Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[NY1635]

Sorry, it appears the URL on the last post doesn't work. So here's the link again: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.klUjVM468Yjg

 

Your Q114 looks like it runs parallel to the Q40 from Ozone Park to Jamaica.

[Q43LTD]

Q114: Local service between Parsons Blvd/89 Av in Jamaica and 150 Av/130 St in South Ozone Park, via Guy R Brewer Blvd, Foch Blvd, and 130 St. Bus will operate 24/7. Here's the link: https://mapsengine.g...tw.klUjVM468Yjg

I think you're better off extending the Q9 down there for Jamaica access

[B35 via Church]

2) My mistake then.

 

3) No, people mix between the two (1/5) often, but I think the QM5 can handle the two loads of ridership from 73 Avenue and down, which is what I'm implicating. The times would be the same on the QM4 going to and from Manhattan. Times wouldn't change at all, and the ride is slightly faster to Fresh Meadows. Basically, It's grouping the QM1 riders in each trip on different buses based on destinations. The QM4 would run hourly though, and the same level of service would remain to the two QM1 stops north of 73 Avenue, so I'm not running extra service nor adding service in Fresh Meadows (however, there's a new section within Fresh Meadows served, which I'll give you that). The QM4 basically replaces the QM1 in that section, and the extra stop is there to catch any additional riders (It won't be loaded, but there could be a possibly of getting at least some ridership from there). 

 

The savings were only for those in revenue, if the DH trips were included in this count (which I didn't; there would be a few ; the current 9:15 AM, 10:15 AM, and 11:15 AM QM5 trips that would DH to Glen Oaks to start to the 10:40, 11:10, and 12:40 trips, respectively), the net savings would be less than that.

 

As for the second quote, I see where you're coming from that I'd be worried if the QM1 gets cut (since the two northern stops on the 1 would be unserved, but if that happened, I would (hope so) the MTA provides service there with the 5 during middays. So If the 1 got cut, I would think the 5 would replace it (which is good, because it gets two busloads onto busload, which is perfectly fine; they can all get a seat).

2- No problem.

 

3- I'm not confusing the QM1 with the QM5 at all, I get exactly what you'd do w/ the QM4 as it relates to the QM1, and I get that you think offpeak usage can be handled in that part of Queens on the Qm5.... Also, you keep making a sticking point about runtime, which doesn't have much of anything to do with my arguments (that's why I ignored it the first time you mentioned it)..... I get that this isn't about runtime, this whole plan is attempting to address (what you deem as questionable) distribution of service on the curent Union Tpke. routes.... The crux of my issue is your injecting the QM4 as a solution to rectifying what you're annoyed with, with the QM1 (off peak)....

 

I like how you put it though; grouping QM1 (off peak) riders on different buses (extended Qm4's or Qm5's) based on destinations.... That's a very watered down way of putting what you'd accomplish with this whole plan....

 

You still didn't answer the question of what would be done with the net savings, since you decided to post figures of the sort.....

 

 

Q114: Local service between Parsons Blvd/89 Av in Jamaica and 150 Av/130 St in South Ozone Park, via Guy R Brewer Blvd, Foch Blvd, and 130 St. Bus will operate 24/7.

 

Here's the link:https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.klUjVM468Yjg

Not understanding why such a route has to swing all the way over to Brewer from that part of South Jamaica.... That part of Queens doesn't need east-west service of the sort (which is exactly why the old Q89 severely underperformed) to end up on one of the north-south arteries anyway..... While I can agree you'd get more riders on Foch over Linden, it's immaterial.... There are various north-south routes to/from Jamaica, and justifiably so.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2) My mistake then.

 

3) No, people mix between the two (1/5) often, but I think the QM5 can handle the two loads of ridership from 73 Avenue and down, which is what I'm implicating. The times would be the same on the QM4 going to and from Manhattan. Times wouldn't change at all, and the ride is slightly faster to Fresh Meadows. Basically, It's grouping the QM1 riders in each trip on different buses based on destinations. The QM4 would run hourly though, and the same level of service would remain to the two QM1 stops north of 73 Avenue, so I'm not running extra service nor adding service in Fresh Meadows (however, there's a new section within Fresh Meadows served, which I'll give you that). The QM4 basically replaces the QM1 in that section, and the extra stop is there to catch any additional riders (It won't be loaded, but there could be a possibly of getting at least some ridership from there). 

 

The savings were only for those in revenue, if the DH trips were included in this count (which I didn't; there would be a few ; the current 9:15 AM, 10:15 AM, and 11:15 AM QM5 trips that would DH to Glen Oaks to start to the 10:40, 11:10, and 12:40 trips, respectively), the net savings would be less than that.

 

As for the second quote, I see where you're coming from that I'd be worried if the QM1 gets cut (since the two northern stops on the 1 would be unserved, but if that happened, I would (hope so) the MTA provides service there with the 5 during middays. So If the 1 got cut, I would think the 5 would replace it (which is good, because it gets two busloads onto busload, which is perfectly fine; they can all get a seat).

Same old same old with him... He wants more QM24/QM25 service for his area and wants to screw over QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6 riders... Simple as that.

[B35 via Church]

Same old same old with him... He wants more QM24/QM25 service for his area and wants to screw over QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6 riders... Simple as that.

I was unaware that I moved to Queens & want all this....

 

Seriously though. you quoted the wrong post....

Edited August 10, 2014 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

2- No problem.

 

3- I'm not confusing the QM1 with the QM5 at all, I get exactly what you'd do w/ the QM4 as it relates to the QM1, and I get that you think offpeak usage can be handled in that part of Queens on the Qm5.... Also, you keep making a sticking point about runtime, which doesn't have much of anything to do with my arguments (that's why I ignored it the first time you mentioned it)..... I get that this isn't about runtime, this whole plan is attempting to address (what you deem as questionable) distribution of service on the curent Union Tpke. routes.... The crux of my issue is your injecting the QM4 as a solution to rectifying what you're annoyed with, with the QM1 (off peak)....

 

I like how you put it though; grouping QM1 (off peak) riders on different buses (extended Qm4's or Qm5's) based on destinations.... That's a very watered down way of putting what you'd accomplish with this whole plan....

 

You still didn't answer the question of what would be done with the net savings, since you decided to post figures of the sort.....

The reason why I created a QM4 extension into Fresh Meadows was because the other option was to reroute the QM5 via Fresh Meadows during all the other times (and I doubt the QM5 riders would be pleased with that). The QM4 as it's now has able a 30 minute layover on the Elechester side (plus whatever else in Manhattan). However, about 5 or so minutes is spent going all the way way out to Utopia Pkwy, and looping back to 164, since the QM4 can't turn around on the side streets, nor make a u-turn. The runtime would be about 13 minutes to go to 188, and back, leaving 10 minutes to spare.

 

As for the net savings, I haven't bothered calculating how much in reality is saved (although I'll say it's below the $475,000 mark, as an educated guess). However, I would use the net savings to improve/ enhance the express routes within College Point Depot, or even the local routes. Which routes to say , I would say the QM3 , as in adding an extra trip in each direction, and for the rest of the savings, I don't really know exactly.

Same old same old with him... He wants more QM24/QM25 service for his area and wants to screw over QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6 riders... Simple as that.

Really, what makes you think that (if I added all the net savings from all the proposals that I've had that would say money , local and express, I would have X1 headways throughout the day), specifically the 25.

 

And I don't see how I'm screwing over riders on the QM6 when I'm adding a PM outbound trip (besides aligning trips to operate 10 minutes later in the AM and early midday hours). 

 

I'm not even changing nothing on the QM4 besides the extension, which doesn't change the schedule on the current route.

 

I won't deny the fact that I wish the QM24 had more service than it currently has, but to say everything ties back down to improving service within my area (which is a flat out lie), is the nerve.

Edited August 10, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The reason why I created a QM4 extension into Fresh Meadows was because the other option was to reroute the QM5 via Fresh Meadows during all the other times (and I doubt the QM5 riders would be pleased with that). The QM4 as it's now has able a 30 minute layover on the Elechester side (plus whatever else in Manhattan). However, about 5 or so minutes is spent going all the way way out to Utopia Pkwy, and looping back to 164, since the QM4 can't turn around on the side streets, nor make a u-turn. The runtime would be about 13 minutes to go to 188, and back, leaving 10 minutes to spare.

 

As for the net savings, I haven't bothered calculating how much in reality is saved (although I'll say it's below the $475,000 mark, as an educated guess). However, I would use the net savings to improve/ enhance the express routes within College Point Depot, or even the local routes. Which routes to say , I would say the QM3 , as in adding an extra trip in each direction, and for the rest of the savings, I don't really know exactly.

 

Really, what makes you think that (if I added all the net savings from all the proposals that I've had that would say money , local and express, I would have X1 headways throughout the day), specifically the 25.

 

And I don't see how I'm screwing over riders on the QM6 when I'm adding a PM outbound trip (besides aligning trips to operate 10 minutes later in the AM and early midday hours). 

 

I'm not even changing nothing on the QM4 besides the extension, which doesn't change the schedule on the current route.

 

I won't deny the fact that I wish the QM24 had more service than it currently has, but to say everything ties back down to improving service within my area (which is a flat out lie), is the nerve.

lol... It's nerve because you know it's true... So tell us then, what would you do with the extra savings?? 

 

I was unaware that I moved to Queens & want all this....

 

Seriously though. you quoted the wrong post....

I said him not you... The point was to note that his proposals in my mind are nothing new, so you shouldn't be shocked or surprised by it.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

lol... It's nerve because you know it's true... So tell us then, what would you do with the extra savings?? 

 

I said him not you... The point was to note that his proposals in my mind are nothing new, so you shouldn't be shocked or surprised by it.

I just explained it in the same post you quoted me on...

 

 

The reason why I created a QM4 extension into Fresh Meadows was because the other option was to reroute the QM5 via Fresh Meadows during all the other times (and I doubt the QM5 riders would be pleased with that). The QM4 as it's now has able a 30 minute layover on the Elechester side (plus whatever else in Manhattan). However, about 5 or so minutes is spent going all the way way out to Utopia Pkwy, and looping back to 164, since the QM4 can't turn around on the side streets, nor make a u-turn. The runtime would be about 13 minutes to go to 188, and back, leaving 10 minutes to spare.

 

As for the net savings, I haven't bothered calculating how much in reality is saved (although I'll say it's below the $475,000 mark, as an educated guess). However, I would use the net savings to improve/ enhance the express routes within College Point Depot, or even the local routes. Which routes to say , I would say the QM3 , as in adding an extra trip in each direction, and for the rest of the savings, I don't really know exactly.

 

Really, what makes you think that (if I added all the net savings from all the proposals that I've had that would say money , local and express, I would have X1 headways throughout the day), specifically the 25.

 

And I don't see how I'm screwing over riders on the QM6 when I'm adding a PM outbound trip (besides aligning trips to operate 10 minutes later in the AM and early midday hours). 

 

I'm not even changing nothing on the QM4 besides the extension, which doesn't change the schedule on the current route.

 

I won't deny the fact that I wish the QM24 had more service than it currently has, but to say everything ties back down to improving service within my area (which is a flat out lie), is the nerve.

 

Edited August 10, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I just explained it in the same post you quoted me one...

lol... So you'd take away express service and not use that money to better express bus service... That's insane... That money if anything should go solely to improve express bus service only and not be considered for any local bus.

[B35 via Church]

I said him not you... The point was to note that his proposals in my mind are nothing new, so you shouldn't be shocked or surprised by it.

Yeah but look, To make the point you were making, you either:

 

- Quote my post & say what you said verbatim, or...

- Quote his post & change the pronouns to reflect the message you're conveying... like this:

 

*Same old same old with you.. you want more QM24/QM25 service for your area and want to screw over QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6 riders... Simple as that.*

----

 

The fact of the matter is, You quoting his post & saying what you said verbatim, makes it look like you're referring to me..... Not him.

You should know forum etiquette by now...

 

The reason why I created a QM4 extension into Fresh Meadows was because the other option was to reroute the QM5 via Fresh Meadows during all the other times (and I doubt the QM5 riders would be pleased with that). The QM4 as it's now has able a 30 minute layover on the Elechester side (plus whatever else in Manhattan). However, about 5 or so minutes is spent going all the way way out to Utopia Pkwy, and looping back to 164, since the QM4 can't turn around on the side streets, nor make a u-turn. The runtime would be about 13 minutes to go to 188, and back, leaving 10 minutes to spare.

 

As for the net savings, I haven't bothered calculating how much in reality is saved (although I'll say it's below the $475,000 mark, as an educated guess). However, I would use the net savings to improve/ enhance the express routes within College Point Depot, or even the local routes. Which routes to say , I would say the QM3 , as in adding an extra trip in each direction, and for the rest of the savings, I don't really know exactly.

...and what makes you think Qm4 riders would be pleased exactly?

 You know how territorial express bus riders are, so what's making you think they would welcome an extension to Fresh Meadows is beyond me....

 

As for the net savings, I'm not questioning the validity of your figures.... I'm questioning why you even went out your way to post figures of any sort in the first place.... You posted numbers/figures for a reason.... That's why I stated earlier that your proposal is very calculating..... If you wanted to convey that there would be losses with one part of your proposal & there'd be incurred costs with another part of your proposal, that's all you really had to say.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah but look, To make the point you were making, you either:

 

- Quote my post & say what you said verbatim, or...

- Quote his post & change the pronouns to reflect the message you're conveying... like this:

 

*Same old same old with you.. you want more QM24/QM25 service for your area and want to screw over QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6 riders... Simple as that.*

----

 

The fact of the matter is, You quoting his post & saying what you said verbatim, makes it look like you're referring to me..... Not him.

You should know forum etiquette by now...

Oh please with that... I quoted you because you're entertaining this proposal as if you're in the dark about what his agenda is so in my mind I was killing two birds with one stone. It's not as if he isn't going to reply either way and this certainly isn't the first time that he's talked about the QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6.

[B35 via Church]

Oh please with that... I quoted you because you're entertaining this proposal as if you're in the dark about what his agenda is so in my mind I was killing two birds with one stone. It's not as if he isn't going to reply either way and this certainly isn't the first time that he's talked about the QM1, QM4, QM5 and QM6.

Here you go with the oh please bit....

Actually, I don't know what his motive is (especially with posting those figures).... That's why I'm asking.

I sure as hell wasn't thinking about no QM24/25, so miss me with that..... You act like he doesn't go on & on about the BM5, Q38, and Q67 as well, so that could be part of his agenda too.... Forgot about that huh.... Nothing saying cuts from one express route has to go to some other express route.....

 

The rest of this, is nothing more than you covering your ass... You sit here & say in your mind you were killing 2 birds w/ one stone, but how the hell was I supposed to know that, if that's infact true.... Regardless, I don't know what it is with you, but you can't admit to a mistake for shit.... This is one of many reasons why you get into arguments on these forums.... I mean really, shit happens...

Edited August 10, 2014 by B35 via Church

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Here you go with the oh please bit....

Actually, I don't know what his motive is (especially with posting those figures).... That's why I'm asking.

I sure as hell wasn't thinking about no QM24/25, so miss me with that.....

 

The rest of it, is nothing more than you covering your ass... I don't know what it is with you, but you can't admit to a mistake for shit.... I mean really, shit happens...

It wasn't a mistake. I know what I was doing and why.  What I should perhaps apologize for is me thinking that you were so privy to his thinking process, but he's talked about QM service quite a bit in chat which you don't come into often.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

...and what makes you think Qm4 riders would be pleased exactly?

 You know how territorial express bus riders are, so what's making you think they would welcome an extension to Fresh Meadows is beyond me....

 

As for the net savings, I'm not questioning the validity of your figures.... I'm questioning why you even went out your way to post figures of any sort in the first place.... You posted numbers/figures for a reason.... That's why I stated earlier that your proposal is very calculating..... If you wanted to convey that there would be losses with one part of your proposal & there'd be incurred costs with another part of your proposal, that's all you really had to say.....

I figured since there was enough time for buses to make the run out to Fresh Meadows and back, that there wouldn't really be any problems, with there being three stops (which really wouldn't gain too many riders as to make the bus overcrowded). 

 

Well, yeah, there would be losses and costs to the proposal (as you said). The net savings would have to go to something, I guess (which is why I said I wasn't sure where to put it), because IIRC I read somewhere on this forum that any savings would have to be placed onto something else or else funding goes down or something (or I might have misinterpreted). But yeah, there would be costs and losses with this proposal, in general.

It wasn't a mistake. I know what I was doing and why.  What I should perhaps apologize for is me thinking that you were so privy to his thinking process, but he's talked about QM service quite a bit in chat which you don't come into often.

What does that have to do with anything (and you know very well the things I posted on chat, which really have nothing to do with cutting or adding trips, so this point is moot).

[B35 via Church]

It wasn't a mistake. I know what I was doing and why.  What I should perhaps apologize for is me thinking that you were so privy to his thinking process, but he's talked about QM service quite a bit in chat which you don't come into often.

Good.... Then you shouldn't have came at me on a high horse talking about "entertaining this proposal as if you're in the dark about what his agenda is"...

 

What does that have to do with anything (and you know very well the things I posted on chat, which really have nothing to do with cutting or adding trips, so this point is moot).

Although I don't know what you said in chat, I know that you've had some other ideas regarding the QM1 in the past.... You've been miffed about the QM1 for quite some time now....

 

I figured since there was enough time for buses to make the run out to Fresh Meadows and back, that there wouldn't really be any problems, with there being three stops (which really wouldn't gain too many riders as to make the bus overcrowded). 

 

Well, yeah, there would be losses and costs to the proposal (as you said). The net savings would have to go to something, I guess (which is why I said I wasn't sure where to put it), because IIRC I read somewhere on this forum that any savings would have to be placed onto something else or else funding goes down or something (or I might have misinterpreted). But yeah, there would be costs and losses with this proposal, in general.

Lol.... Come on now, this is where I don't believe you... You know where you want those savings to go

It's highly unlikely that you went the lengths to conjuring up such figures (again, not questioning the validity, but they're still numbers, no matter how it's sliced) & are unsure of where (in your mind) they would go....

 

As to funding goes down if there are savings... heh, I'm more inclined to believe that it is pocketed....

Edited August 10, 2014 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Good.... Then you shouldn't have came at me on a high horse talking about "entertaining this proposal as if you're in the dark about what his agenda is"...

 

Come on now.... You know where you want those savings to go

Unfortunately the QM24/QM25/QM15/BM5 aren't out of college point, neither is the Q67. I would use the Q38 if It wasn't so f'ing crowded when I need it, but I think the Penelope Avenue portion is the reason nothing has changed in the past 6 years or so , with the occasional schedule change here and there. I would think any savings would go to the local routes (25/34, 38, 65, 66), but I do think the QM3 could benefit with 2 extra trips (an 8:10 AM outta LNP, and a 4:35 PM outta 6/36).

lol... So you'd take away express service and not use that money to better express bus service... That's insane... That money if anything should go solely to improve express bus service only and not be considered for any local bus.

"As for the net savings, I haven't bothered calculating how much in reality is saved (although I'll say it's below the $475,000 mark, as an educated guess). However, I would use the net savings to improve/ enhance the express routes within College Point Depot, or even the local routes. Which routes to say , I would say the QM3 , as in adding an extra trip in each direction, and for the rest of the savings, I don't really know exactly."

 

What I find insane is that you (in this particular post [oh who am I kidding, you showed this in the Rosedale thread too]) hold a point of view that local buses as they are are enough. Now it isn't. I mean, look at the routes out of CP; most of the local routes during the rush hour are so packed to the point where you sometimes are skipped (which has happened to me several times). Let's look at the Q46 as well, even though reverse peak service is very frequent, you still have crowded buses, and god help you if you're the one waiting at the stops after the subway all the way up to Utopia in the PM peak for a 46. The 88 (which I take), most of the time you won't even get a seat at the first stop in Elmhurst, no matter what time of the day, and season.

 

I would try to improve BOTH modes, so you thinking that I'm just fixed on one or the other isn't true. Well of course, you would say that you would use the funds the improve express bus service, because god help you if you need to take the local bus when the express doesn't run to somewhere.

Edited August 10, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[B35 via Church]

Unfortunately the QM24/QM25/QM15/BM5 aren't out of college point, neither is the Q67. I would use the Q38 if It wasn't so f'ing crowded when I need it, but I think the Penelope Avenue portion is the reason nothing has changed in the past 6 years or so , with the occasional schedule change here and there. I would think any savings would go to the local routes (25/34, 38, 65, 66), but I do think the QM3 could benefit with 2 extra trips (an 8:10 AM outta LNP, and a 4:35 PM outta 6/36).

Well at least now you give an answer (somewhat).... However, what does college point has to do with it?

 

Any savings that so happen to come from service (in terms of headways) or routing alterations routes from a like depot, doesn't have to go back to that depot..... That would be like me saying since the B70 went back to its reverted route (meaning it'll cost less to run the thing now), those savings have to go back to a JG route.... Not how that works.

 

I don't wanna turn this into another *the Q38 should be split* discussion, but what is it that those riders in middle village  (penelope spur) want exactly..... I mean, I get that they don't want the routing within their neighborhood to be touched, but where are they generally taking buses to, for them to be the reason that progress (in our opinions) is being stunted on the Q38 in its entirety? Or is it just one of those *you better leave the Q38 alone because it's used as backup, just in case the car's gotta go to the shop* (or something along those lines).....

Edited August 10, 2014 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Well at least now you give an answer (somewhat).... However, what does college point has to do with it?

 

Any savings that so happen to come from service (in terms of headways) or routing alterations routes from a like depot, doesn't have to go back to that depot..... That would be like me saying since the B70 went back to its reverted route (meaning it'll cost less to run the thing now), those savings have to go back to a JG route.... Not how that works.

I originally said in the post in the previous page that I would use the savings within college point, because there are some routes which could use the extra service within the pool of routes at college point (local and express).

[B35 via Church]

^^ See revised post...

 

I originally said in the post in the previous page that I would use the savings within college point, because there are some routes which could use the extra service within the pool of routes at college point (local and express).

You don't have to parenthesize local & express... I know you don't have a bias when it comes to that....

 

Anyway.... alright, so YOU would use those savings for a college point route.... got it.

---

 

It's not gonna end here though.... lol...

Which CP route do you think should most of said savings go towards.... and why?

(please don't say the 66 so LTD service can be added to it)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Unfortunately the QM24/QM25/QM15/BM5 aren't out of college point, neither is the Q67. I would use the Q38 if It wasn't so f'ing crowded when I need it, but I think the Penelope Avenue portion is the reason nothing has changed in the past 6 years or so , with the occasional schedule change here and there. I would think any savings would go to the local routes (25/34, 38, 65, 66), but I do think the QM3 could benefit with 2 extra trips (an 8:10 AM outta LNP, and a 4:35 PM outta 6/36).

 

"As for the net savings, I haven't bothered calculating how much in reality is saved (although I'll say it's below the $475,000 mark, as an educated guess). However, I would use the net savings to improve/ enhance the express routes within College Point Depot, or even the local routes. Which routes to say , I would say the QM3 , as in adding an extra trip in each direction, and for the rest of the savings, I don't really know exactly."

 

What I find insane is that you (in this particular post [oh who am I kidding, you showed this in the Rosedale thread too]) hold a point of view that local buses as they are are enough. Now it isn't. I mean, look at the routes out of CP; most of the local routes during the rush hour are so packed to the point where you sometimes are skipped (which has happened to me several times). Let's look at the Q46 as well, even though reverse peak service is very frequent, you still have crowded buses, and god help you if you're the one waiting at the stops after the subway all the way up to Utopia in the PM peak for a 46. The 88 (which I take), most of the time you won't even get a seat at the first stop in Elmhurst, no matter what time of the day, and season.

 

I would try to improve BOTH modes, so you thinking that I'm just fixed on one or the other isn't true. Well of course, you would say that you would use the funds the improve express bus service, because god help you if you need to take the local bus when the express doesn't run to somewhere.

It has nothing to do with not thinking that local bus service improvements aren't needed.  This just goes back to your agenda of stealing service from one group of people to give another, which I don't support in any way shape or form.  It seems as if you have it made up in your mind that QM1 riders don't need their service and that their service should be taken away and put elsewhere, be it other express bus lines or elsewhere. Just because your service was stolen doesn't mean others should have theirs stolen. 

Good.... Then you shouldn't have came at me on a high horse talking about "entertaining this proposal as if you're in the dark about what his agenda is"...

 

Well it isn't as if he hasn't talked about cutting service on the QM1 before in this thread before, but like I said, you haven't been privy to chat as much so I'll give you that much.

 

What gets me "in trouble" is that my views vary significantly from others and I'm outspoken about it.  That certainly has nothing do with "making mistakes"... Two very different things. I don't apologize for having a different point of view.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

Well it isn't as if he hasn't talked about cutting service on the QM1 before in this thread before, but like I said, you haven't been privy to chat as much so I'll give you that much.

 

What gets me "in trouble" is that my views vary significantly from others and I'm outspoken about it.  That certainly has nothing do with "making mistakes"... Two very different things. I don't apologize for having a different point of view.

Yeah, well you should have thought about that before saying what you did... I don't know what the hell this guy says in the chatroom.....

 

 

The other part of this post....

I said one of many reasons (which includes the backlash you get from your differing views) - Don't know what's unclear about that.

Didn't say shit about making mistakes having anything to do with your views that "vary significantly from others"...

 

...and what is this about not apologizing for your differing views? I don't care if you do or don't.... That's up to you.

Edited August 10, 2014 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I don't wanna turn this into another *the Q38 should be split* discussion, but what is it that those riders in middle village  (penelope spur) want exactly..... I mean, I get that they don't want the routing within their neighborhood to be touched, but where are they generally taking buses to, for them to be the reason that progress (in our opinions) is being stunted on the Q38 in its entirety? Or is it just one of those *you better leave the Q38 alone because it's used as backup, just in case the car's gotta go to the shop* (or something along those lines).....

The Penelope riders use the Q38 in both directions during both parts of the rush hours. The Eliot Avenue riders do that also, but many are geared to the QBL, and take the and from there. In the Penelope Avenue spur, the Q38 is used to the at 63 Drive, and to the Metropolitan Avenue station. Ridership in the Eliot Avenue portion is more 75/25 (to the QBL/ to the at metro), while the Penelope Avenue section is more 55/45 (to the QBL/to the at metro). Ridership on the Eliot Avenue is also significantly higher than the Penelope Avenue section. Service is more evened out on the Penelope Avenue section, basically, and the buses aren't as crowded in each direction, so I think that impedes the Q38's decrease in headway.

 

 

You don't have to parenthesize local & express... I know you don't have a bias when it comes to that....

 

Anyway.... alright, so YOU would use those savings for a college point route.... got it.

---

 

It's not gonna end here though.... lol...

Which CP route do you think should most of said savings go towards.... and why?

(please don't say the 66 so LTD service can be added to it)

Don't worry, I don't think the 66 should have a limited (well not anymore, I have proposed it too here, but that was long ago). 

 

I think either the Q25 or the Q34 (depending) could get it. I've heard that those buses still get really crowded during the late PM and early evening hours (until about 9:30 PM). Either I would decrease the headway of the Q25 to every 12 minutes until about 9:30 PM, or extend those current Q34's after just about 8:20 PM that start running as a shuttle (sort-of) between Flushing and Whitestone to Jamaica to fill in those gaps (although I think that would make it too frequent). I would also add a Q25 trip from Flushing to College Point at 8:50 PM. This would close a somewhat wide gap for riders north of the Whitestone Expressway (and people use those buses like crazy; seen it several times after making my way from the Q17 to the Q58 going home in the evening, and that 9:03 PM trip is used very heavily, never mind the people who get on with shopping bags and stuff. The 8:51 PM Q34 only does so much (does "no justice" as you would say, to the College Point riders). During the AM, I don't know if it needs extra service, but the late PM and evening could use several more Q25's.

Edited August 10, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

It has nothing to do with not thinking that local bus service improvements aren't needed.  This just goes back to your agenda of stealing service from one group of people to give another, which I don't support in any way shape or form.  It seems as if you have it made up in your mind that QM1 riders don't need their service and that their service should be taken away and put elsewhere, be it other express bus lines or elsewhere. Just because your service was stolen doesn't mean others should have theirs stolen. 

 

Well it isn't as if he hasn't talked about cutting service on the QM1 before in this thread before, but like I said, you haven't been privy to chat as much so I'll give you that much.

 

What gets me "in trouble" is that my views vary significantly from others and I'm outspoken about it.  That certainly has nothing do with "making mistakes"... Two very different things. I don't apologize for having a different point of view.

I never said that, I'm all for keeping service in their spans as they are, but I think service could be ran more efficiently during the day to the point where it wouldn't be utter chaos. That's why I proposed what I proposed.

 

Once again, what does what I say in the chat have to do with this. I'll possibly understand if it was interrelated, but there is no correlation whatsoever.

 

And I don't care about your views being different. That's why we have discussions. However, when you are called out for a mistake, you try to defend yourself like there's no end and you're right. Look at the thread from last week, 8 people called you out on a mistake or misjudgement, tell me what you did...

Edited August 10, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I never said that, I'm all for keeping service in their spans as they are, but I think service could be ran more efficiently during the day to the point where it wouldn't be utter chaos. That's why I proposed what I proposed.

 

Once again, what does what I say in the chat have to do with this. I'll possibly understand if it was interrelated, but there is no correlation whatsoever.

 

And I don't care about your views being different. That's why we have discussions. However, when you are called out for a mistake, you try to defend yourself like there's no end and you're right. Look at the thread from last week, about 5+ people called you out on a mistake, tell me what you did...

There was no mistake on my end in that thread.  I changed my views based on the information I was privy to, and once it was clear what happened, I made my position very clear.

 

What you're doing here is yelling about "efficiency" when you what you've said previously about QM1, QM5 and QM6 riders having too much service during the day time and you not understanding why the QM1 needs to run and it relates to this thread because you've made this point numerous times in chat.  The fact that you keep bringing up QM1 midday service just shows your stubborness about their service and their needs.

 

Yeah, well you should have thought about that before saying what you did... I don't know what the hell this guy says in the chatroom.....

 

 

The other part of this post....

I said one of many reasons (which includes the backlash you get from your differing views) - Don't know what's unclear about that.

Didn't say shit about making mistakes having anything to do with your views that "vary significantly from others"...

 

...and what is this about not apologizing for your differing views? I don't care if you do or don't.... That's up to you.

I'm just setting the record straight that it wasn't a mistake and that I won't apologize for my differing views.  

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

There was no mistake on my end in that thread.  I changed my views based on the information I was privy to, and once it was clear what happened, I made my position very clear.

 

What you're doing here is yelling about "efficiency" when you what you've said previously about QM1, QM5 and QM6 riders having too much service during the day time and you not understanding why the QM1 needs to run and it relates to this thread because you've made this point numerous times in chat.  The fact that you keep bringing up QM1 midday service just shows your stubborness about their service and their needs.

 

I'm just setting the record straight that it wasn't a mistake and that I won't apologize for my differing views.  

If you're referring to the statement (where I said something along the lines of I don't like the QM1 , although the irony is that I use it), then yeah, but that was eons ago. I haven't been talking about the express in chat as of lately, although I have talked about suing the QM5 to the QM24 home, which still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The fact that I sometimes myself end up using the QM1 with my erratic week schedule instead of the QM5 when I use either of the two tells keeps telling me the same story each time; been riding the pair for over a year, and everytime I've been seeing the same amount of people, all the time. 

Edited August 10, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven