BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 6, 2013 Share #1701 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) I think what he's trying to say to convert all Q113 buses Limited in the daytime like the M101. Edited July 6, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted July 6, 2013 Share #1702 Posted July 6, 2013 you double quoted by accident but no matter. I think you mean B35 onto New Lots Avenue to head for mother gaston which is it's eastern terminal. It heads the opposite way for sunset park. The B8 he is talking about is DH as in not in service. Of course it's in service route stops at thomas boyland and rockaway parkway. Wrong...the B35 technically uses New Lots for 1 short block westbound. Eastbound buses use Hegeman all the way to Mother Gaston to the terminal, then bank that short left on to Mother Gaston, then make the left onto New Lots, which immediately merges back into Hegeman Av one block later. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 6, 2013 Author Share #1703 Posted July 6, 2013 I think what he's trying to say to convert all Q113 buses Limited in the daytime like the M101.Can't do that. The 111 only goes as far as Rosedale and the 113 LTD makes no stops in Inwood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 6, 2013 Share #1704 Posted July 6, 2013 What are you talking about? It isn't for my information because I'm not talking about the B8 & B35 turning around for in-service trips..... Deadheading is when drivers make their way to/from the depot, from/to a terminal (or making their way to the terminal of another route if interlining is involved with a particular run)...... Neither of which is revenue mileage. Oh I apologize for mistaking your post. I thought you were talking about in service B8/B35 buses deadheading but never mind as now I know you are talking about buses that are not in service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 6, 2013 Share #1705 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Oh I apologize for mistaking your post. I thought you were talking about in service B8/B35 buses deadheading but never mind as now I know you are talking about buses that are not in service. Cool.... but the question I have for you is - What do you mean by "in service B8/B35 buses deadheading" ? All buses that are deadheading are not in service.... So, nah, I wasn't talking about what you thought I was talking about, because I already know that doesn't make sense (The notion of deadheading in service is paradoxical).... It's looking like you're unsure of what deadheading is..... 1. How about the Q113 become limited along Guy Brewer? Q111 for local service......... Or 2. Short turn Q111 and Q113 locals terminate at Parsons-Archer during the day? 3. How about swapping the Q83 and Q84 spots at Parsons-Archer? All the Merrick Blvd routes would be in one location. 4. How about the Rosedale bound Q111 actually stop at the Q111 stop at Parsons-Archer? Or extend the bus stop further..... Comments, discuss, criticize.... 1] I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting here... Are you saying that all 113 trips become LTD's (meaning, no more 113 locals), or that the local 113 trips run LTD on Brewer (meaning, 113 local & 113 LTD's would still be kept) ? 2] I agree... The question though is, at what rate, on each of the 2 routes (rhetorical)..... 3 & 4] This was an old suggestion I had, but I'll repeat it anyway (as it's somewhat relevant, I guess)..... I would have removed the Q25/34/65 stop at Jamaica ctr. bus terminal.... Always said that the masses wait for 25's/34's/65's at Jamaica/Parsons anyway (this would put the 42 & the 84 back on Archer av, instead of back there w/ the N4.... It would also have the Q25 & 65 LTD's run nonstop b/w LIRR Jamaica & Jamaica/Parsons).... The Q83 would get extended to Sutphin (via archer, via sutphin) with the Q40.... The Q110's & the Q112's first pickup stops would be moved to Parsons blvd b/w 88th & hillside (separate bus stops for each route).... The Q111 & the Q113 would then make their first pickup stops along 153rd b/w 88th & hillside (separate bus stops for each route).... In other words, only the Q110 & the Q112 would use Parsons b/w Hillside & Archer (out of the 110/111/112/113, I mean).... The Q111 & the Q113 would run down 150th b/w Hillside & Archer - which would lead 111's/113's right into that end of the bus terminal with the N4..... While I wasn't thinking about short turns with this suggestion, you could also have (would-be) short turns end there as well.... Edited July 6, 2013 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1706 Posted July 7, 2013 How about a Q9 extension to JFK via Van Wyck Boulevard. The Q9 is very short and it could use an extension. But the real point of extending it to JFK is so residents along the Van Wyck Expressway will have easier access to JFK Airport. Not to mention it doesn't diverge much from it's current route. Heres how my proposed extension would look like. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e0e04539cb6b42582 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share #1707 Posted July 7, 2013 I would send the 9 to 150 Av that's about it. That area south of Rockaway would have direct access to Jamaica 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1708 Posted July 7, 2013 I would send the 9 to 150 Av that's about it. That area south of Rockaway would have direct access to Jamaica Well the Q3 is not as direct as my proposed Q9 and the Q9 will serve Van Wyck residents, Q3 serves people along Farmers Boulevard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1709 Posted July 7, 2013 I would send the 9 to 150 Av that's about it. That area south of Rockaway would have direct access to Jamaica As I've said on here in the past, I would send the Q9 to lefferts airtrain.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share #1710 Posted July 7, 2013 As I've said on here in the past, I would send the Q9 to lefferts airtrain....Via Rockaway and Lefferts or 131 to 135 then Lefferts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1711 Posted July 7, 2013 As I've said on here in the past, I would send the Q9 to lefferts airtrain.... Although that makes a little more sense than Q43LTD's proposal, it still isn't a good idea. It just adds more unnecessary journey time to JFK Airport. Again, this is to serve Van Wyck residents. If the Q9 went to the Lefferts Airtrain station, then more people would just opt to drive or take a taxi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1712 Posted July 7, 2013 How about a Q9 extension to JFK via Van Wyck Boulevard. The Q9 is very short and it could use an extension. But the real point of extending it to JFK is so residents along the Van Wyck Expressway will have easier access to JFK Airport. Not to mention it doesn't diverge much from it's current route. Heres how my proposed extension would look like. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e0e04539cb6b42582 I find it odd that there are no local stops between Rockaway Blvd and the Federal Circle AirTrain station... The problem I have with this (and that the PA would have with this) is that this would essentially create a poor man's AirTrain, where travelers too cheap to pay for AirTrain get on the bus following the exact same route, while dumping them on the AirTrain (which is free for intra-airport travel), so that's a huge minus. Besides, Q9 riders who need the airport can either walk to the Q10 or transfer to the Q10 at the southern terminus of the Q9. The Q10 runs often enough for that to work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubBus Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1713 Posted July 7, 2013 1] I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting here... Are you saying that all 113 trips become LTD's (meaning, no more 113 locals), or that the local 113 trips run LTD on Brewer (meaning, 113 local & 113 LTD's would still be kept) ? 2] I agree... The question though is, at what rate, on each of the 2 routes (rhetorical)..... 3 & 4] This was an old suggestion I had, but I'll repeat it anyway (as it's somewhat relevant, I guess)..... I would have removed the Q25/34/65 stop at Jamaica ctr. bus terminal.... Always said that the masses wait for 25's/34's/65's at Jamaica/Parsons anyway (this would put the 42 & the 84 back on Archer av, instead of back there w/ the N4.... It would also have the Q25 & 65 LTD's run nonstop b/w LIRR Jamaica & Jamaica/Parsons).... The Q83 would get extended to Sutphin (via archer, via sutphin) with the Q40.... The Q110's & the Q112's first pickup stops would be moved to Parsons blvd b/w 88th & hillside (separate bus stops for each route).... The Q111 & the Q113 would then make their first pickup stops along 153rd b/w 88th & hillside (separate bus stops for each route).... In other words, only the Q110 & the Q112 would use Parsons b/w Hillside & Archer (out of the 110/111/112/113, I mean).... The Q111 & the Q113 would run down 150th b/w Hillside & Archer - which would lead 111's/113's right into that end of the bus terminal with the N4..... While I wasn't thinking about short turns with this suggestion, you could also have (would-be) short turns end there as well.... 1. I'll take option #2. 3. I was thinking of extending the Q84 to Sutphin Blvd-LIRR, the Q83 routing is not bad. If there was space, the Q84 could join the Q83 up on Sutphin.... 4. Interesting take on Baisley Park routes.....,,,,, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1714 Posted July 7, 2013 I find it odd that there are no local stops between Rockaway Blvd and the Federal Circle AirTrain station... The problem I have with this (and that the PA would have with this) is that this would essentially create a poor man's AirTrain, where travelers too cheap to pay for AirTrain get on the bus following the exact same route, while dumping them on the AirTrain (which is free for intra-airport travel), so that's a huge minus. Besides, Q9 riders who need the airport can either walk to the Q10 or transfer to the Q10 at the southern terminus of the Q9. The Q10 runs often enough for that to work. It can't make stops between Rockaway Boulevard and Federal Circle otherwise it would have to use a different, longer path and about the Q10 well passengers prefer non stop service over 1-stop and the Q10 is not that close either to Van Wyck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1715 Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Via Rockaway and Lefferts or 131 to 135 then Lefferts? via 131st & via 135th to lefferts.... Although that makes a little more sense than Q43LTD's proposal, it still isn't a good idea. It just adds more unnecessary journey time to JFK Airport. Again, this is to serve Van Wyck residents. If the Q9 went to the Lefferts Airtrain station, then more people would just opt to drive or take a taxi. Your suggestion may have been to serve van wyck residents..... My suggestion is to serve the same residents that the current Q9 does, plus an attempt to boost ridership on the route while still trying to keep the route rather efficient...... This is the main reason why I don't agree with sending Q9's all the way to T5 (Which is why I didn't bother to directly comment on your suggestion when you first posted it)...... Furthermore, explain to me how MORE people would opt to drive or take a taxi if the Q9 were to be extended to lefferts airtrain (as opposed to leaving the Q9 right where it is)..... That counter-argument doesn't make sense..... Currently, out of JFK, you have those that take airtrain b/w JFK & Jamaica, those that take the Q3, and those that xfer from Q10's to Q9's @ Rockaway blvd..... Sending Q9's to lefferts airtrain not only eliminates an xfer b/w the Q10/Q9 back to jamaica, but it would also offer a (quicker) connection to Brooklyn via the B15.... I'm quite sure riders would rather take AIRtrain freely from w/e terminal they're leaving from, to lefferts airtrain for an extended Q9 - compared to xferring b/w Q10's/Q9's & compared to taking airtrain from w/e terminal they're leaving from, to ride it out on the Q3's (which is not all that direct) back towards Jamaica...... Yeah, sending Q9's to T5 would be more direct than the Q3 b/w JFK & Jamaica, but I don't think you really need the Q3 & the Q9 ending at T5.... 1. I'll take option #2. 3. I was thinking of extending the Q84 to Sutphin Blvd-LIRR, the Q83 routing is not bad. If there was space, the Q84 could join the Q83 up on Sutphin.... 4. Interesting take on Baisley Park routes..... Hmm... interesting, (I) never put any thought into sending Q84's to LIRR Jamaica..... Edited July 7, 2013 by B35 via Church 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1716 Posted July 7, 2013 via 131st & via 135th to lefferts.... Your suggestion may have been to serve van wyck residents..... My suggestion is to serve the same residents that the current Q9 does, plus an attempt to boost ridership on the route while still trying to keep the route rather efficient...... This is the main reason why I don't agree with sending Q9's all the way to T5 (Which is why I didn't bother to directly comment on your suggestion when you first posted it)...... Furthermore, explain to me how MORE people would opt to drive or take a taxi if the Q9 were to be extended to lefferts airtrain (as opposed to leaving the Q9 right where it is)..... That counter-argument doesn't make sense..... Currently, out of JFK, you have those that take airtrain b/w JFK & Jamaica, those that take the Q3, and those that xfer from Q10's to Q9's @ Rockaway blvd..... Sending Q9's to lefferts airtrain not only eliminates an xfer b/w the Q10/Q9 back to jamaica, but it would also offer a (quicker) connection to Brooklyn via the B15.... I'm quite sure riders would rather take AIRtrain freely from w/e terminal they're leaving from, to lefferts airtrain for an extended Q9 - compared to xferring b/w Q10's/Q9's & compared to taking airtrain from w/e terminal they're leaving from, to ride it out on the Q3's (which is not all that direct) back towards Jamaica...... Yeah, sending Q9's to T5 would be more direct than the Q3 b/w JFK & Jamaica, but I don't think you really need the Q3 & the Q9 ending at T5.... Firstly my proposed Q9 diverges at most only a few blocks from it's current route on Lincoln Street so it's only a little walk to the new Q9 route. And why would more people opt to drive or use a taxi if the Q9 went to Lefferts? Because it isn't direct. People usually want to use the most direct route to get from one place to another. And I knew the airtrain would be brought up but it is actually irrelevant and do you want to know why? It doesn't make any stops along the Van Wyck Expressway so those people who want to go to JFK can't use it. Not to mention it costs $5 to ride it to JFK from Jamaica. I'd rather pay half that price for slower but still direct service. And for those people who want to go to Brooklyn via the B15, they can just take the new Q9 to Federal Circle and transfer to a B15 from there. Not trying to change your opinion but do you still want to stick with your Q9 to Lefferts after I have explained my reasoning to you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1717 Posted July 7, 2013 Firstly my proposed Q9 diverges at most only a few blocks from it's current route on Lincoln Street so it's only a little walk to the new Q9 route. And why would more people opt to drive or use a taxi if the Q9 went to Lefferts? Because it isn't direct. People usually want to use the most direct route to get from one place to another. And I knew the airtrain would be brought up but it is actually irrelevant and do you want to know why? It doesn't make any stops along the Van Wyck Expressway so those people who want to go to JFK can't use it. Not to mention it costs $5 to ride it to JFK from Jamaica. I'd rather pay half that price for slower but still direct service. And for those people who want to go to Brooklyn via the B15, they can just take the new Q9 to Federal Circle and transfer to a B15 from there. Not trying to change your opinion but do you still want to stick with your Q9 to Lefferts after I have explained my reasoning to you? The AirTrain is not irrelevant to the discussion for the very reason you posted here - you'd rather take that then a $5 ride from Jamaica. This will only siphon riders away from a service that was built expressly for the very purpose of transporting unsuspecting tourists. Plus, you end up with a Q33-like situation where you end up overcrowding a route with airport passengers, requiring very expensive increases in frequency and inconveniencing those who are using the bus to get to their homes, and not the airport. A Q9 to the airport is not going to get all its airport bound passengers from the surrounding neighborhood, which is what you're trying to imply. Airport routes only have two stable sources of ridership - business travelers and airport employees. (People on vacation are more likely to use a cab, since it's faster and cheaper the more people you're traveling with. They also fluctuate widely in numbers.) Since Southeast Queens isn't exactly a business mecca, you presumably want to target employees, who are probably provided transit passes on AirTrain and employer provided parking (I could be wrong.) If you want a cheap ride from the subway to the airport, you can take the Q10. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1718 Posted July 7, 2013 The AirTrain is not irrelevant to the discussion for the very reason you posted here - you'd rather take that then a $5 ride from Jamaica. This will only siphon riders away from a service that was built expressly for the very purpose of transporting unsuspecting tourists. Plus, you end up with a Q33-like situation where you end up overcrowding a route with airport passengers, requiring very expensive increases in frequency and inconveniencing those who are using the bus to get to their homes, and not the airport. A Q9 to the airport is not going to get all its airport bound passengers from the surrounding neighborhood, which is what you're trying to imply. Airport routes only have two stable sources of ridership - business travelers and airport employees. (People on vacation are more likely to use a cab, since it's faster and cheaper the more people you're traveling with. They also fluctuate widely in numbers.) Since Southeast Queens isn't exactly a business mecca, you presumably want to target employees, who are probably provided transit passes on AirTrain and employer provided parking (I could be wrong.) If you want a cheap ride from the subway to the airport, you can take the Q10. Whoops sorry about that contradiction about the Airtrain. Also I never said all passenger using my Q9 will go to JFK, I said it's more convinient for those who do want to go to JFK. Also I don't think it will siphon that many riders from the AirTrain since the AirTrain would still be significantly faster. Also it's a good thing if the Q9 gets more frequency because the buses are like half an hour apart. And again, using the Q10 is indirect, travelers prefer direct access and I know this because it affects passenger volumes at airport. And also taxis are expensive. I used them returning to my home from JFK and the prices can be ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemoreira81 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1719 Posted July 7, 2013 On the Q9 idea...I'm not sure if this has been proposed before---but what about instead of using Lincoln Street, south of Linden Boulevard, the Q9 uses Linden Boulevard to 130 Street, and then 130 Street down to 150 Avenue (which would be the southern terminus, shared with Q10 local short-turns and the Q37)? The direct transfer to the Q10 to the airport would be restored along 130 Street (currently, a 2-block walk is required to 129 Street), and there would be a larger footprint captured by the Q9. The Q10 was taken off 131 Street because it is too narrow, and moving the Q9 to 130 Street and Linden Boulevard places the route on wider streets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1720 Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Firstly my proposed Q9 diverges at most only a few blocks from it's current route on Lincoln Street so it's only a little walk to the new Q9 route. And why would more people opt to drive or use a taxi if the Q9 went to Lefferts? Because it isn't direct. People usually want to use the most direct route to get from one place to another. And I knew the airtrain would be brought up but it is actually irrelevant and do you want to know why? It doesn't make any stops along the Van Wyck Expressway so those people who want to go to JFK can't use it. Not to mention it costs $5 to ride it to JFK from Jamaica. I'd rather pay half that price for slower but still direct service. And for those people who want to go to Brooklyn via the B15, they can just take the new Q9 to Federal Circle and transfer to a B15 from there. Not trying to change your opinion but do you still want to stick with your Q9 to Lefferts after I have explained my reasoning to you? Lol, nope, nice try..... You gave an answer to a question I wasn't asking; I was very specific with what I asked you.... Saying that an extension of the Q9 to Lefferts AIRtrain isn't direct (compared to having buses serve one of the terminals), isn't a reason more people would drive or use a taxi to get to JFK..... You are making it sound like more people would drive or take taxi's if the Q9 were to be extended to Lefferts AIRtrain, compared to leaving the current Q9 ending at Rockaway Blvd (with those that currently take Q9's to Q10's to get to JFK)..... Obviously the AIRtrain was gonna be brought up because that's where the suggested extension would be sent to terminate at..... Anyway, the fact that AIRtrain costs $5 from Jamaica to JFK is irrelevant to my suggestion of extending Q9's to Lefferts AIRtrain, because one of the main focuses of doing so is to boost ridership on the Q9 - and not by trying to take people off AIRtrain either.... Your focus seems to be more of having another bus route from Jamaica run to Terminal 5..... I don't care about AIRtrain not making stops along the Van Wyck; it's immaterial..... What is so important or imperative that buses run along as much of the Van Wyck service road that you have it going along, compared to the way the current Q9 serves the riders that it does.... See, you are trying to make the Q9 be some sort of a direct alternative to AIRtrain between Jamaica & JFK T5 - whereas, I am not...... As far as the B15 goes, it's better to have passengers xfer b/w buses at one of the AIRtrain stops inside JFK, as opposed to some other lesser used stop inside JFK..... You're not gonna get more people willing to xfer at the Bldg 25 stop, compared to the bus stop at Lefferts AIRtrain..... So, not a single thing you've said makes me want to change my opinion.... I'm still going to (so-call) "stick" with my Q9 suggestion. Also I don't think it will siphon that many riders from the AirTrain since the AirTrain would still be significantly faster. So basically you'd opt to waste mileage on the Q9; since AIRtrain would still be significantly faster..... I mean hey, you're the one that'd have the Q9 running parallel to the Van Wyck all the way from Liberty, en route to Terminal 5..... Which is your prerogative...... On the Q9 idea...I'm not sure if this has been proposed before---but what about instead of using Lincoln Street, south of Linden Boulevard, the Q9 uses Linden Boulevard to 130 Street, and then 130 Street down to 150 Avenue (which would be the southern terminus, shared with Q10 local short-turns and the Q37)? The direct transfer to the Q10 to the airport would be restored along 130 Street (currently, a 2-block walk is required to 129 Street), and there would be a larger footprint captured by the Q9. The Q10 was taken off 131 Street because it is too narrow, and moving the Q9 to 130 Street and Linden Boulevard places the route on wider streets. While noble, all you're doing is making the transfer b/w those same two buses more convenient..... However, I'm not sure of the purpose of having Q9's end over there w/ the (short turn) Q10 & the Q37 - just so that xferring b/w the two routes (Q9/Q10) is less of an inconvenience..... If that's your main reason for running Q9's to 149th/150th, you may as well extend the current Q9 to 128th/Rockaway blvd (same stop as the westbound Q7 & the northbound Q10) & call it a day..... Which for that particular purpose, is actually a good idea..... Edited July 7, 2013 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share #1721 Posted July 7, 2013 1. I'll take option #2. 3. I was thinking of extending the Q84 to Sutphin Blvd-LIRR, the Q83 routing is not bad. If there was space, the Q84 could join the Q83 up on Sutphin.... 4. Interesting take on Baisley Park routes.....,,,,, One thing. How about leaving the 84 at the canopy and extending the 42 to Sutphin Blvd ? Another question, which route would short turn at Jamaica Ctr, 111 and/or 113 local? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1722 Posted July 7, 2013 Lol, nope, nice try..... You gave an answer to a question I wasn't asking; I was very specific with what I asked you.... Saying that an extension of the Q9 to Lefferts AIRtrain isn't direct (compared to having buses serve one of the terminals), isn't a reason more people would drive or use a taxi to get to JFK..... You are making it sound like more people would drive or take taxi's if the Q9 were to be extended to Lefferts AIRtrain, compared to leaving the current Q9 ending at Rockaway Blvd (with those that currently take Q9's to Q10's to get to JFK)..... Obviously the AIRtrain was gonna be brought up because that's where the suggested extension would be sent to terminate at..... Anyway, the fact that AIRtrain costs $5 from Jamaica to JFK is irrelevant to my suggestion of extending Q9's to Lefferts AIRtrain, because one of the main focuses of doing so is to boost ridership on the Q9 - and not by trying to take people off AIRtrain either.... Your focus seems to be more of having another bus route from Jamaica run to Terminal 5..... I don't care about AIRtrain not making stops along the Van Wyck; it's immaterial..... What is so important or imperative that buses run along as much of the Van Wyck service road that you have it going along, compared to the way the current Q9 serves the riders that it does.... See, you are trying to make the Q9 be some sort of a direct alternative to AIRtrain between Jamaica & JFK T5 - whereas, I am not...... As far as the B15 goes, it's better to have passengers xfer b/w buses at one of the AIRtrain stops inside JFK, as opposed to some other lesser used stop inside JFK..... You're not gonna get more people willing to xfer at the Bldg 25 stop, compared to the bus stop at Lefferts AIRtrain..... So, not a single thing you've said makes me want to change my opinion.... I'm still going to (so-call) "stick" with my Q9 suggestion. So basically you'd opt to waste mileage on the Q9; since AIRtrain would still be significantly faster..... I mean hey, you're the one that'd have the Q9 running parallel to the Van Wyck all the way from Liberty, en route to Terminal 5..... Which is your prerogative...... Well you can stick with your Q9 to Lefferts all you want but you aren't gonna change my proposal to JFK. Also there's nothing wrong with the Q9 being an alternative to the AirTrain. Saying it shouldn't go to JFK just because it is an AirTrain alternative is like saying the Hudson and New Haven Lines of Metro North shouldn't operate because they are cheaper alternatives to Amtrak. And tell me what's immaterial about serving Van Wyck passengers? A lot of people on Van Wyck go to JFK but don't have direct MTA service so it's important they get that service so the Q9 gets more riders. I understand exactly what your telling me about your Q9 to Lefferts for connections and I respect your idea (though I don't agree with it obviously) but again more people would benefit from direct service to JFK than connections at Lefferts AirTrain. Like I said before you can get those same connections at Federal Circle and actually it's shorter since my version of the Q9 doesn't turn off Van Wyck so it goes straight there. So although Q9 to Lefferts does somewhat make sense, it is better to send Q9s to JFK almost like an Airtrain local. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1723 Posted July 7, 2013 One thing. How about leaving the 84 at the canopy and extending the 42 to Sutphin Blvd ? Another question, which route would short turn at Jamaica Ctr, 111 and/or 113 local? Maybe it does make some sense but then again the Q42 should be left the way it is? Dunno know about this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1724 Posted July 7, 2013 The AirTrain is not irrelevant to the discussion for the very reason you posted here - you'd rather take that then a $5 ride from Jamaica. This will only siphon riders away from a service that was built expressly for the very purpose of transporting unsuspecting tourists. Plus, you end up with a Q33-like situation where you end up overcrowding a route with airport passengers, requiring very expensive increases in frequency and inconveniencing those who are using the bus to get to their homes, and not the airport. A Q9 to the airport is not going to get all its airport bound passengers from the surrounding neighborhood, which is what you're trying to imply. Airport routes only have two stable sources of ridership - business travelers and airport employees. (People on vacation are more likely to use a cab, since it's faster and cheaper the more people you're traveling with. They also fluctuate widely in numbers.) Since Southeast Queens isn't exactly a business mecca, you presumably want to target employees, who are probably provided transit passes on AirTrain and employer provided parking (I could be wrong.) If you want a cheap ride from the subway to the airport, you can take the Q10. Actually I've seen loads of Airport employees in SE Queens take the Q3.... A lot of them live on the Q85 and I've seen them transfer between the two a lot.. Could be for convenience reasons of course... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted July 7, 2013 Share #1725 Posted July 7, 2013 Well you can stick with your Q9 to Lefferts all you want but you aren't gonna change my proposal to JFK. Also there's nothing wrong with the Q9 being an alternative to the AirTrain. Saying it shouldn't go to JFK just because it is an AirTrain alternative is like saying the Hudson and New Haven Lines of Metro North shouldn't operate because they are cheaper alternatives to Amtrak. And tell me what's immaterial about serving Van Wyck passengers? A lot of people on Van Wyck go to JFK but don't have direct MTA service so it's important they get that service so the Q9 gets more riders. I understand exactly what your telling me about your Q9 to Lefferts for connections and I respect your idea (though I don't agree with it obviously) but again more people would benefit from direct service to JFK than connections at Lefferts AirTrain. Like I said before you can get those same connections at Federal Circle and actually it's shorter since my version of the Q9 doesn't turn off Van Wyck so it goes straight there. So although Q9 to Lefferts does somewhat make sense, it is better to send Q9s to JFK almost like an Airtrain local. The Q9 doesn't need to go to JFK and for the people who want to go to JFK can take the Q10 which is only a block away the the Q9's terminal. I would rather have the Q6 serve the JFK terminals because its more direct it runs more often and will be great alternative to the Q3. I can also see the Q37 extended to JFK due to the fact that it parallels the Q10 and it can take off loads from the Q10. I see people walk from the Q37 on 111th street to Lefferts to get the Q10 and they both serve the same general area. The Q9 to JFK will most likely not happen especially when the Q6 and Q37 which are more direct can serve JFK. Yeah you have the people who near the Van Wyck but they never had any problems taking the Q9 or the any other routes the cross the Van Wyck south of Jamaica Ave to the Q10. 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.