Thoughts About Queens Bus Redesign

QT1: I believe this should be replaced by extra service on the QT69 and B62 (as well as something covering the northern portion of Vernon Blvd that would see Q103 service removed). Being that there aren't too many areas receiving bus priority treatments along the route, the QT69 to the G train would provide a quicker ride to Williamsburg and Downtown Brooklyn than this proposed QT1, and the resources would be better used elsewhere.

QT2: I believe this should be replaced by additional service on the QT76 (which I believe should run straight down Steinway Street to Greenpoint Avenue to Franklin Avenue, and take over the B32 route to the Williamsburg Bridge bus terminal). Riders in a hurry can transfer to the G train at Greenpoint Avenue, and I believe the East Williamsburg portion of the B24 warrants closer-spaced stops than would be provided by the blue QT2 route. I would route the BQE leg of the B24 over to Broadway & Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights (so basically run down 48th Street & Roosevelt Avenue) to provide better interborough connections.

EDIT 9/2/2020

With the QT77 covering most of the Q75 service area, I would have the QT2 run straight up 48th Street to end at Northern Blvd & Broadway, similar to the proposed QT75 (of course, it would have to make those extra turns to get around the 3-way intersection of Roosevelt Avenue/Greenpoint Avenue, 48th Street, and Queens Blvd).

QT3: I believe that instead of running a super-limited along Metropolitan Avenue, there should be two routes running along Metropolitan Avenue: One from Williamsburg Bus Plaza to Forest Hills (71st/Continental Avenue) via Metropolitan Avenue & Yellowstone Blvd, and the other from Jamaica to Fresh Pond Road. Perhaps the eastern split can be an orange route with slightly wider stop spacing between Woodhaven Blvd & Fresh Pond Road. 

QT4: Seems reasonable, but I'd have to see what is planned for the Brooklyn portion of Flushing Avenue before giving further comments. Stops should be added at 53rd Drive, 51st Avenue, and Roosevelt Avenue and the QT78 moved to 65th Place to provide coverage along that street.

QT5: I can understand the wide stop spacing, given the proximity to the QT24 and QT67. However, I don't understand why it is being extended into Brownsville? Is it supposed to be replacing the B15 to JFK Airport? If so, that seems like a terrible idea, as it would have people backtracking up to Jamaica and back down. If the Brooklyn-JFK portion of the B15 will be maintained as part of the Brooklyn redesign, then I would have to wait to see the details before offering further comments.

QT6: I think this route is great. Perhaps add an extra stop on Grand Avenue to boost ridership. Also, I would split the overnight service and have half of the buses run up the QT58 route on Corona Avenue. (Overnight, buses should make all stops along the route, not just the daytime stops that are spaced out, given the long headways)

QT7: The stop spacing is way too wide. At a minimum, there should be stops added at 130th Street and 143rd Street to better serve South Ozone Park/South Jamaica. Honestly, I think this is better off as a green local route with traditional stop spacing (or at least an orange route). I'd also consider adding a stop at either Pitkin Avenue or 149th Avenue so that Ozone Park residents have easier access to the Gateway Mall in Brooklyn.

QT10: I like this route (I think a stop was omitted near the Queens Center Mall)

QT11: I think they have the westbound and eastbound directions reversed, but in any case I think it is an interesting concept that provides an extra connection across Flushing Meadows Park. I think if their goal was to provide better connections between both sides of Flushing Meadows Park, they would've been better off combining the Union Turnpike portion with the Lefferts Blvd portion of the Q10, rather than the 108th Street portion of the Q23 (northbound would be simple. Southbound, you'd have to have buses stop on westbound Queens Blvd, make that U-turn on Queens Blvd that the Q46 currently does, and then make another stop on Kew Gardens Road for riders heading south down Lefferts Blvd.

Also, instead of using 44th/45th Avenue in Corona (which are super-narrow and next to the LIRR) buses should use either 43rd or 46th Avenue.

QT12: I like this route. Maybe add in a stop at HHE/Parsons Blvd, but other than that, no comments.

QT13: Is this route bypassing Jamaica Center? I get the idea of spreading out the crowds between the different portions of Jamaica, but I think it's just too major of a stop to bypass. Also, I think a stop by Falcaro's Plaza is needed for better connectivity to the QT22 (since otherwise, those in Lawrence lose their connection to the old Q113, unless they backtrack to Far Rockaway). Also, will there be any arrangement made with NICE to cover riders in the eastern portion of Far Rockaway? (My understanding is that it is open-door already, but the policy isn't as well-publicized as it is along Boston Road in The Bronx)

QT14: Another interesting concept to provide an extra connection across Flushing Meadows Park, as mentioned with the QT11, I think there is a better way to provide the connection across Flushing Meadows Park. I would've had the QT86 run down Jewel Avenue and terminate at Queens Blvd (Forest Hills subway station), and then had the QT87 terminate at Kew Gardens. The Jewel Avenue portion of the QT14 would be its own route.

EDIT 9/7/2020

Another option would be to continue to run the QT86 to Kew Gardens (as I said below, I think the western portion of the Q54 should pick up the Yellowstone Blvd portion), and have the QT87 be the Jewel Avenue limited-stop (either continue to have it take 73rd Avenue to Main Street to reach Jewel Avenue or have it take 73rd Avenue to 164th Street to Jewel Avenue). The advantage of the former is that it minimizes overlap with the Jewel Avenue route (which means that it is easier to calculate an appropriate frequency that doesn't risk people heading from Forest Hills to the eastern portion of the route not being able to fit on the bus). Of course the advantage of the latter is that it allows residents of the apartments in Electchester to take advantage of the limited-stop service on Jewel Avenue. It's only 3 stops that would be bypassed, but I could see it helping out given the congestion in the area. 

QT15: No comments. Maybe it could be a little more frequent on the College Point end (since the QT84/86 are a little less centralized in the neighborhood compared to the present-day Q25, so some more people may decide to take the QT65 because of this, but this may be balanced out by having some of the riders heading towards Jamaica or looking for travel south of Flushing in general going to the QT64). I also question how they will turn buses around at Springfield Blvd & HHE. Queensborough Community College seems like a better terminal.

QT16: No comments.

QT17: The weekend headways are a bit lacking, especially if it will take both Q12 & Q13 riders in Bayside. But the routing is good, provided NICE covers the last 2 stops on the current Q12 with open-door service.

QT18: I think this route should run down Braddock Avenue on the northern end and cover that portion of the Q1, rather than head up to Union Turnpike

QT19: Is this route bypassing Jamaica Center? (See QT13 comment). Otherwise, I like this route.

QT20: Looks like service is reduced compared to the Q6, even though I expect this to be busier since it goes to the passenger terminals. The QT46 will help out a little bit, but I still think this route needs more service.

QT22: This route should run up Norton Drive and down Mott Avenue to provide additional coverage in the Bayswater and western Far Rockaway neighborhood (and also serve an area further away from the subway, compared to the proposed route). There are some apartments further up Mott Avenue, so it is not just an area of single-family homes (not that those types of areas should be written off as being car-centric and unable to sustain any transit service)

QT24: I think this should be cut back to Broadway Junction on the western end (and also maintain 24/7 service).

QT30: I like this route. No comments.

QT31: I think the span should be a bit longer than 14 hours per day, but I like this route.

QT32: I think a stop should be added at Utopia Parkway for students at St. Johns University looking to travel east.

QT33: I like this route. No comments.

QT34: This route should run up Little Neck Parkway instead of the lower-density Winchester Blvd. If it runs like that, I can see giving it 24/7 service at the expense of the QT36 (which is the present-day Q43). But regardless of which route runs overnight, I don't see it being worth sacrificing service along Little Neck Parkway to provide a route on Winchester Blvd.

QT35: This is reduced service compared to the present-day Q35 (and without the Q22 helping it out in the Neponsit area) so it should definitely see a service boost

QT36: See QT34 comments.

QT37: I like the route (no more loop through the Racino) but the span of service should remain as-is.

QT38: It should have overnight service, and I'm not seeing why service is reduced compared to the present-day Q2 (I can understand the QT34:36 being reduced because of the presence of the QT18, but the QT38 barely overlaps the QT18)

QT39: This reduction I can understand a bit more, since the QT68 covers the Liberty Avenue portion, but I still think it should maintain its current headways. Overnight service should probably be maintained

QT40: This should at the very least, maintain its 24/7 service. It definitely doesn't make sense to leave the QT38/39/40 without overnight service. I do like the slight extension to connect with the N1.

QT41: I think this route should swap its eastern terminal with that of the QT73.

QT42: This route should keep its overnight service.

QT43: This route should also keep its overnight service. Perhaps if it were coordinated with the QT45, you could have approximate 15 minute headways along Guy R Brewer Blvd (30 minutes for the QT43/45 and 30 minutes for the QT19).

QT44: This route should definitely keep its weekend overnight service.

QT45: This route's headways should be better-coordinated with that of the QT43.

QT46: I can sort of understand the span reduction, and just have people walk from the QT20, but I still believe it should maintain its long span of service. I also believe it should maintain the existing Q40 headways, since if anything the straighter route will attract more passengers.

QT47: Similar comments as the QT46.

QT48: The QT84 should be extended to Fort Totten off-peak to maintain off-peak service on that portion of Willets Point Blvd

QT49: Should have off-peak service every 30 minutes or better (coordinated with the QT51 to provide even headways on Crocheron Avenue). QT64 should take Utopia Parkway-Northern Blvd-Francis Lewis Blvd-Cross Island Parkway Service Road to allow the QT84 to be taken off that portion of Francis Lewis Blvd. (I originally thought this should take Utopia Parkway straight to Francis Lewis Blvd, but the portion of Francis Lewis Blvd between Northern Blvd & Utopia Parkway has a lot of commercial activity, so combined with the commercial activity on Northern Blvd, I think it is worth the slight diversion. 

QT50: I assume the span/frequency will match that shown on the Bronx tables, since there is none attached? If so, see my comments on the Bronx proposal regarding this.

QT51: Should have 7-day off-peak service, for similar reasons as the QT48.

QT52: I think it should maintain service to both halves of the Rockaways year-round, since Rockaway Park doesn't have a full-time direct connection to Manhattan like the eastern half of the peninsula has with the full-time A train. I do agree with cutting it back to Queens Center Mall.

QT54: See QT3 comments.

QT55: No comments. I like the extension to Jamaica.

QT56: No comments.

QT58: I think you made the correct decision having the QT6 receive more service during daytime hours, but overnight when the QT12 runs, I would run at least half of the QT6 trips as QT58 trips. (Also, southbound buses should take 108th Street-51st Avenue-Corona Avenue to avoid one traffic light and a bit of travel distance in Corona)

QT59: No comments.

QT60: No comments.

QT61: This route should be split at Broadway & Roosevelt Avenue for reliability purposes. Also, I don't like the detour to the Bulova Center. With all this rhetoric about buses running on the most direct path possible, this goes against that.

QT62: I like this route, though a small extension to the Far Rockaway subway station might help (not sure whether this or the QT22 should be the one serving Inwood/Lawrence. I can see the logic of either one).

EDIT 9/7/2020

I think this route could get slightly more ridership by taking Rockaway Blvd-Conduit Avenue-Guy Brewer Blvd-Rockaway Blvd to provide better connections to the QT13/19/45, and a safer connection to the QT68 (in terms of not having to cross Rockaway Blvd)

QT63: I think this route should run a little more frequently off-peak (at least every 20 minutes or better weekdays) but I like the routing.

QT64: See QT49 comments. Also, I believe the frequencies are inadequate. It seems they just used the old Q31 frequencies without accounting for the Q30 riders on Utopia Parkway (I know some of the ones heading for QCC and the surrounding area will take the QT33, but I don't believe the Q31 frequencies by themselves are enough to cover Utopia Parkway). There should at least be extra service between Northern Blvd and Jamaica (though depending on how many College Point-Jamaica riders take this route, perhaps most of those trips should run all the way through to College Point)  

QT65: I don't see why this route covers the portion of the Q42 closest to the alternate routes on Merrick Blvd, instead of the portions further away from Merrick Blvd. The only possible logic I can see is it is easier to connect with the QT7 on Linden Blvd, but those same transfers can be made in Jamaica (though I understand part of the goals of the redesign is to reduce pedestrian/bus congestion in Jamaica). I would have buses terminate in Downtown Jamaica, and have Addesleigh Park served by a route starting at Sutphin Blvd & Archer Avenue, running down Sutphin Blvd and down Brinkerhoff Avenue all the way to 180th Street. That would also maintain a connection to the E/J/Z trains for those around Merrick & Brinkerhoff (since the QT18 goes straight to the F train, and the QT40/41/42 all bypass that area). The one single stop proposed on the QT65 along 174th Street is at Brinkerhoff Avenue anyway, so you're covering the exact same portion of St. Albans/Addesleigh Park and then some.

EDIT 9/2/2020 

With the QT49 covering the LeHavre Apartments full-time, and the QT64 covering the northern portion of Francis Lewis Blvd (providing direct servie to Jamaica), I don't think there's a need for the QT65 north of the Broadway LIRR station. 160th Street is narrow, especially south of Bayside Avenue, and once you get around Francis Lewis Blvd, you need to meander around in order to get further north. Riders in the area can take the QT64 or QT81 for north-south service. The QT65 can either terminate at the Broadway LIRR station, or run down Sanford Avenue to Flushing. 

QT66: I don't see why the weekend frequencies were reduced but otherwise I like this route. No comments.

QT67: I think this route might be a little too long for reliability's sake, but I can see why it is through-routed through Jamaica (to provide connections to the Woodhaven Blvd buses and the A train from that portion of Eastern Queens)

QT68: No comments.

QT69: See QT1 comments.

QT70: No comments. (The only thing that could've possibly been done with this route is split the route between the different terminals at LGA, but that would likely be too confusing for passengers)

QT71: I think this route could be a little more frequent, but otherwise no comments.

QT72: I think the long span of service needs to be maintained, but otherwise, no comments.

QT73: They have the directions reversed for northbound and southbound. I think the frequency needs to be boosted up a bit, since the Sanford Avenue portion is pretty busy, and it's taking part of the Q27's role in transporting passengers between Flushing and SE Queens. 

QT74: Not sure why the southbound direction has it going to Maspeth. In any case, aside from the obvious question of whether 88th Street will become a two-way street, I think this route should just end at Astoria Blvd & 88th Street instead of backtracking west to the Bulova Center. Also, on the southern end, the route should be extended to either Broadway & Roosevelt Avenue (via Broadway) or the Woodside LIRR side (via Woodside Avenue). A supplementary route can run up 35th Avenue to Junction Blvd (possibly still ending at Astoria Blvd & 102nd Street) to provide service along 35th Avenue.

QT75: I think this route should terminate at Court Square, and give the Manhattan portion of the QT61 (discussed above) a branch to 42nd Street.

EDIT 9/2/2020

Thinking about it again, this route can be absorbed into the QT77. See below.

QT76: See QT2 comments.

QT77: I think this route should run down Fresh Pond Road to Metropolitan Avenue to Juniper Blvd South, and either terminate at Juniper Blvd North & Dry Harbor Road (using Juniper Blvd South-80th Street-Juniper Blvd North-Dry Harbor Road to loop around) or take Juniper Blvd South-Dry Harbor Road-Woodhaven Blvd and terminate at the Queens Center Mall. The Eliot Avenue portion of the Q38 should be routed down Forest Avenue and terminate somewhere in Ridgewood (not sure if Ridgewood Bus Terminal is the best, given how the buses are all over the place over there. Even the Forest Avenue M train station would be sufficient. )

EDIT 9/2/2020

Thinking about it again, I think in Long Island City/Sunnyside, it should run a combination of the Q39 & Q67 routings. I would have the QT77 start at the 21st Street-Queensbridge (F) station, run down 21st Street to 49th Avenue, but instead of turning onto 27th Street, buses would continue down Hunters Point Avenue to Greenpoint Avenue to 48th Avenue to 48th Street to 55th Avenue to 58th Street to Borden Avenue to 65th Place to Grand Avenue to Fresh Pond Road and then continue down to the current Q39 terminal (I don't see the need to go to Myrtle/Wyckoff. I'd rather have the Brooklyn routes extend a bit further into Ridgewood. For example, the B52 to Gates & Forest and the B26 running straight up George/Stephen or Summerfield/Decatur Street to Myrtle Avenue)

There is a lot of traffic around the Van Dam Street exit of the Long Island Expressway, so taking the QT77 off Borden Avenue will help in that regard (while still providing some service within walking distance of the industrial areas off the western portions of 48th Avenue and Borden Avenue). And then by running up Greenpoint Avenue to 48th Avenue, it allows it to cover the residential portion of Sunnyside, and maintain access to points east. Then it serves the area around Borden & Maurice, and continues down into Ridgewood. My only concern is whether the traffic around Borden & Maurice (I'm not familiar enough with this area traffic-wise to know if it's a problem) is worth the additional coverage (or whether that area should just be left with my proposed QT78 on 65th Place).

EDIT 9/7/2020

The portion I'm proposing along Juniper Blvd South should be its own separate route in this case.

QT78: I like this route, but the frequency should be better.

EDIT 9/2/2020

In order to provide service along 65th Place, this route should be routed via 69th Street-Borden Avenue-65th Place-Woodside Avenue-58th Street-Broadway (also, I think the route should continue to serve the Cornell campus on the southern end of the island)

QT79: I like this route and believe the frequencies are adequate.

QT80: I like this route, but the span and frequency should be better. No comments.

EDIT 9/2/2020

With the QT77 connecting Maspeth to Ridgewood and the (M) train, perhaps this should be rerouted to the Grand Street station on the (L) train, so that Maspeth has direct connections to both the (L) and (M) (as well as the lines in Long Island City)

QT81: I like this route, but the span and frequency should be better.

QT82: I like the portion of this route north of Queens Blvd. For the portion south of Queens Blvd, see my comments for the QT77. I believe 80th Street should be covered by having a route that starts at Broadway & Roosevelt Avenue, takes Broadway-Grand Avenue-80th Street to terminate at Myrtle Avenue (basically a combination of the southern portions of the Q29 & Q47). This would maintain the connection from Glendale to the 7 train (as a matter of fact, it would be a little bit more direct than the current setup with the Q29)

QT83: I think this route should be combined with the QT88 (so a triple-branched local route from Woodhaven...basically the current Q11/21). Also, I would add a stop at 84th Street & 158th Avenue (and consider rerouting it down 151st Avenue in Lindenwood to cover a bit more of the neighborhood). Also, to cover the 63rd Drive portion of the Q38, this route should be routed to 62nd Drive & 110th Street (maybe have two Woodhaven Blvd local routes, e.g. Queens Center Mall - Lindenwood and Rego Park-Howard/Hamilton Beach). This would also give Corona an easier connection to/from points south along Woodhaven Blvd (via a transfer at 108th Street & 63rd Drive)

QT84: See QT48/64 comments.

QT85: Since the QT85 appears to be covering some of the stops bypassed by the QT6 on College Point Blvd, it should be extended to 59th Avenue so that passengers can make a transfer to the QT6 in the same direction instead of backtracking to/from Downtown Flushing (also, there is a small loop leading out from 58th Road that can be used to turn the buses around. Not sure what the turnaround route would be around Avery Avenue)

QT86: Why is the weekday peak headway greater than the weekday base headway? The frequencies definitely need to be boosted (perhaps by taking some service from the QT44. I think that route is proposed to be a little too frequent). In College Point, I would extend the route up 130th Street-20th Avenue-132nd Street-14th Avenue-127th Street and terminate at either 5th Avenue & College Point Blvd, or 127th Street & Powell's Cove Blvd. Also, I think it should be extended down Cooper Avenue to Myrtle Avenue.

QT87: See QT11/QT14 comments. For the southern portion of the Q23, that should be its own shuttle from the Forest Hills subway station (which should run all the way down Union Turnpike to Myrtle Avenue)

QT88: See QT83 comments.

QMT100/101: I assume the runtime was calculated to be lower via the Williamsburg Bridge instead of via the FDR? A lot of people have mentioned even once it gets over the bridge, Bowery would be the worst street to take, and Allen Street or Essex Street would be better.

QMT102: Should continue via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel & FDR Drive, since the HOV lane on the LIE is available in the AM rush.

QMT103: No comments.

QMT104: With the LIE being congested, perhaps it would be better to have it run similar to the QT87 to Forest Hills (73rd Avenue-Main Street-Jewel Avenue), and provide some Downtown service to present-day QM4 riders. Also, it should continue via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel & FDR Drive, since the HOV lane on the LIE is available in the AM rush.

QMT105: No comments. Should run via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel & FDR Drive, since the HOV lane on the LIE is available in the AM rush.

QMT106: This is too small of a catchment area to be successful. Running as a branch of the present-day X68 down to Belmont Racetrack would give it a wider catchment area and more ridership. Should run via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel & FDR Drive, since the HOV lane on the LIE is available in the AM rush.

QMT107: Should run via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel & FDR Drive, since the HOV lane on the LIE is available in the AM rush.

QMT112: A 4:30pm outbound departure should be added, but otherwise no comments.

QMT115: No comments.

QMT116: A 4:30pm outbound departure should be added, but otherwise no comments.

QMT117: I think the inbound trips should be staggered with those of the QMT157 (so something like 6:15am, 6:40am, 7:10am, 7:45am). The QMT117/157 should be shown on the same schedule so passengers can see all of their options on one page.

QMT130: Inbound departure times should be better-coordinated with those of the QMT160.

QMT131: I think a stop should be added at 69th & Borden to better serve Maspeth residents requesting express bus service. Also, departure times should be better-coordinated with those of the QMT161.

QMT132: No comments.

QMT133: No comments.

QMT134: No comments

QMT135: No comments

QMT155: No comments.

QMT156: No comments

QMT157: See QMT117

QMT160: See QMT130 comments.

QMT161: See QMT131 comments.

QMT162: No comments.

QMT163: No comments.

QMT164: No comments.

QMT165: No comments.

QMT166: This is previously the QM1 not the QM12. This should be extended further east to the present-day QM5 terminal during off-peak hours.

QMT167: No comments.

QMT168: No comments.

QMT169: It should continue making stops in Howard Beach and also coordinate better with the QMT170.

QMT170: It should continue making stops in Broad Channel and Howard Beach and also coordinate better with the QMT169.

As a general rule, I do believe that reverse-peak service on the express routes should be run where possible, since a lot of those trips are deadheading in that direction anyway.

Remaining Issues By Area

Short-Term

East Shore (SIM1/SIM1C/SIM5/SIM6/SIM7/SIM9/SIM10)

SIM1 needs to be split into "New Dorp via Hylan Blvd" (old X3) and "Eltingville via Father Capodanno" (old X4) patterns. However, in doing so, we need to watch the span of service. The span of the old X3/X4 was relatively short, and we need the span for both to be similar to that of the SIM1 prior to the Winter 2019 (January 13th, 2019) pick changes.

Just for reference, the span of the SIM1 after the October 7th, 2018 changes was as follows:
From Eltingville Transit Center: 5:05am - 9:07am
From Chambers Street: 2:55pm - 8:30pm (the 2:40pm SIM1 was unnecessarily extended to CPS & 6th, overlapping with the SIM7 & SIM10, and should be cut back accordingly)

Now it should be considered that this would result in service adjustments being required to the SIM5 (most likely, service would end up being slightly reduced, while the amount of service on the two "splits" of the SIM1 would exceed the amount currently provided on the SIM1 (though service on the individual splits would be less than that on the current SIM1). This is because the southern split of the SIM1 (let's call it SIM12 for now, though SIM1X might also be a good designation) would provide additional Downtown-bound service on the "Eltingville via Father Capodanno" corridor that is currently only provided by the SIM5.

But in any case, I mention the span because that span is much longer than that of the X3/X4. This provides Father Capodanno Blvd with a longer span of express bus service. In the morning, the difference isn't that much, since the SIM5 had its span extended compared to that of the X8 (4:55am - 9am leaving the ETC, and 3pm - 7pm leaving Frankfort Street). However, in the afternoon, this span extension would provide later service from Downtown to the Father Capodanno Blvd corridor (if you think about it, the SIM6 runs late from Midtown, so it makes sense for the Downtown variant to also run late)

Overall, this should save money which can be reinvested in extending the spans of other routes both within and outside of the East Shore corridor, as well as providing more cushion for the "roll-on"/deadhead time to reach the terminals (especially for second trips)

SIM10 needs to be split into "New Dorp via Hylan Blvd" (old X9 Midtown portion) and "Eltingville via Father Capodanno" (old X7 Midtown portion) patterns. However, in doing so, we again need to watch the span of service. The span of the old X7/X9 was relatively short (not as short as the X3/4, but still not as long as it could be), and we need the span for both to be similar to (or longer than) that of the SIM10 prior to the Winter 2019 (January 13th, 2019) pick changes.

Just for reference, the span of the SIM10 after the October 7th, 2018 changes was as follows:
From Eltingville Transit Center: 4:10am - 9:10am
From CPS & 6th: 2:00pm - 7:56pm (the 2:40pm SIM1 was unnecessarily extended to CPS & 6th, overlapping with the SIM7 & SIM10, and should be cut back accordingly)

http://checkmatechamp1.blogspot.com/2019/07/extending-span-of-peak-variants.html

SIM7/9 need to follow the "Eltingville via Father Capodanno" and "New Dorp via Hylan" pattern (whichever pattern is assigned to whichever number is irrelevant, as long as adequate service levels exist on both to prevent overcrowding).

South Shore (SIM2/4C/22/23/24/25/26)

Bunching on the SIM2 in the morning needs to be monitored. When a bus gets delayed in the beginning of the route, it should run straight up Huguenot Avenue and make the next stop at Arthur Kill Road ("Checkpoint") and let the following bus cover Arden Avenue. Otherwise, you end up with a long gap at the northern end, followed by bunching. Especially since the SIM2 is the only Downtown route serving "Checkpoint", efforts should be made to provide consistent service there. (Also, for those on Arden Avenue who are in a hurry, if they know that they can consistently get a bus at "Checkpoint", they can take the SIM23 there in the event of a delay on the SIM2).

SIM2/4/8 need to have their spans extended (and the SIM4C span reduced accordingly) as per my blog post here: http://checkmatechamp1.blogspot.com/2019/07/extending-span-of-peak-variants.html

SIM22 needs to have more consistent service in East Midtown. If buses are constantly being deadheaded to West Midtown, then they should just start there and make it official and consistent, instead of random trips bypassing stops depending on whoever is the dispatcher that day.

SIM25 needs a span extension at the beginning of the PM rush hour. Can be done by moving the 3:10pm to depart at 3pm, and adding a 2:30pm, while combining the 2:30pm and 2:50pm SIM26 trips into a 2:40pm trip (out of 57th & Lexington)

Excess runtime on 42nd Street in the evenings (after 7pm). Runtime also needs to be looked at along 42nd Street itself now that the bus lane is in effect

North Shore (SIM3/3C/30/31/32/33/33C/34/35)

See other blog post: http://checkmatechamp1.blogspot.com/2019/07/extending-span-of-peak-variants.html

Also, SIM31 stops should be placed with SIM3/8 stops (instead of SIM10 stops) along 5th Avenue so that people in the Castleton Corners and New Springville areas can switch off as necessary.

West Shore (SIM4/4X/4C/8/8X)

SIM4/4X need to have their terminals swapped so that the SIM4 terminates at the SI Mall during the hours when the SIM4X operates (when the SIM4X does not operate, the SIM4 would operate to the South Shore).

SIM8/8X need to have their terminals swapped so that the SIM8 terminates at the SI Mall during the hours when the SIM8X operates (when the SIM8X does not operate, the SIM8 would operate to the South Shore). This would provide reasonably quick service for those along Woodrow Road (not as quick as the old X23, but that is the most that can realistically be done without tangling up the South Shore express network and forcing Arden Avenue residents to take an even longer ride up Richmond Avenue). Plus Woodrow Road has (and would have) a longer span of service with the SIM8/8X compared to the X23. Additionally, this complements the SIM23/24 by maintaining a reasonably quick route directly to 42nd Street, while the SIM23/24 cover 34th Street.

SIM2/4/8 need to have their spans extended according to my previous blog post: http://checkmatechamp1.blogspot.com/2019/07/extending-span-of-peak-variants.html

SIM4C has excess runtime between Arden Heights & Eltingville Transit Center on weekends.

On the SIM4C, there is no need for westbound buses to loop through Annadale Road. The X17C never did that (and in the medium/long-term, there should be a restructuring of South Shore express bus service so that the SIM4 runs down Annadale Road en-route to areas further on the South Shore).

Excess runtime after 7pm along 42nd Street

Medium Term

East Shore

The span of the SIM10 should be expanded so that buses run well into the off-peak periods. During the timeframes where the SIM1C currently operates every 15 minutes or better (4 buses per hour or more), service should be split so that the SIM1C covers areas south of 23rd Street and the SIM10 covers Midtown (I also have a proposal to reroute the SIM10 to Hudson Yards. See below). The frequency would be 2 buses per hour (or better) for the SIM10 and 3 buses per hour (or better) for the SIM1C (Since there is less runtime on each individual route, the savings should be reinvested into more trips for the overall corridor. Hence why I am proposing a minimum of a 1 bus per hour increase in service).

The SIM10/31 should also be routed to West Midtown instead of East Midtown, to serve Hudson Yards and also provide easier access to subway connections (the only real connection on the SIM31 is at 23rd & Park which is next to a local station on the #6 line and a short walk from another local station on the R/W, whereas coming across 34th Street gives you access to express stations). The routing should be West Street-10th Avenue-34th Street-Madison Avenue (6th Avenue for the SIM10) inbound, and 5th Avenue-34th Street-11th Avenue-West street heading outbound.

The SIM7/9/33 should be extended to 23rd Street & Broadway (with a stop at 23rd Street & 6th Avenue) to accommodate riders who previously took the SIM10/31 in that area. SIM10 riders can also use the SIM6/11, and SIM31 riders seeking 23rd Street service can either make their way to the SIM33, or take a local bus to the SIM3 (previously when it was the X31 serving the area, they would've had to do the same thing: Either take the X10 or make their way to the X42).

South Shore

The SIM4/4X need to be extended deeper into the South Shore (either Arden & Drumgoole, Annadale SIR station, Huguenot SIR station, Drumgoole & Maguire or Hylan & Huguenot). This would provide additional Downtown service from the South Shore and relieve pressure from the SIM2, which is currently the only Downtown route that penetrates the South Shore in any meaningful way.

A Downtown route needs to be created running along the SIM26. Likely it would do something similar as the SIM2 and detour a bit to cover more areas on the South Shore (the SIM2 was originally planned to run straight up Huguenot Avenue, but in March 2018 they changed the plan and had it run up Woodrow Road and Arden Avenue. Likewise, this new route, let's call it SIM27 for now, would run up Woodrow Road and Rossville Avenue like the old X22). It should run on a standard rush hour span (say, 5-9am and 3-7pm from the respective terminals), and start off on 15-20 minute headways to gauge demand (that's 3-4 buses per hour, so a few trips can be pulled from the SIM2, SIM25, and SIM26, since those riders would be getting a bus directly to/from their destinations and would no longer need to drive or transfer to/from those routes). However, the total number of trips should be increased (so the total number of trips on the SIM2/25/26/27 should be more than the number of trips currently on the SIM/25/26).

Long Term

Off-peak/reverse-peak service needs to be expanded to provide more coverage on the Staten Island side, even if it means giving up some coverage on the Manhattan side. A good time to take a second look at this is when the local bus network is restructured.

The service pattern I would look for would be something along the lines of the following:
SIM1C: Truncated to 23rd Street & Broadway. SIM10 runs off-peak via above routing (via 10th/11th Avenue-34th Street-5th/6th Avenue).
SIM2
SIM4 (extended deeper into the South Shore as discussed above)
SIM26 (off-peak routing stops at "Checkpoint" and also runs up South Avenue to Forest Avenue to provide some off-peak service for Mariners Harbor/Graniteville residents, as well as anyone who may have a reverse-peak commute to the Teleport. It wouldn't go inside the Teleport like the local buses, only stop along South Avenue)
SIM32 (with off-peak buses serving Narrows Road)
SIM34 (with alternate buses running to Port Richmond)

I was thinking of adding either the SIM5 or SIM6 (or a combination of both, that runs up the FDR Drive and Water Street, similar to the post-2010 X14), but I think a local bus that runs along the Giffords/Nelson/Hylan/Father Capodanno corridor would be a better use of resources.

Routes like the SIM8 & SIM31 could get a span extension into more of the off-peak period, without getting full off-peak service.

I would try to have all of those routes operate every 30 minutes or better where possible, and also have them run as late as possible (any neighborhood which currently has off-peak service should have a similar or better span to what they have now).

I would also propose a SIM4N, which would operate from Arden Heights to Downtown via Woodrow-Arden-Arthur Kill-Richmond-Victory-Gannon-Narrows (that would take over when the SIM2/4/32 don't operate).

Statistics and How to Interpret Them

Here's a few of my thoughts on the MTA's Bus Performance Dashboard

So one the statistics is "Service Delivered". It basically says "the percentage of trips that are actually provided, measured at the peak load point". That last part is bolded because it does not necessarily mean that any given stop will see that percentage of its trips filled. On an express bus, the peak load point is generally the last stop before the nonstop portion (between the outer borough and Manhattan). So technically, if a trip skips a whole bunch of stops and serves the last stop before the nonstop portion, that trip counts as filled. And most likely (given that bus operators don't put up "Next Bus Please" as often as they used to), if a bus is full to capacity and bypasses the last stop, that trip (most likely) counts as filled. So pretty much, if a given trip serves any passengers on that route and passes by the peak load point, it is counted as filled. (The one thing I would wonder is, if for example, a QM5 were diverted via Fresh Meadows to cover a QM1 trip, would both trips count as filled?)

Now we get to the measure of Excess Wait Time. So let's take a route with 15 minute headways, and a stop where the rate of passenger arrival is 1 passenger per minute. If buses actually arrive evenly spaced, and the passenger arrivals follow a uniform distribution, the average wait time will be 7.5 minutes (half the headway). You will have some passengers who barely make the bus, and some who barely miss the bus, and then a lot in between. However, let's say that the buses arrive at the stop at 8:00am, 8:24am, 8:32am, 8:58am, and 9:00am. So the math works as follows:

24 passengers experienced an average 12 minute wait.
8 passengers experienced an average 4 minute wait
26 passengers experienced an average 13 minute wait
2 passengers experienced an average 1 minute wait

So cumulative wait time is (24*12)+(8*4)+(26*13)+(2*1) = 660 passenger-minutes, divided by 60 passengers = 11 minutes of average wait time. So the excess wait time at this stop would be 11-7.5 = 3.5 minutes

Notice how uneven the spacing is. 11 minutes of average wait time is the equivalent to an evenly-spaced 22 minute headway. 22/15 (or 11/7.5) = 1.467, which means effectively, the average wait time was 1.467 times longer than it was scheduled to be. But yet, after all of this math, it only shows 3.5 minutes of excess wait time. So that ratio (actual wait time/expected wait time) is just as important as the raw excess wait time numbers, because it actually captures the classic experience of "I waited 20 minutes and then 3 buses showed up at once".

Even if a line was super-frequent (say, 2 minute headways), this ratio captures the "chaos" for lack of a better term. If the effective headway is 1.467 times the scheduled headway, that means that a typical passenger experiences 1.467 times the number of scheduled passengers on the vehicle (whether it is a bus or train), or at least in the waiting area (bus stop or train station platform). And then some of them may not be able to fit into the vehicle and have to wait for the next one, so a vehicle arrival doesn't necessarily mean that the wait time ends for every single passenger in the waiting area. But then of course, you need more math to quantify that....you need to account for vehicle capacity. On the local bus or subway, it is a reasonable assumption to make that people will pack themselves onto the vehicle if necessary (I'm not condoning scheduling the service that tightly, but generally speaking, that is the behavior of passengers on those vehicles, myself included). On the express bus, the MTA schedules trips in a manner to avoid standees, but at the same time the buses can physically hold standees, so which number should you use for the capacity? Should you only take the seated capacity and when you are making the calculations, you assume that the standees would've otherwise been people who would've waited for the next bus? Or do you just go by the passenger counters/MetroCard swipes? Maybe publish both numbers?)

The one thing that does bother me on express buses is that people who let buses pass with seats in order to be at the front of the line for the next bus to get a "better seat" (on a bus that may very well end up with standees). It used to happen on the SIM8 all the time. I would get on around 7am, and maybe 2-3 people would end up letting the bus go by (at say, Christopher Lane). Then the bus would pick up people at Lambert Street and South Avenue, and continue into Manhattan with about 5 seats left. Then en-route to Manhattan around 7:30-7:40am or so, I'm seeing posts of "3 buses came with no seats". I wonder how many of those buses would've had seats if people around the 7am timeframe weren't picky about which seats they took.

Finally, the one thing (that I think may be almost impossible to quantify with official metrics, but is worth mentioning) is how many people ended up switching to a "backup option" that resulted in the trip taking longer than scheduled, but still shorter than waiting for the next bus (whether it was due to a delay or just infrequent service). If an Aspen Knolls resident checks BusTime at the time a scheduled SIM22 is supposed to arrive, finds that it is 20 minutes away and decides to take an arriving SIM25 to Arthur Kill Road/Veterans Road West and then wait 10 minutes for the S74 (as opposed to waiting 20 minutes for the SIM22 outright), is there a way to quantify the extra 10 minutes that the bus rider spent?

NYCT Track Safety Training

I figured I'd deviate a little from talking about buses to discuss one of the most fun experiences I've had in my life: The NYC Transit track safety course. Long story short, at my job we are involved with bridge inspection, so we need to learn the rules, regulations and operating procedures of all of the railroads where we need to enter on their property to inspect the bridge. There are many railroads in NYC (CSX, Long Island Railroad, Metro-North, Amtrak, NYC Transit, Staten Island Railroad, etc) and so each one has their own course on track safety. What makes NYC Transit unique is that their course involves a supervised walk on the track, to practice what you have learned.

The course starts at 7am at an old public school in Brooklyn (P.S. 248, right between the 25th Avenue station on the D line, and the Avenue U station on the N line). You fill out some paperwork (including a liability waiver...that hopefully never is actually needed...they shred it at the end of the day once everyone is back in the classroom). We watch a little introductory video on how the system works, and then the instructors (two veteran trackworkers) hand out a booklet with all of the main rules pertaining to track safety. They put up a Powerpoint where they discuss these rules (what types of locations are considered safe "clear up" locations where there is enough space to prevent you from being struck by a train, different arrangements for where the flagmen should be standing so that they can see approaching trains with enough time to warn the workers, and also so that the train can hopefully stop if necessary, how to work around the third rail, and with some stories of workers who made mistakes that unfortunately got them injured or killed. I heard they used to have much more graphic stories and pictures/videos (the most graphic one we saw was a guy whose hand got caught in a switch, but I heard they used to put out some really nasty stuff)

So then we go out for the field portion (I love how the instructors come to class all dressed with nice suits and ties, and then a few minutes later, they change into their safety gear, grab their lanterns, and lead us out to the training area). One of the things you learn quickly is that many people become complacent....the instructor literally had to remind some people to step back from the platform edge when the train was approaching

Extending the Span of Peak Variants

As mentioned previously, I believe off-peak service overall needs to be restructured to provide more coverage on the Staten Island end (even if a particular route may have its coverage reduced on the Manhattan end). Here are some simple ways to begin the process of extending the span of some of the peak routes into the off-peak time period.

SIM4C

The primary routes that make up the SIM4C are the SIM2 & SIM4 for Downtown, and the SIM8 for Midtown. The schedule should be changed as follows:

5am SIM4C trip out of Arden Heights converted into SIM4 trip out of Annadale. Additionally, SIM4C trips leaving Arden Heights between 8:35am and 9:20am (inclusive) replaced with SIM4 trips out of Annadale. Savings reinvested to add additional SIM2 trip departing Tottenville at 8:45am, with the 9am trip shifted to depart Tottenville at 9:05am. Academy Bus should be encouraged to add a 9:00am SIM23 out of Hylan Blvd & Barclay Avenue (or preferably Pollion Avenue if it ever gets extended that way) to both provide a Midtown route along Arden Avenue and come closer to matching the span of the old X24 (a 9am SIM24 out of Hylan & Luten would also be helpful, and would also help match the span of the old X24). Otherwise, Midtown-bound riders along Arden Avenue will either have to make a transfer Downtown, or make their way to the SIM8/22 (or if they take the SIM2 to Travis, they can catch the SIM25/26 over there).

On a side note, my stance on that SIM2/24 stop is that it should be at Hylan & Huguenot, which is more centrally located than Hylan & Luten (which is basically in the middle of Wolfe's Pond Park). Academy Bus saw an increase in their subsidy from the city, and they should be made to provide adequate service. They complain that the new network caused them to reduce their revenue miles, and they haven't thought of the simple ways of getting those revenue miles back in ways that benefit the passengers.

In the evening, the SIM2 should have its span extended to operate until 9:30pm out of Chambers Street (operating every 30 minutes after 7:30pm). A 1:30pm SIM8 trip should be added out of 57th Street & Lexington Avenue, and all of the SIM4C trips departing CPS & 6th Avenue between 1:30pm and 2:35pm, and between 6:55pm and 8:55pm should be converted to SIM4 trips out of Chambers Street at those respective arrival times (so for example, the 1:30pm SIM4C trip out of CPS & 6th should become a SIM4 trip out of Chambers Street at 2:11pm). The savings would be reinvested in adding SIM4C trips out of CPS & 6th leaving at 11am, 12pm, and 1pm respectively, to provide off-peak service every 30 minutes (obviously the gap from 10:20pm to 11am is a 40 minute gap, but you get the point...service would run better than hourly).

SIM33C

The primary routes that make up the SIM33C are the SIM31 for Midtown, SIM32 for Downtown, and SIM33 for Greenwich Village. The schedule should be changed as follows:

The Church Street corridor needs to take priority over the West Street corridor due to its central location and connections available. The old system accomplished this by having the first few trips of the morning run as X10 trips that bypassed Narrows Road, rather than X10B trips (so the X10B and X11 had a similar span). A similar setup should take place with the SIM32/33, and generally speaking it is more desirable to extend the span of the peak variants rather than the off-peak variants, because the peak variants offer more overall coverage (both on the Manhattan end and Staten Island end)

* Shift the 6:05am SIM32 trip to depart Travis at 6:00am, and add a 5:00am, 5:20am, and 5:40am departure out of Travis. Remove the 5:00am, 5:20am, and 5:40am SIM33 trips out of Mariners Harbor, and replace them with a 5:30am SIM33 trip (this will coordinate well with the SIM32 along Gannon & SIM34 in Mariners Harbor/Graniteville in that timeframe) The only disadvantage is that those areas have to wait 30 more minutes if they want direct service to Greenwich Village, but this would still add an extra bus per hour to the Gannon corridor (3 SIM32s and 1 SIM33 instead of 3 SIM33s) around the 6am timeframe.

* Shift the 8:35am SIM32 trip to depart Travis at 8:45am. Shift the 8:00am and 8:30am SIM31 trips to depart the Eltingville Transit Center at 8:05am and 8:35am respectively. This will reduce the peak/off-peak gap between the last SIM31/32 and the first SIM33C for Midtown service and Church Street service respectively.

* In the afternoon, shift the 3:40pm SIM31 trip to depart 57th Street & Lexington Avenue at 3:30pm, and add a 2:30pm and 3pm departure from 57th Street & Lexington Avenue. Eliminate the 2:20pm and 2:40pm SIM33C trips out of CPS & 6th, add a 3:20pm SIM32 trip out of Chambers Street & Church Street, and shift the 3:55pm SIM32 trip to depart Chambers Street at 3:50pm. Combine the 3pm and 3:20pm SIM33 trips out of Union Square into a 3:10pm trip. This will eliminate the overlap between the SIM33 & SIM33C in the early PM rush, while ensuring that the Downtown section of Broadway maintains service to Gannon Avenue.

* In the evening, remove the 6:50pm and 7:10pm SIM33C trips out of CPS & 6th, shift the 6:40pm SIM33 out of Union Square to depart at 6:45pm, shift the 7pm SIM33 out of Union Square to depart at 7:05pm, and add a 7:30pm SIM33 trip out of Union Square. Also shift the 7:05pm SIM32 out of Chambers Street to depart at 7:15pm, and add a 7:45pm SIM32 out of Chambers Street.

Additionally, one thing that was gained when the SIM4C covered Gannon Avenue is that it started early in the morning and allowed riders to reach Midtown before 6am. Perhaps one additional SIM33C trip should be added leaving Mariners Harbor at 4:30am to restore this service.

SIM3C

The primary routes that make up the SIM3C are the SIM3 and SIM34.

* In the morning, combine the 8:55am and 9:15am SIM3 trips out of Port Richmond into a 9:05am SIM3 trip, and add a 9:25am SIM3C trip out of Port Richmond. This will fill in the gap in Downtown service along Watchogue Road between the last SIM34 and the first SIM3C of the morning.

* In the afternoon, eliminate the 2:10pm, 2:25pm, 2:40pm, and 2:50pm SIM3C trips out of CPS & 6th, and replace them with 2:20pm and 2:50pm SIM3 trips out of CPS & 6th. This will eliminate the overlap between the SIM3C and SIM15/34/35 Downtown.

Another simple span extension can be had by shifting the last SIM26 to depart Tottenville at 9:10am instead of 9:05am (spacing it out a bit from the last SIM25 which leaves at 9am). Additionally, the whole Hylan Blvd corridor needs restructuring with regards to....well...everything but as it relates to this post, the SIM1C should be broken up into its respective peak variants for a much longer timeframe. That span reduction on the SIM10 back in January 2019 was a huge step backwards.

If you look closely, when I chose the departure times of the routes, I tried to coordinate the service so there was no more than a 30 minute gap between peak and off-peak or vice versa. In a few cases, the gap is slightly more, but one of the other big issues with off-peak service is the lack of coordination between the SIM3C & SIM33C (in their overlapping portions, they arrive around the same time instead of being offset). By rectifying this issue, it should also help close those gaps up.

SIM30

Finally, another route that needs a span extension is the SIM30. One of the main selling points of the new network is that the span of the routes would be extended as close as possible to 5-9am and 3-7pm (presumably referring to departure times from the terminals). The SIM30 falls about an hour short of that in both directions. One of the things that is overlooked is that this route is supposed to be the Midtown alternative for X12 & X14 riders (which had a longer span than the X30). Now, one of the things that I believe needs to be done is to split the route at Jewett Avenue, and have the eastern portion run via Brooklyn (basically, take the old X16 and send it to Midtown instead of Downtown), while the western portion continues to run through New Jersey.

The current inbound span at the Forest & Jewett stop is 5:32am - 8:24am. This can be extended to an even 5am-9am by adding a 5am and a 9am trip, adjusting the 5:32am and 8:24am trips to leave at 5:30am and 8:30am respectively, and then scheduling the proper amount of service to account for the fact that riders east of Jewett Avenue would likely be on the eastern split (let's call it SIM36 for now). That would probably lead to a slight decrease in frequency, but not too much of a decrease, as the vast majority of SIM30 ridership is west of Jewett Avenue. In the afternoon, a 3:20pm trip should be added out of CPS & 6th.

With the SIM36, I'd have it depart Jewett & Post between 5:25am and 8:25am. This would get SIM30 riders along the eastern portion of the route into Midtown around the same time they get there today (and also be fairly similar to the span of the old X14). In the afternoon, buses would depart CPS & 6th between 3:30pm and 6:30pm. The span can be extended if ridership grows (right now, it starts earlier than the SIM30, but also ends earlier, but it still ends around the time the X30 used to end). Frequency would be determined based on ridership (likely all existing SIM30 riders would take it, as it's faster than taking the SIM30 to Midtown, unless there is an accident along the I-278 corridor, and then you'd have some Midtown-bound SIM35 riders who would take it, plus riders taking it at Hylan and at Fingerboard because it came before a SIM10/11). The Manhattan routing can either be up West Street & 10th/11th Avenue to 42nd Street, or up the FDR Drive, 23rd Street, and 5th/Madison Avenue.

For the old X18 (let's call it SIM18 for now), I would have it run with a span similar to what it had in 2004 (6:15am - 9am out of Targee & DeKalb, and 4:25pm - 6:25pm out of Rector Street). I would reverse the outbound route on the Staten Island end (so instead of taking Narrows Road to Targee Street and making a clockwise loop through Park Hill/Rosebank, I would have it get off at School Road and make a counterclockwise loop, ending at Richmond Road & DeKalb Street). I would also have it run up Church/Broadway to/from Chambers Street (rather than do the Downtown Loop).

In its final years, the X18 only ran from 4:30pm-6pm, hence why I said I would use something similar to the 2004 span. Again, as ridership increases, hopefully the span can be increased. One thing to consider is that by running up Church/Broadway, it should be able to take a little bit of pressure off the SIM1 (which as I've said since the beginning, should be split to operate "New Dorp via Hylan" or "Eltingville via Father Capodanno"). So if the same passengers are accommodated by a short route that ends near the Verrazzano (and travels closer to their homes) as opposed a longer route down Hylan Blvd, that is a win-win for both the passengers and the MTA.

Comments on April 28th Schedules

* They added some SIM1C service in the late AM rush which will alleviate some overcrowding, but why didn't they extend the span of the SIM10 back to 9:10am? Would've been more efficient (and the same applies to the PM rush)
* Still haven't fixed coordination issues between SIM3C & SIM33C for weekday inbound service.
* Still haven't addressed weekend inbound SIM4C runtime issues (excess runtime) between Huguenot/Woodrow & ETC.
* SIM6 starts from 56th & Lexington at 2pm instead of 2:35pm which is good, and it's even earlier than the X5 did (at 2:15pm)
* SIM4X/8X excess runtime issues seem to have been addressed (and they even addressed the PM runtime on the Manhattan side for the SIM4X which is good)
* Looks like they cut a couple of SIM8 buses in the AM rush (but it should be alright now that they added the Christopher Lane stop on the SIM8X).
* Their addressing the excess runtime in the evenings for the "via NJ" routes by shaving off one minute is honestly an insult to my repeated requests to have this addressed. You could shave off 6-8 minutes with no problem. The SIM8 only needs about 15-18 minutes from 57th & Lexington to 42nd & 8th on a typical weeknight, not 22 minutes. For that matter, there's also no need to add runtime to the early PM rush (those buses around 2pm)
* SIM4C should travel no further north than 23rd Street when the SIM8 operates. Same for the SIM1C vs. SIM10.
* Adjustments to the SIM25 runtimes between Tottenville and Woodrow Road (I still think they could shave off another 1-2 minutes but I guess it's a start).
* Redistribution of SIM30 trips to run a little more frequently in the early AM and a little less frequently in the late AM.
* Later SIM32 trip added at 7:05pm from Chambers.

Mariners Harbor Responses

What is the status on getting us the universal 3-legged transfers that were originally promised at the June 2018 Community Board 2 meeting? (And also getting that information published somewhere. Three months after the changes, and we’re still passing around screenshots of somebody’s email because the transfer information isn’t posted on the MTA website). Also, can we get a full list of the official transfer points between express buses (on both the Staten Island and Manhattan side. Also, have BM1/2/3/4 operators been informed that they need to accept transferring riders? Apparently, the BM1/2/3/4 are considered Queens Division even though the routes serve Brooklyn out of a depot physically located in Brooklyn and some operators have not been informed)?

We will seek to clarify the information on the website for the public, but universal 3-legged transfers would require a change in fare policy approved by the MTA Board. For the express network redesign, specific three-leg transfers were programmed to prevent someone who only paid one fare prior to August 19 from paying an additional fare under the new network.

Hopefully the MTA Board will consider that as part of the upcoming fare hike or with the smartcard technology coming out. People paying two fares to make certain trips is not acceptable, even if it was a problem that we "had before".

We never received a full report of all of the statistics that were used to justify any of the decisions made throughout the planning process (both before the August 2018 implementation and afterwards). When will such a report be available? Northeast Queens and Co-Op City received reports of over 100 pages for relatively minor changes that affected only portions of boroughs, and in the meantime, we only received a little 25 page PowerPoint. I understand that the planners wanted to keep the report simple to get the basic concepts across, but the more detailed data should be available for those who are interested. We can’t have a full discussion without statistics.

A report on the express bus redesign proposal was released in May 2017. Requests for additional information can be submitted through the FOIL Request page on the MTA website.

You guys are seriously going to make me go through the hassle of filing a FOIL request when you've had no problem releasing this type of data publicly in the past? Back when service reductions were made in 2010, there was a (fairly) detailed analysis of each individual reduction (how many people would have to walk further, how many people would have to transfer, etc). This should've been done for every single change (positive or negative, cost-increasing or cost-saving) made as part of this new network. 

The entire structure of the off-peak service needs to be reevaluated. I actually like the concept of limiting the length of the express bus routes on Manhattan surface streets even during off-peak hours, and I believe that the discussion of Staten Island coverage vs. Manhattan coverage needs to be had. There are more alternatives on the Manhattan side than the Staten Island side, and so I think it makes more sense to provide express bus service to the entire swaths of neighborhoods where the only off-peak alternative is a Staten Island local bus that runs every 20-30 minutes, as opposed to duplicating Manhattan subway and local bus lines that run every 5-10 minutes. Some of the planners expressed concerns that this may be hard politically, but you know what, this is politics right here, and you can’t assume everybody has the same concerns. Back in the June 2017 Community Board 1 meeting when this plan was first presented, the primary concern wasn’t that the X12/SIM34 was cut back to Downtown, it was that we weren’t getting enough in exchange for it. We wanted later service, more frequent service, and an overnight express bus route for the North Shore, and we were told “If you didn’t have it before, you probably won’t get it now”, so on the surface, it looks like an excuse to cut service. Andy Byford said that you guys learned a lot of lessons from this restructuring, and using those lessons, we need to have that discussion about the off-peak service structure, if not now then at least when the local bus study gets completed.

Consideration was given to this idea during the planning process and there was strong opposition to eliminating the one-seat ride to Midtown for existing off-peak riders. Destinations in Manhattan are more widespread off-peak (particularly on weekends).

People are selfish and don't care about others if what they have now "works for them". What else is new? I don't care about "opposition", I care about what works. As I said, if somebody is that insistent on having a one-seat ride then they likely have a car (because otherwise, I don't see how they can live their entire life around one or two routes without ever having to make a transfer). You can set it up in a manner so that there's still some service to Midtown in the general area. (I will say this, splitting the SIM1C into the SIM1C to 23rd Street and the SIM10 can definitely work and save money if done properly. I think the SIM6 might work a little better than the SIM10 because it covers more areas on the Staten Island end, and also because Lexington Avenue generally has fewer parades and detours compared to 5th Avenue). But I think you should create multiple proposals implementing this concept (complete with a rough idea of the spans and frequencies) and put it out there for discussion. Many of the problems in this new system are because you blindly tried to hold onto some elements of the old system regardless of whether they "worked" or not, and then tried to blend those elements with elements of the new system and it created a mess.

One of the issues that has always been the case (especially on Downtown buses for some reason in my experience) is that when two buses pull into the stop at the same time, the driver in the back is afraid to open the doors because the passengers will yell at them for messing up the line. That causes delays for all of the passengers. Has there been any progress on getting platform conductors/dispatchers at busy stops to direct people to board the back bus properly and leave the driver alone?

I don’t have a response for this one yet. 

OK

What is being done about excess runtime on schedules systemwide? BusTime doesn’t tell you if a bus is on-time because the schedule is actually accurate for the conditions at the time, or if the driver had to “drag the line” and operate slowly and wait at stops in order to avoid running early. With all of this emphasis on speed, it makes sense to avoid excess runtime. I had mentioned this issue on the evening SIM8, and the October schedules were the same as the August schedule in that regard.

Run time continues to be evaluated, and with comprehensive GPS data, this should not be an issue. Having not enough run time creates far more problems than excess run time so we are cautious when cutting run time.

And more runtime also costs you more money (and also increases the number of physical buses required to operate the service). You can't say "Buses being slow is a problem" and then on the other hand, not care enough to see if buses need to "drag the line" and purposely drive slow to stay on schedule. You guys are working on it for the MTA Bus express routes from Queens, and you need to do it systemwide. 

Can we get real-time information on how well the HOV lane is moving? Right now, Google Maps shows the general traffic, but not the HOV lane traffic? (So the regular lanes might be congested, but the HOV lane may or may not be congested, and people need this information in order to make their travel decisions).

This suggestion should be directed to NYCDOT.

Any particular division?

On days when the travel via Brooklyn is congested, can the SIM2 & SIM4 be rerouted via the Bayonne Bridge & Holland Tunnel (along with other routes if warranted)? Right now, there’s plenty of days when traffic is backed up so badly that you can see it from the Richmond Avenue overpass, and you’ll see a whole crowd of people let SIM4 buses go by even if they work Downtown because they know on those days, the HOV lane gets backed up and it is quicker to take the SIM8 to Midtown and backtrack (which causes overcrowding on that route). If people knew the bus would take an alternate route to avoid the traffic, they would be more likely to stay on the SIM4 (which was one of the issues the planners brought up with the redesign, people switching off between routes and making it difficult to schedule proper service levels).

We have used the Holland Tunnel in the past and continue to have that as a detour option.   It can be hit or miss, as delays on the V-N and/or Gowanus can cause traffic backups on the New Jersey crossings as drivers divert to other routes into Manhattan.

Fair enough.

Has any progress been made with NYCDOT restriping Deppe Place approaching Richmond Avenue to create an additional lane and ease the congestion that affects SIM3/34 riders? (Especially those who need to make local bus connections at the stop around the corner at Richmond & Armand?)

This is a question for NYCDOT.

OK

Can the SIM4X/8X be extended to the South Shore (and the SIM4/8 cut back to the SI Mall when the SIM4X/8X operate)? This would allow for more balanced loading between the routes (of course, assuming adequate service levels were provided on all variants). Right now, one of the major complaints is that service on the regular SIM4/8 was reduced, and those buses are overcrowded while the SIM4X/8X have spare capacity. This would especially be useful on the SIM8X where the SIM23/24 have been shifted to 34th Street, this would allow Arden Heights to maintain a relatively quick connection to the 42nd Street corridor (which has the less congested approach out of the Lincoln Tunnel).

The SIM4x and SIM8x do not operate frequently enough to do this. One of the major benefits of the park-and-ride service from the mall is that the scheduled departure time can be relied upon since it is the first stop. Extending the route south would eliminate that benefit. We do continue to monitor the SIM4x and SIM8x and for January 13 will be adding an additional stop on Richmond Avenue just before the expressway.

Right, but if you cut the regular SIM4/8 back to the SI Mall during the timeframe that the SIM4X/8X operate, then everybody south of the SI Mall will take the SIM4X/8X, thus increasing ridership on those routes and the amount of service justified. Somebody told me that the 7:40am SIM8X regularly has almost all of its seats taken, so I guarantee that if it were extended south, it would justify headways lower than 20 minutes. Also it makes no sense for the shorter route to operate as the super-express while the longer route operates as the "local". The SIM4/8 aren't designed for intra-island travel, so this doesn't make sense. The buses can still keep the Lamberts Lane stop and be extended further south, with some trips shifted from the SIM4/8 to the SIM4X/8X to account for the shifting ridership patterns.

Can the SIM4/4X be extended to Arden Avenue & Drumgoole Road to provide Downtown coverage for riders who used to take the X19 from that area? (Ideally even further into the South Shore, such as the SIM23 terminal or the Huguenot SIR station). This can be considered in conjunction with the restructuring mentioned above (which is why I said “South Shore”)

Downtown service to this area is provided by the SIM2. Beginning January 13 off-peak and weekend downtown service will be provided by the SIM4c extension.

The SIM2 runs down Woodrow Road. I'm talking about the area by Drumgoole Road (and remember that there's people who live south of Drumgoole Road as well and have an even further walk)

Can the outbound SIM22/23 be routed to bypass “Checkpoint” in the afternoon and use the Arden Avenue exit of the West Shore Expressway? (With proper schedule adjustments to the SIM24/25 of course) This idea seems to have worked fairly well on the SIM26 (except for the first few and last few trips in both directions, which will hopefully be remedied when the SIM25 receives a span extension)

Generally we do not like to serve an area in one direction but not in the other, but this is something we can look into further. The Checkpoint stop is very popular (as an informal park-and-ride) so we would be hesitant to reduce service to that stop for a minor time savings.

Fair enough.

The inbound SIM8 stop at Woodrow & Shotwell does not have a corresponding outbound stop. Can this be addressed?

This stop did not exist prior to the redesign.  This request is currently under consideration.

OK (I see as part of the stop changes announced that it will be added)

Can a stop be added at Woodrow & Arthur Kill for the SIM8, since it has a longer span than the SIM22? (It also covers more of the Aspen Knolls development)

This request is under consideration as the existing stops are not located where the SIM8 can safely access them.

I'm assuming new stops would be added along Woodrow Road itself instead of Arthur Kill Road.

Can the SIM2/24 stop at Hylan & Luten be moved from its current desolate location to the centralized location originally proposed at Hylan & Huguenot.

Traveling north buses cannot safely make the stop at Hylan/Huguenot and turn left. The northbound and southbound stops should match where possible. Luten is also a better location for parking.

So put the northbound stop after the turn. It doesn't have to be at the S59/78 stop.

Can the Hylan & Lincoln drop-off stop on the SIM1/7/10 be moved to Hylan & Midland, for easier transfers to the S51 towards Midland Beach (the SIM5/6/9 can remain at Hylan & Lincoln since those routes already serve Midland Beach).

We do not want to split these routes apart given how many riders take the first bus that comes.

Outbound buses are drop off-only so no, people wouldn't be "taking the first bus that comes" for the express buses. That's what the local buses are for, which would remain unaffected. People are missing their connection to the S51 because of this. Unacceptable when all that's required is to shift the stop back a block.

Can the SIM23 be extended slightly to Pollion Avenue (or even Arburtus Avenue or Huguenot Avenue) to provide better service in Southeast Annadale (at little to no cost)

We can forward this request to NYCDOT and Academy Bus who control the SIM23.

Any particular division of NYCDOT? I want to make sure the affected riders can help push for this.

Can the Church Street & Park Place stop be restored for easy subway connections? I've mentioned numerous times that if somebody is on the fence about taking the subway, having them run up and down through numerous passageways instead of entering through a simple entrance isn't going to make them a huge fan of making that transfer.

We have not heard much about this stop but will make sure it is on the list to consider as we evaluate bus stop adjustments. Access to the PATH, E, 4, 5, R, and W trains is available at the Church St/Fulton St stop and access to the A, C, 1, 2, and 3 trains is available at the Church St/Chambers St stop.

I am aware of that. However, the Park Place stop is the most convenient place to transfer to the 2/3 (instead of walking to Chambers & West Broadway), and you have the flexibility to switch off between the A/C and 2/3 at that same entrance if you find out of a delay at the last minute. I know that Church Street opens up once you pass Vesey Street and there would be a time penalty for stopping at Park Place (which only affects people going to Chambers Street on the peak buses). All I'm asking is for you to be objective when you decide whether or not to keep it.

Has there been any progress made on better communications between the Port Authority and MTA regarding the closure of the Dyer Avenue bus lane?

We have held meetings with the Port Authority and continue to stress the importance of keeping the bus lane open as scheduled.

Great!

Is it possible to at least run some reverse-peak trips on the SIM2 since they're deadheading from the Charleston Depot to Manhattan anyway? Reverse-peak service in general (on the old X1/10/17 and the new SIM1C/3C/4C) is inadequate, especially considering how poor the other alternatives are. Even if those trips were short-turns to Downtown, it would help greatly.

Unfortunately this is not possible without negatively impacting peak service.

Have the buses pull out from the depot a few minutes earlier to account for the extra stops. Especially with the trips at the beginning of rush hour, those are pretty much all pull-outs (and not second trips).

Off-peak buses use Battery Place even when the Rector Street exit is open (which wasn’t the case under the old system). The timepoint should be moved back to Rector Street so they can save time and bypass Battery Place. Additionally, what is being done about the closing of that exit during rush hour? It was my understanding that the only issue was that buses couldn’t safely make it over to the right lane in time to use the exit, but apparently, that’s not the issue and the NYPD is closing the lanes of their own accord (even though that Rector Street exit is MTA/TBTA property)

Off-peak buses are instructed to use the Rector Street exit when it is open. There is no new information to provide on tunnel operations.

OK

Will the SIM25 be coordinated with the SIM26 when the span is extended? Right now, many trips depart 57th & Lexington at the same time, even though both routes serve the same general areas. In the evening, the SIM26 runs every 25-30 minutes, so the SIM25 buses should be coordinated to fill those gaps (e.g. SIM26 at 7:20pm, 7:45pm, and 8:15pm, and a SIM25 at 7:30pm, 8:00pm, and 8:30pm).

Schedules have not been finalized yet for the January service, but tentatively that is the plan.

OK

The same question applies to the SIM3C & SIM33C. Will there be any attempt at coordination between these off-peak routes so they don't arrive together?

Same as above. This will be done where possible, but given that there is not much overlap between these two routes, service will primarily be allocated to match demand patterns.

Weekday service and weekend inbound service is ridiculously uncoordinated for no reason on the draft schedule. Back-to-back buses for most of the day. 

Will the SIM33C take West Street or Church Street/Broadway in Lower Manhattan (Church Street/Broadway would be better, more centrally located, more convenient for subway transfers and more similar to the old off-peak X10)?

Same route as the old X10. Church, 6^th Av, 23^rd St, Madison Av.

Great, but why does it terminate at CPS & 6th instead of 57th & Lexington?

What will be the turnaround route for the off-peak SIM33? Will it take Holland Avenue like the S48/98, but continue to end at South Avenue & Richmond Terrace? If it's going down Holland Avenue anyway, can a stop be considered near the Arlington Terrace Apartments? (Late at night, apparently the Request-A-Stop policy doesn't officially apply to express buses. Can we at least get that policy to apply on the drop-off portions of express buses systemwide?)

Given the way off-peak service is scheduled, all trips are pull-ins, meaning that there will not need to be a turnaround at this location.

Is this in general or for the SIM33C specifically? Also, when the schedules were written and the SIM33C is basically a copy-paste of the old X10 schedule, was it considered that Mariners Harbor is further from Manhattan (and harder to reach the highway) than Port Richmond? I know some SIM3C runs (and old X10 runs) involved an outbound trip, a deadhead, and another outbound trip.

The extension of the SIM1 & SIM34 to Houston Street has brought concerns about reliability (especially from SIM34 riders), since you have the crosstown traffic (between the Manhattan/Williamsburg Bridges and the Holland Tunnel). How will this be addressed?

The original redesign plan attempted to address these issues by avoiding the most congested areas at peak times. In response to rider feedback we have decided to extend two routes north. Houston Street was selected (instead of say 14^th Street or 23^rd Street) to try and minimize the impact of this extension on reliability.

So buses will sit in crosstown traffic trying to reach the terminal at West Houston Street then? I see nothing in this response that addresses what will be done about the crosstown traffic.

With the creation of the SIM11 covering the (northern) Hylan Blvd-East 23rd Street market, can the SIM10 and SIM31 be routed up West Street & 10th/11th Avenue to either 23rd Street or 34th Street (if it’s 34th Street, the SIM7/9/33 would have to be extended to 23rd Street). The SIM31 lost its West Midtown subway connections and also the flexibility to route buses through New Jersey when there’s issues in Brooklyn (which is often).

No changes to those routes are planned at this time.

Hopefully it will be reconsidered.

What is the status of splitting the SIM1/10 to operate “New Dorp via Hylan” and “Eltingville via Father Capodanno Blvd”?

There is no plan to do this as part of the January service changes.

Hopefully it will be reconsidered. It was mentioned that the SIM1 split is being worked on for April.