BM5 via Woodhaven Posted November 19, 2012 Share #951 Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) What joke??????? OK... This one is of a Q64 extension to Fresh Meadows... the Q88 would be rerouted to HHE along the portion of 73rd Avenue which the Q64 would serve: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004ceca2406fa42fc9dd&msa=0&ll=40.730869,-73.795338&spn=0.075317,0.154324 Taking away a section the Q88 travels on defeats the purpose of the route. People IMO are pretty comfortable having a service that runs several schools, hospitals, and places of interest as well as the subway . I know what you are trying to do, but rerouting the 88 on to the HHE is not a good idea. Extend the Q64 bit without the 88 being diverted. I also don't think the 64 is needed past Francis Lewis Blvd, since te 88 already does that. Edited November 19, 2012 by Q23 Central Terminal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted November 19, 2012 Share #952 Posted November 19, 2012 Taking away a section the Q88 travels on defeats the purpose of the route. People IMO are pretty comfortable having a service that runs several schools, hospitals, and places of interest as well as the subway . I know what you are trying to do, but rerouting the 88 on to the HHE is not a good idea. Extend the Q64 bit without the 88 being diverted. I also don't think the 64 is needed past Francis Lewis Blvd, since te 88 already does that. The 64 would provide a supplement to the overcrowded Q88, and it may even get more riders, as the Q64 would be serving an express station on QBL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 19, 2012 Share #953 Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) The 64 would provide a supplement to the overcrowded Q88, and it may even get more riders, as the Q64 would be serving an express station on QBL. Or we can just add Q88 LTD but add service to it before any of this. If you extend Q64 only select runs should do it Edited November 19, 2012 by qjtransitmaster 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted November 19, 2012 Share #954 Posted November 19, 2012 Or we can just ad Q88 LTD but add service to it before any of this. If you extend Q64 only select runs should do it I agree with the select runs thing. Maybe every other run can run the new "full" route... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 19, 2012 Share #955 Posted November 19, 2012 - I still think the current Q88 isn't really needed past springfield... Instead of threxx's Q64 turnaround scenario in that area, I would have the Q88 turn down bell off 73rd, shoot across union tpke, then turn up at that stop on springfield/union tpke to stand..... for the return trip, it'd run up springfield & turn on 73rd like the current WB Q88 does... ^^ With that said, there'd be zero need for a Q88 LTD.... - The 64 I would probably leave it right where it is on 164th.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share #956 Posted November 20, 2012 There goes my idea for a Q64 extension to Oakland Gardens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 20, 2012 Share #957 Posted November 20, 2012 There goes my idea for a Q64 extension to Oakland Gardens Why do you say that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 20, 2012 Share #958 Posted November 20, 2012 Why do you say that? you invalidated it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted November 20, 2012 Share #959 Posted November 20, 2012 IMO, as "unique" as the Q38 is, I really don't see a need to split it. Think about it, its been that way since the TCC days. As we have seen with other routes, the MTA has no problems altering the routes its inherited from the PBL's (Q21, Q53, QBx1 for example). Routes are basically altered according to passenger patterns. With practically no alterations to its route in the last 6 yrs, I think that its safe to assume that there's a diverse pattern as to how riders use that route to warrent its u-shape. I too in the past have thought of why hasn't this route been split. But I'm guessing "if it aint broke..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted November 20, 2012 Share #960 Posted November 20, 2012 It's a matter of taking a route that's self-duplicating (loops back around parallel to itself), and using it to provide better access with other areas that don't have it. I wonder what they were thinking when they plotted many of those routes. It served a need back then, but it could be put to better use now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 20, 2012 Share #961 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) you invalidated it. I don't see how.... I just stated what I would do with it. ...Routes are basically altered according to passenger patterns. With practically no alterations to its route in the last 6 yrs, I think that its safe to assume that there's a diverse pattern as to how riders use that route to warrent its u-shape. I simply see it as riders making do w/ what they have (as far as bus service goes).... From what I depict, there really isn't (a diverse pattern).... The bulk of the route's riders utilize it b/w queens blvd & met av [both, inclusive]; you'll seldom see someone riding past the subway station on either spur (meaning someone boarding the eliot av spur & taking it towards juniper valley rd, or someone boarding the 63 dr/penelope av spur riding it towards eliot)..... The route north of queens blvd, not nearly as much usage going on.... What I'm getting at is, w/i lefrak (outside of those that simply walk), too many of those folks are taking 72's or 88's to get to QB.... The other terminal over by 108th doesn't do too many people any justice (which is why you have people like error46146 screaming to me that his route (said 38) should be extended to flushing or w/e).... Of course the MTA wouldn't want to split the route for fiscal reasons, but if you ask me, I see more of a benefit usage-wise if you split the route & send em elsewhere on the north end (meaning 60th/otis & 108th/62nd would cease to remain as terminals), as well as the south end (meaning, south of metropolitan av).... All as opposed to leaving the Q38 as it is. I've always wondered how many of those that do disembark the Q38 at Met av , do so just to get to fresh pond rd or forest av..... It's a matter of taking a route that's self-duplicating (loops back around parallel to itself), and using it to provide better access with other areas that don't have it. I wonder what they were thinking when they plotted many of those routes. It served a need back then, but it could be put to better use now. Agreed.... the routing is antiquated.... Edited November 20, 2012 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted November 20, 2012 Share #962 Posted November 20, 2012 I see both of your points. And valid ones at that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 21, 2012 Author Share #963 Posted November 21, 2012 Why do you say that? I guess because since you feel the Q64 should stay at 164, rather than go all the way to 230 where it would do a lot better than the Q75 ever did. We all have our opinions though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 21, 2012 Share #964 Posted November 21, 2012 I guess because since you feel the Q64 should stay at 164, rather than go all the way to 230 where it would do a lot better than the Q75 ever did. We all have our opinions though I guess I'll take that as a compliment.... Thanks. Although I think a Q64 extension has less to do w/ the Q75 & more to do with improving the network (filling the gap b/w HHE & union tpke), I agree w/ you that an extended 64 would do better than the old 75 (simply b/c I think/thought folks in general in oakland gdns. aint want Jamaica like that no how... I mean, just look at how they utilize the 27 & the 88 out there [of the ones that don't use the nearby expresses, that is])... Hell, I once thought extending the 64 out there would be a great idea too, until I rethought some things.... But on the same token, I think since the old 74 got discontinued, it put a couple more riders on the 64..... Meaning, even more people have to rely on the 64 now than before - I'm sure you already knew how well/efficient the service is & the shear amt. of ppl. that use that compact/short route..... My thinking is, if you extend the 64, it'd be more detrimental to more people than more helpful to more people (if that makes sense).... In other words, you'd strengthen the network, but you'd impact more people negatively (meaning current 64 users) than positively (meaning, potential 64 users... those out in oakland gdns & those that would come off other would be connecting buses to the 64)..... IMO anyway..... You don't really hear about 64's being late (then again, when you have buses coming every 5 mins, why would you complain about that.... It's just like here in my area w/ the B35)..... Even if you don't send every bus out to 230th & what not, I still think folks out in kew gardens hills & electchester (I like saying that btw... electchester) would complain, because I do not get the sense they want service to fresh meadows, hillcrest, & oakland gdns..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 21, 2012 Share #965 Posted November 21, 2012 I guess I'll take that as a compliment.... Thanks. Although I think a Q64 extension has less to do w/ the Q75 & more to do with improving the network (filling the gap b/w HHE & union tpke), I agree w/ you that an extended 64 would do better than the old 75 (simply b/c I think/thought folks in general in oakland gdns. aint want Jamaica like that no how... I mean, just look at how they utilize the 27 & the 88 out there [of the ones that don't use the nearby expresses, that is])... Hell, I once thought extending the 64 out there would be a great idea too, until I rethought some things.... But on the same token, I think since the old 74 got discontinued, it put a couple more riders on the 64..... Meaning, even more people have to rely on the 64 now than before - I'm sure you already knew how well/efficient the service is & the shear amt. of ppl. that use that compact/short route..... My thinking is, if you extend the 64, it'd be more detrimental to more people than more helpful to more people (if that makes sense).... In other words, you'd strengthen the network, but you'd impact more people negatively (meaning current 64 users) than positively (meaning, potential 64 users... those out in oakland gdns & those that would come off other would be connecting buses to the 64)..... IMO anyway..... You don't really hear about 64's being late (then again, when you have buses coming every 5 mins, why would you complain about that.... It's just like here in my area w/ the B35)..... Even if you don't send every bus out to 230th & what not, I still think folks out in kew gardens hills & electchester (I like saying that btw... electchester) would complain, because I do not get the sense they want service to fresh meadows, hillcrest, & oakland gdns..... Your scared of buses getting delayed out there are ya? If select Q64 trips do it then that problem gets erased completely but then again I have different ways of addressing that than extending Q64. Do you think QM4 extension via jewel to188th then hillside over X68's route would work well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 21, 2012 Author Share #966 Posted November 21, 2012 No leave the QM4 alone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 21, 2012 Share #967 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) No leave the QM4 alone I see so hillside doesn't need Off-peak express service? If hillside needs it how should it run if not needed why and alternative. This leave alone argument without reason is annoying. Edited November 21, 2012 by qjtransitmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 21, 2012 Share #968 Posted November 21, 2012 Your scared of buses getting delayed out there are ya? If select Q64 trips do it then that problem gets erased completely but then again I have different ways of addressing that than extending Q64. Do you think QM4 extension via jewel to188th then hillside over X68's route would work well? - It's not a matter of being "scared", and it's not so much delays.... But longer waits for buses. If the 64 were to be extended, I do not think the current headways on the route would be retained.... At all. - Don't see that idea panning out for the better, for either sets of riders.... What exactly would be the benefit of sending QM4's to Floral Park? More express service overall for those folks (which isn't warranted out there anyway).... You'll really hear people screaming expresses are a waste, have that happen.... Some places only need express service during the rush, and along Hillside is one of them.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 21, 2012 Author Share #969 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Nope that's what the Q43 to the is for, QJT Edited November 21, 2012 by Q43LTD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 21, 2012 Share #970 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) - It's not a matter of being "scared", and it's not so much delays.... But longer waits for buses. If the 64 were to be extended, I do not think the current headways on the route would be retained.... At all. - Don't see that idea panning out for the better, for either sets of riders.... What exactly would be the benefit of sending QM4's to Floral Park? More express service overall for those folks (which isn't warranted out there anyway).... You'll really hear people screaming expresses are a waste, have that happen.... Some places only need express service during the rush, and along Hillside is one of them.... Good explanation thanks I only though that cause Q43 was well SLOW!!! (Outside rush hour) Plus QM4 would have done open door at 3 or 2 188th stops and a few on jewel and closed door on hillside But I see your point. You confirmed my hunch. Reason I chose that routing was to avoid duplicating the Edited November 21, 2012 by qjtransitmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 21, 2012 Share #971 Posted November 21, 2012 This leave alone argument without reason is annoying. ...Which is why I opt to find out things for myself. You're not gonna get too many people to elaborate on their reasoning, for their personal reasons.... If something is rather obvious, I can see where/why someone wouldn't bother breaking down why something should be left alone (in this case)... Nope that's what the Q43 to the is for, QJT Pretty much... This. Add to the fact that the "suffix" of your very handle was added to the route to better facilitate those that have to endure that commute.... Good explanation thanks I only though that cause Q43 was well SLOW!!! (Outside rush hour) Plus QM4 would have done open door at 3 or 2 188th stops and a few on jewel and closed door on hillside But I see your point. You confirmed my hunch. Reason I chose that routing was to avoid duplicating the Sure, no problem... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 21, 2012 Share #972 Posted November 21, 2012 ...Which is why I opt to find out things for myself. You're not gonna get too many people to elaborate on their reasoning, for their personal reasons.... If something is rather obvious, I can see where/why someone wouldn't bother breaking down why something should be left alone (in this case)... Pretty much... This. Add to the fact that the "suffix" of your very handle was added to the route to better facilitate those that have to endure that commute.... Sure, no problem... Under those circumstances it probably won't make much a difference right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share #973 Posted November 22, 2012 This leave alone argument without reason is annoying. You trying to make super routes without sane financial reasons is annoying 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousNYLover Posted November 22, 2012 Share #974 Posted November 22, 2012 Q104 extention to Roosevelt Island is not needed. Most residents who takes Q102 bus from Astoria/Long Island City are wheelchair passengers or passengers who are going or visit hospitals on island. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 22, 2012 Share #975 Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) Q104 extention to Roosevelt Island is not needed. Most residents who takes Q102 bus from Astoria/Long Island City are wheelchair passengers or passengers who are going or visit hospitals on island. Why are you bringing this dead argument up sit down. And look at the area more carefully. Dude I wish there was a dislike button. But bringing up such a dead argument is just plain low. You trying to make super routes without sane financial reasons is annoying are you sure or are you just simply not thinking it through? I think you just aren't thinking it through. However no one is perfect I actually have not perfected anything to NYC as I have school and am busy not able to get a full detailed outlook. I look for creative ways to use existing services and maximize their potential. So nuff said. IDK about anyone's BS opinion about me however feedback with reason and analysis is very interesting as I am not dead set on any change that should take place of approach to closing a gap. Just because I am different than you in outlook doesn't make me annoying it is just cause you say so which is invalid. However your suffix gave it away. Edited November 22, 2012 by qjtransitmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.