Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[qjtransitmaster]

There needs to be major changes to the routes in the Long Island City and Astoria areas. All the Q100 routes except Q100LTD have poor ridership. If they were NYCT routes I know they would of changed. The Q100 is good but I really think it should follow the Q69 on 21Ave and then go up to Rikers Island. I really think it can pick up more ridership going there. The Q101 honestly I'm not really sure what to do with that route it's just one of those routes that just don't pick up a lot of people. The Q102 I believe should be eliminated because it parallels the and lines and since 2007 ridership has decreased. The Q103 should be routed off of Vernon blvd south of Queensbridge 21st because that route needs serious help having the lowest ridership in the city next to the Bx24. The Q104 should be extended onto Roosevelt Island via Vernon Blvd and that can serve as a replacement for the Q102. All those routes have similar headways except the Q100 and I believe service changes should help those routes out. The Q19 is also another one with weak ridership but there is nothing that could be done with that route unless it was extended to Manhattan or the Bronx but where?

with the upcoming bx 50 Sending Q19 to the Bronx would become very difficult and FDR needs a bus lane before any bus be routed there. Q104 idea is a good one but Q23 would try to use buses per hour to screw with the numbers. You think Q103 should go to Williamsburg what about Q101?

[NewFlyer 230]

Have you done the math and figure how many riders you have per bus. You can have a bus with 100 riders, and only have two trips, or a bus with 5,000, and have 234 trips. Which would do better (pretend they have the same milage).

Well why wasn't some NYCT routes with similar ridership spared back in June 2010? Example the Q31 had its weekend service cut with about 2,300 riders and there is no alternatives past the Horace Harding Expressway along Utopia and I see a lot of people get off and walk along Utopia. The Q67 for example has little ridership on the weekends with about 300 riders and the Q39 is nearby. But never was cut. The Q74 which was used by seniors and College Students made it so easy to travel to Southern Queens without transferring to three buses.

[Q90]

Look at the M5, and S78, and others (B15, S89).

That is irrelevant because in Manhattan there are bus only lanes so that makes the buses move faster, S89 is a limited, and B15 connects JFK Airport so they don't count.

 

Well why wasn't some NYCT routes with similar ridership spared back in June 2010? Example the Q31 had its weekend service cut with about 2,300 riders and there is no alternatives past the Horace Harding Expressway along Utopia and I see a lot of people get off and walk along Utopia. The Q67 for example has little ridership on the weekends with about 300 riders and the Q39 is nearby. But never was cut. The Q74 which was used by seniors and College Students made it so easy to travel to Southern Queens without transferring to three buses.

Because MTA makes a lot of stupid, ignorant decisions that make no sense. Well at least the Q74 was replaced by vans assigned on the route.

[bobtehpanda]

That is irrelevant because in Manhattan there are bus only lanes so that makes the buses move faster, S89 is a limited, and B15 connects JFK Airport so they don't count.

 

 

Because MTA makes a lot of stupid, ignorant decisions that make no sense. Well at least the Q74 was replaced by vans assigned on the route.

 

Those vans failed after a month.

[Q90]

Those vans failed after a month.

Yeah and I never really liked the Q74 in the first place. It mostly duplicated the Q20/Q44 and the bus had really low ridership anyways so it made sense to lay the axe on it.

[Astoria Line]

It's good if there's industry on Vernon Boulevard because B35 via Church said a million times that industry creates demand. And also the Q103 doesn't need to be rerouted anywhere, it just needs to be extended to Williamsburg. Also for anyone who needs to go to other parts of Astoria, they could just walk over to the Q19 and also the Q103 is broke and an extension to Williamsburg will fix it, not by rerouting it. And speaking of the Q19, I think it should be extended to 2 Street and 27 Avenue to connect with Q18, Q102, and Q103.

 

 

An extended Q19 to Manhattan or Bronx would be much longer than my Q90. I'd say a local route more than 10 miles is too long. Q90 is right at that limit.

 

 

Don't push anyone onto that Q19. That route stops running at 7pm.... and doesn't go anywhere with major traffic except for Flushing..

 

and as Q23 says, there are many successful routes that are more than 10 miles....

 

extending the Q19 down to 27th ave, you're basically connecting a bunch of low ridership/go nowhere routes lol

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Well why wasn't some NYCT routes with similar ridership spared back in June 2010? Example the Q31 had its weekend service cut with about 2,300 riders and there is no alternatives past the Horace Harding Expressway along Utopia and I see a lot of people get off and walk along Utopia. The Q67 for example has little ridership on the weekends with about 300 riders and the Q39 is nearby. But never was cut. The Q74 which was used by seniors and College Students made it so easy to travel to Southern Queens without transferring to three buses.

MTA Bus is reimbursed by the city, so MTA doesnt pay for it.

[Q90]

Don't push anyone onto that Q19. That route stops running at 7pm.... and doesn't go anywhere with major traffic except for Flushing..

 

and as Q23 says, there are many successful routes that are more than 10 miles....

 

extending the Q19 down to 27th ave, you're basically connecting a bunch of low ridership/go nowhere routes lol

 

Then how come you criticized my Q90 route for being long if it's shorter than those longer routes. And wait Q19 only operates until 7? Maybe the demand isn't high because it stops operating too early. And Q102 goes to Roosevelt Island and is the only bus to do so, not a nowhere route. If Q103 was extended to Williamsburg like I proposed, then it wouldn't be a nowhere route either. 

 

[Q90]

Don't push anyone onto that Q19. That route stops running at 7pm.... and doesn't go anywhere with major traffic except for Flushing..

 

and as Q23 says, there are many successful routes that are more than 10 miles....

 

extending the Q19 down to 27th ave, you're basically connecting a bunch of low ridership/go nowhere routes lol

 

 

And by the way, I've decided to send my Williamsburg extension of the Q103 to Queens Plaza mainly because I realized you can't turn the bus onto the Pulaski Bridge from Borden Avenue and south of Queens Boulevard Vernon Boulevard is pretty much dead. Heres the map of the Williamsburg extension: 

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e144d4685f3f118ef

 

 

[GojiMet86]

Lol at dead. There's at least 5 to 7 people that take it on the first stop. They can use it to change to the . And people going southbound can change to the and the . No need to turn it to QP.

[qjtransitmaster]

And by the way, I've decided to send my Williamsburg extension of the Q103 to Queens Plaza mainly because I realized you can't turn the bus onto the Pulaski Bridge from Borden Avenue and south of Queens Boulevard Vernon Boulevard is pretty much dead. Heres the map of the Williamsburg extension: 

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e144d4685f3f118ef

 

ok you can just simply merge it with the B32 you know B32 has weekend service and is more frequent.

[Astoria Line]

Then how come you criticized my Q90 route for being long if it's shorter than those longer routes. And wait Q19 only operates until 7? Maybe the demand isn't high because it stops operating too early. And Q102 goes to Roosevelt Island and is the only bus to do so, not a nowhere route. If Q103 was extended to Williamsburg like I proposed, then it wouldn't be a nowhere route either.

 

The difference between your route and those other routes, is your route mirrors a whole bunch of other routes and the routing is rather unreliable imo

[Q90]

ok you can just simply merge it with the B32 you know B32 has weekend service and is more frequent.

 

 

That was my exact intention. I wanted to extend the Q103 to Williamsburg so it would be an alternative to the new B32 especially that the Q103 is short it could use an extension. The Q103 has low ridership and demand between Williamsburg and LIC/Astoria is rapidly increasing so it makes sense to extend it to Williamsburg instead of starting a new route. Yes the Q103 would gain weekend service and more frequency and will have higher ridership plus Astoria is included as well. 

 

[bobtehpanda]

 

That was my exact intention. I wanted to extend the Q103 to Williamsburg so it would be an alternative to the new B32 especially that the Q103 is short it could use an extension. The Q103 has low ridership and demand between Williamsburg and LIC/Astoria is rapidly increasing so it makes sense to extend it to Williamsburg instead of starting a new route. Yes the Q103 would gain weekend service and more frequency and will have higher ridership plus Astoria is included as well. 

 

 

 

...at risk of cannibalizing the ridership of all the other parallel routes.

 

The problem I have with the new Brooklyn bus route is that honestly, it runs 2 blocks from the B62. The B62 doesn't exactly have stellar ridership. If the area really needed the extra service (doubtful), then just boost the B62. It's better to have one route stopping every seven minutes than two routes a block apart stopping every fifteen.

[Astoria Line]

...at risk of cannibalizing the ridership of all the other parallel routes.

 

The problem I have with the new Brooklyn bus route is that honestly, it runs 2 blocks from the B62. The B62 doesn't exactly have stellar ridership. If the area really needed the extra service (doubtful), then just boost the B62. It's better to have one route stopping every seven minutes than two routes a block apart stopping every fifteen.

 

...at risk of cannibalizing the ridership of all the other parallel routes.

 

The problem I have with the new Brooklyn bus route is that honestly, it runs 2 blocks from the B62. The B62 doesn't exactly have stellar ridership. If the area really needed the extra service (doubtful), then just boost the B62. It's better to have one route stopping every seven minutes than two routes a block apart stopping every fifteen.

 

That B32 is gonna have 30 minute headways actually... I don't see it being successful. but who knows?

[Q90]

...at risk of cannibalizing the ridership of all the other parallel routes.

 

The problem I have with the new Brooklyn bus route is that honestly, it runs 2 blocks from the B62. The B62 doesn't exactly have stellar ridership. If the area really needed the extra service (doubtful), then just boost the B62. It's better to have one route stopping every seven minutes than two routes a block apart stopping every fifteen.

 

Even if the B62 loses ridership to the B32 (which I doubt would happen) then they could truncate it to Williamsburg. Plus B62 is long as well. But then Astoria needs a direct link to Astoria to Williamsburg. And also I have my own issue with the B32. Why start a new route when you could just extend the Q103 there. Q103 is very short and has low ridership. Extending it to Williamsburg will create demand and give Astoria a desired link to Williamsburg. Also the Q103 would have service added on weekends.

 

That B32 is gonna have 30 minute headways actually... I don't see it being successful. but who knows?

 

 

All new routes have 30 minute headways initially. If the demand is there (which there is in this case), the headways would be shortened.

 

[qjtransitmaster]

Even if the B62 loses ridership to the B32 (which I doubt would happen) then they could truncate it to Williamsburg. Plus B62 is long as well. But then Astoria needs a direct link to Astoria to Williamsburg. And also I have my own issue with the B32. Why start a new route when you could just extend the Q103 there. Q103 is very short and has low ridership. Extending it to Williamsburg will create demand and give Astoria a desired link to Williamsburg. Also the Q103 would have service added on weekends.

 

 

All new routes have 30 minute headways initially. If the demand is there (which there is in this case), the headways would be shortened.

 

you have a point but my initial intent was to have B32 replace B24 greenpoint segment then via 48th to northern Blvd and merge Q103 with Q19 last I checked it's service span is now till 9 pm or almost around there.

[bobtehpanda]

That B32 is gonna have 30 minute headways actually... I don't see it being successful. but who knows?

 

Well, presumably the Q103 extension will also have 30 minute headways, which combines to make a long trunk portion with fifteen minute service assuming service doesn't bunch (but we all know how good MTA is at preventing that.)

 

 

Even if the B62 loses ridership to the B32 (which I doubt would happen) then they could truncate it to Williamsburg. Plus B62 is long as well. But then Astoria needs a direct link to Astoria to Williamsburg. And also I have my own issue with the B32. Why start a new route when you could just extend the Q103 there. Q103 is very short and has low ridership. Extending it to Williamsburg will create demand and give Astoria a desired link to Williamsburg. Also the Q103 would have service added on weekends.

 

 

 

All new routes have 30 minute headways initially. If the demand is there (which there is in this case), the headways would be shortened.

 

 

 

I just really don't see the utility of adding another route a block or two over when the main route has some ways to go with improvements.

[Q90]

you have a point but my initial intent was to have B32 replace B24 greenpoint segment then via 48th to northern Blvd and merge Q103 with Q19 last I checked it's service span is now till 9 pm or almost around there.

 

 

B24 should stay the way it is and extending the Q19 along Vernon Boulevard to replace Q103 is not a good idea. The Q19 was specifically made to serve Astoria Boulevard. As I mentioned before, it's bette to extend it to 2 Street and 27 Avenue to connect with the new Q103.

 

[Q90]

Good, so then don't come on here on some "nooo I get called "selfish" for that....", as if it wasn't a selfish suggestion.....

 

As for the rest of what you said regarding the actual idea I didn't bother to quote, I'm not going over that with you again....

----------

 

* For the new-er comers (or whoever else) interested in seeing the prior discussion I'm talking about, See Here

(discussion continues on the next page from it Here as well)

 

 

 

I did a Q38 split of my own and it would make more sense than error's proposal:

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e145016eb4d0e1efd

 

 

The red bus route is a truncated Q38 and the blue route is a new Q51 I proposed that not only replaces Q38 service between Middle Village and Rego Park but it supplements the Q58 (which is the second busiest route in Queens) and gives Rego Park direct access to Flushing. Hope you think it is at least better than Error's proposal. 

[B35 via Church]

I don't feel like multi-quoting right now, but I'm going to make a basic point that is NOT directed at anyone particular on here.... It's something I've noticed for years now from the newcomers on down to even some of us vets in the community (and not just on NYCTF either)......

 

The fact of the matter is, when layering new bus route(s) on top of current ones is presented as some sort of "fix" to the bus network, all that would be accomplished is the creation of another problem..... There is a word for that & and it is called redundancy... I mean, Don't be hesitant to suggest some sort of route alteration to a current route on top of whatever suggested new route idea -  (depending on how reasonable said alteration would be), hell - it just might make your *new* bus route suggestion a good idea....

 

Hell, Even though the consensus aint like the B1/B64 western terminal swap the MTA did a while back, that's an example of what I'm talking about... An example of layering would be to have the proposed "B86" run on top of the pre-2010 B1/B64..... The latter is what we should be trying to avoid doing w/ our suggestions....

 

 

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is.... We should look at the... bigger... picture ?

Instead of seeking to solely plug new routes into our system..... This is what the MTA all of a sudden is doing now w/ the newer routes, and I have to say I do not like it one bit (this is obviously actual factual & beyond the scope of a simple suggestion - which is why I'm way more adamant about it).... To me, it's a harbinger for something detrimental to happen with the current routes.....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

 

I did a Q38 split of my own and it would make more sense than error's proposal:

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e145016eb4d0e1efd

 

 

The red bus route is a truncated Q38 and the blue route is a new Q51 I proposed that not only replaces Q38 service between Middle Village and Rego Park but it supplements the Q58 (which is the second busiest route in Queens) and gives Rego Park direct access to Flushing. Hope you think it is at least better than Error's proposal. 

 

On your Q38E portion. It should remain 57th two way if it only goes to 108 or Otis. Only reason why my Q88 is a one way one there is due to the fact that it wouldnt be able to loop around lefrak (due to no overpasses between Junction and 108 street). The Q38 should remain on 57th two way. I still am against any Q38 segment going to Ridgewood, trust me.

 

Second, I would leave the Penelope Avenue Segment as it is, furmanville doesnt warrant service there

 

In Bold: That just sounds like you're trying to make people coinside to your plan no matter what, doesnt give off a good vibe.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal

[Q90]

On your Q38E portion. It should remain 57th two way if it only goes to 108 or Otis. Only reason why my Q88 is a one way one there is due to the fact that it wouldnt be able to loop around lefrak (due to no overpasses between Junction and 108 street). The Q38 should remain on 57th two way. I still am against any Q38 segment going to Ridgewood, trust me.

 

Second, I would leave the Penelope Avenue Segment as it is, furmanville doesnt warrant service there

 

In Bold: That just sounds like you're trying to gain a better reputation like that, and not in a good way.

 

 

On your Q38E portion. It should remain 57th two way if it only goes to 108 or Otis. Only reason why my Q88 is a one way one there is due to the fact that it wouldnt be able to loop around lefrak (due to no overpasses between Junction and 108 street). The Q38 should remain on 57th two way. I still am against any Q38 segment going to Ridgewood, trust me.

 

Second, I would leave the Penelope Avenue Segment as it is, furmanville doesnt warrant service there

 

In Bold: That just sounds like you're trying to gain a better reputation like that, and not in a good way.

 

I'm not trying to get a better reputation, I'm trying to suggest a better idea. Maybe I shouldn't have stated it that way. And again, leave the Q88 alone. It's long enough. And Penelope Avenue it too narrow so that's why I moved the route to Furmanville Avenue. Also the Penelope Avenue passengers would just walk down to Furmanville which is only one block. Also the Q51 HAS to serve Ridgewood or else people will still use Q58. The goal is to reduce crowding and terminating the Q51 at Forest Avenue is not gonna help. Plus I mentioned earlier Forest Avenue is a bad place to terminate a bus. B20 doesn't pick up almost any passengers from there and even Q58 doesn't pick up a lot of people and that's the most used bus route at the Forest Avenue M station.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I'm not trying to get a better reputation, I'm trying to suggest a better idea. Maybe I shouldn't have stated it that way. And again, leave the Q88 alone. It's long enough. And Penelope Avenue it too narrow so that's why I moved the route to Furmanville Avenue. Also the Penelope Avenue passengers would just walk down to Furmanville which is only one block. Also the Q51 HAS to serve Ridgewood or else people will still use Q58. The goal is to reduce crowding and terminating the Q51 at Forest Avenue is not gonna help. Plus I mentioned earlier Forest Avenue is a bad place to terminate a bus. B20 doesn't pick up almost any passengers from there and even Q58 doesn't pick up a lot of people and that's the most used bus route at the Forest Avenue M station.

The only reason I suggest the Q88 is because it has a greater area it serves, it's more frequent, and you have people actually x-fering between the two routes (especially middays), so the long bus route argument is a joke, because the Q88 is only 9.0 miles right now, and it would add just an extra 2.7 miles from what I've recorded, and that's still shorter then the Q60, Q32 (by a bit), Q44, Q58, Q59, Q54, Q53, Q52, and all the other routes in the course of of the Q88 or that serve a similar purpose then the Q88.

 

Penelope is too narrow, but furmanville is even narrower. 

 

The Q51 doesn't HAVE to serve ridgewood at all. I'll go further and say that it can terminate smack at Fresh Pond for the Q58, because quite frankly, there isnt a dyre need for another bus, and as other members mentioned, use the or the Q58, if you dont want to, thats your problem, no need to clog up Ridgewood (the current terminal is not gonna withstand another service),

 

I'm assured you I've ridden the bus at 7AM, 1AM, 5AM, 3 PM, anytime you name it, on that portion. It is good enough as the only service, because quite frankly, I dont see more service on top of the already frequent enough Q58.

[Q90]

The only reason I suggest the Q88 is because it has a greater area it serves, it's more frequent, and you have people actually x-fering between the two routes (especially middays), so the long bus route argument is a joke, because the Q88 is only 9.0 miles right now, and it would add just an extra 2.7 miles from what I've recorded, and that's still shorter then the Q60, Q32 (by a bit), Q44, Q58, Q59, Q54, Q53, Q52, and all the other routes in the course of of the Q88 or that serve a similar purpose then the Q88.

 

Penelope is too narrow, but furmanville is even narrower. 

 

The Q51 doesn't HAVE to serve ridgewood at all. I'll go further and say that it can terminate smack at Fresh Pond for the Q58, because quite frankly, there isnt a dyre need for another bus, and as other members mentioned, use the or the Q58, if you dont want to, thats your problem, no need to clog up Ridgewood (the current terminal is not gonna withstand another service),

 

I'm assured you I've ridden the bus at 7AM, 1AM, 5AM, 3 PM, anytime you name it, on that portion. It is good enough as the only service, because quite frankly, I dont see more service on top of the already frequent enough Q58.

 

Furmanville is easier for buses to pass through because cars only park on one side of the street and it has a line that separates the two directions. Penelope has cars parking on both sides so therefore that's why I rerouted the bus. Also at RIT, there's also space there. Just get rid of the assignments of buses on Palmetto Street and it will fit there. Also I said this before and I'll say it again: YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY AGAIN IF YOU USE THE TRAIN! Also Rego Park needs a direct service to Flushing as I mentioned before and the Q51 would do just that.