will see what happens with that. QM10 riders in my group are not happy, that much I know. We have actually more QM10 riders than QM12 riders in the group IIRC, but I would have to look and see.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[7-express]

29 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

3. Here's the problem with the QM20. Personally I'm all for keeping it, but even during the week, ridership is not bursting at the seams on those off-peak trips, so getting the  to run the QM20 on weekends would be next to impossible, precisely for that reason. Right now, the focus is on trying to keep the QM20 during the week and keeping the current QM2 service during the week and on weekends. I also want to push for earlier QM2 and QM20 service because quite a few people are annoyed that they have to drive to Union Turnpike for a QM5. The other request is Downtown service covering the Bay Terrace, Bayside, Whitestone, Beechhurst area.

Earlier QM2/20 service would starting at 520 or 530 would be welcome.  I've been on a few of the 545 first runs and they get pretty busy.  I'd estimate 20-30 people.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, 7-express said:

Earlier QM2/20 service would starting at 520 or 530 would be welcome.  I've been on a few of the 545 first runs and they get pretty busy.  I'd estimate 20-30 people.

Yup. Talked to the  some months ago about it. I was able to get an earlier 5:20 BM2 trip because that one started seeing standing room only. I pitched the QM2/QM20 earlier service as being cost neutral in that they would just start a QM2 and QM20 earlier and shuffle the schedule around elsewhere. I suggest putting that in the feedback for the Queens Redesign as well: https://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/app/comments_queensbus?fbclid=IwAR0DEoDoZYe9xX3Cu-EvHInMSB8P6JYZV6IhM5L25_OqsNhFwJT0zI8AnY4

[Future ENY OP]

Hopefully the Q109 is operated by Spring Creek.. This would actually give them a purpose to be in the Queens Division.  From the depot to Euclid Avenue shouldn't take no more than 20 mins. A route that could be given similar resources as the B103 if well marketed.  Now, I can understand that one would say that this should be a JFK depot route because of the Q7/Q41 but a better deadhead from Spring Creek Depot to Euclid Avenue would be alot simpler than deadheading from JFK Depot. Route has potential to do very well. 

[Future ENY OP]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yup. Talked to the  some months ago about it. I was able to get an earlier 5:20 BM2 trip because that one started seeing standing room only. I pitched the QM2/QM20 earlier service as being cost neutral in that they would just start a QM2 and QM20 earlier and shuffle the schedule around elsewhere. I suggest putting that in the feedback for the Queens Redesign as well: https://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/app/comments_queensbus?fbclid=IwAR0DEoDoZYe9xX3Cu-EvHInMSB8P6JYZV6IhM5L25_OqsNhFwJT0zI8AnY4

That 5:20AM BM2 is a very good lifeline.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

That 5:20AM BM2 is a very good lifeline.

Getting good loads already. A few people in my group has asked for it a while ago because there are a lot of people that work at the hospitals and such.

[Future ENY OP]

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Getting good loads already. A few people in my group has asked for it a while ago because there are a lot of people that work at the hospitals and such.

Especially 23rd and 1st, Bellevue, NYU Langone, VA Hospital, OCME and NYU 34th Street.  I know the MTA will not provide a 4:55AM variant like command did years ago (something to consider in the future provided- driver availability). At least this 5:20AM bus will get to 23rd and 1st on or about 6:05/6:10AM.  However, I believe the 4:55AM variant that command had got to 23rd and 1st by 5:40AM provided if there was no Downtown pax. If I'm correct the new schedule is now 5:20 first bus, 2nd bus 5:50AM and super express begins after 6AM..

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, Future ENY OP said:

Especially 23rd and 1st, Bellevue, NYU Langone, VA Hospital, OCME and NYU 34th Street.  I know the MTA will not provide a 4:55AM variant like command did years ago (something to consider in the future provided- driver availability). At least this 5:20AM bus will get to 23rd and 1st on or about 6:05/6:10AM.  However, I believe the 4:55AM variant that command had got to 23rd and 1st by 5:40AM provided if there was no Downtown pax. If I'm correct the new schedule is now 5:20 first bus, 2nd bus 5:50AM and super express begins after 6AM..

Yes, that's correct about the new schedule. Keeping an eye on that trip because it too has been getting 35-40+ riders some days. I expect more people to take it as they realize the new 5:20am is there. There used to be a 5:20am and then a 5:40am bus, but they cut both of those.

[Trainmaster5]

12 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

By that logic, MTA should want to reduce costs to zero by eliminating all service.

Let me take this sideways for a moment. A Motor Instructor told our class 40 years ago about the long term goal of the . Reduce payroll costs.  The R46 class of subway cars were designed to eliminate personnel,  period. OPTO in the subway. Removal/reassignment of Station Agents Everything that he and his fellow instructors taught us back then is happening in some shape or form now.  We were told that the hardest nut to crack would be the  B/O title. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if route consolidation or outright eliminations is not an underlying factor here. Just my take. Sorry for veering off track.  Carry on. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cait Sith]

10 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Hopefully the Q109 is operated by Spring Creek.. This would actually give them a purpose to be in the Queens Division.  From the depot to Euclid Avenue shouldn't take no more than 20 mins. A route that could be given similar resources as the B103 if well marketed.  Now, I can understand that one would say that this should be a JFK depot route because of the Q7/Q41 but a better deadhead from Spring Creek Depot to Euclid Avenue would be alot simpler than deadheading from JFK Depot. Route has potential to do very well. 

There’s no sense in having the Q109 operate out of Spring Creek. The BM5 is technically the Queens route since it has stops in Queens.

The deadhead from SC to Pitkin would be about the same time as the deadhead from Pitkin to JFK Depot, which is roughly around 10-15 minutes(with proper traffic conditions).

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by Cait Sith