Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Q43LTD]

There's no need for the Q69 to go to Flushing. That's what the and Q66 for LIC-Flushing travel

[Mtatransit]

The Q19 should have its frequency bumped up daytime to every 20 min and last bus extended to 9PM. I feel like that for the Q49, overnight service could be warranted, as buses end late and begin really early anyways and there are always people waiting at 74 St even at 12 AM

[B35 via Church]

I would scrap the Q19 and extend the Q69 to Flushing.

For what benefit?

 

 

There's no need for the Q69 to go to Flushing. That's what the and Q66 for LIC-Flushing travel

That, and Astoria Blvd doesn't need all that service that the Q69 provides....

 

One of the problems I've long had with that route is its NB terminal.... Also don't care for how erratic it runs.....

In any case, I'd turn it into the 21st st LTD (and run it to Metropolitan ) & have Q100's running local to Rikers....

The main reason it's (100) even a LTD is b/c of Rikers (Q100R) - that route didn't have # of stops it does now (they added a couple before the route got renamed).....

 

Now that the Q19 runs to Flushing & runs to the projects, the only thing I would do for the route is to expand the span (to run later than it currently does).... Routing-wise, nothing.....

[Q43LTD]

 

 

 

That, and Astoria Blvd doesn't need all that service that the Q69 provides....

 

One of the problems I've long had with that route is its NB terminal.... Also don't care for how erratic it runs.....

In any case, I'd turn it into the 21st st LTD (and run it to Metropolitan ) & have Q100's running local to Rikers....

The main reason it's (100) even a LTD is b/c of Rikers (Q100R) - that route didn't have # of stops it does now (they added a couple before the route got renamed).....

 

Now that the Q19 runs to Flushing & runs to the projects, the only thing I would do for the route is to expand the span (to run later than it currently does).... Routing-wise, nothing.....

So you'd have the Q69 running to Brooklyn? I guess the B62 must really be that bad. I thought the Q100 (then Q101R) got the additional stops after it was relabeled? Same about the Q19, been saying it for awhile. Let it run until like 10 or 11

[checkmatechamp13]

The Q101R was relabeled the Q100 in April 2008, still running nonstop between the and the Q101 terminal at the parking lot for Rikers Island.

 

The Q100 received the extra stops along 21st Street in February 2009.

 

Sometime between, they added a stop at 20th Avenue & 31st Street (in 2009, only the 21st Street stops were added)

[B35 via Church]

The Q101R was relabeled the Q100 in April 2008, still running nonstop between the and the Q101 terminal at the parking lot for Rikers Island.

 

The Q100 received the extra stops along 21st Street in February 2009.

 

Sometime between, they added a stop at 20th Avenue & 31st Street (in 2009, only the 21st Street stops were added)

It was either in June or July of that year (2008)....

 

 

So you'd have the Q69 running to Brooklyn? I guess the B62 must really be that bad. I thought the Q100 (then Q101R) got the additional stops after it was relabeled? Same about the Q19, been saying it for awhile. Let it run until like 10 or 11

The B62 isn't "that route" anymore for Brooklyn-Queens (if you catch my drift).... I've mentioned in other posts that it's not only people that are using the B32 & B62 interchangeably, but those that are passing up B62's for B32's.....

 

What I'm attempting to address by running the Q69 into Brooklyn is the void that the current B32 & B62 does not fill - running any deeper in Queens north of QBP (while both the Q69 & the Q100 end there).... Q69's double back to Court Sq. to serve more of 21st, while the Q100 runs LTD from QBP as a significantly shorter route - both of those things I'm not fond of....

 

So yeah, instead of running B62's to Astoria or B32's to Astoria, I'd run the Q69 to Met , cut it back to Astoria, and run them LTD..... Q69's running to 82nd I've always found to be a waste of time.... But anyway, if all this means more people taking 100's to get to QBP, service levels would need a readjustment (which I have no problem with) - as the Q69 has always garnered a good crowd at the 21st/44th dr stop....

 

Yeah, the Q100 got the addition of stops; thought that's what I said? Maybe I could've worded it better, but I was in a rush yesterday morning... But yeah, funny how Q101 riders back then got the Q101R to run along 21st to serve Rikers, to it now having gotten morphed into the 21st st LTD - that happens to serve Rikers..... Something else I wanted to mention yesterday was that, what would happen to the Q100 when they shut down Rikers? End it with the Q101 (which would be some irony... lol) or something..... Or take the cheap route & cut it outright & tell riders to take Q69's or Q101's.... As problematic as the Q69 is, cutting the Q100 would cut what? 1/3 of the BPH 21st gets?

Edited May 28, 2017 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 As problematic as the Q69 is, cutting the Q100 would cut what? 1/3 of the BPH 21st gets?

Ignoring the Q66, it varies (but would be a significant amount):

 

On weekdays, in percentage, cutting the Q100 cuts 37.5-60% of service on 21 Street. The biggest cuts would be during the evening hours.

 

On Saturdays, for most parts of the day, cutting Q100 cuts 33-62% of service on 21 Street. The biggest cuts would be during the daytime, when the Q100 is more frequent than the Q69 (every 10 minutes vs every 15 minutes, respectively).

 

On Sundays, for most parts of the day, cutting the Q100 cuts 33-71% of service on 21 Street. The Q100 runs more frequent service on Sundays than any other day of the week (every 8 minutes), compared to the Q69 running every 20 minutes. Evening service is hourly, so in terms of percentage, it isn't much.

 

Obviously, during the overnight hours, it is at or close to a 100% cut of service on 21 Street.

First part, yeah, agreed...

 

Second part.... Depends how much longer we're talking about, because Astoria Blvd, for long stretches, gets eerily quiet (quieter than normal major streets, I find).... I wouldn't go past 10pm for the Q19... As for the M60, I have no problem whatsoever with it not making anymore stops than it needs to along Astoria during later hours.....

 

10-11 PM should be fine for the Q19 (with the last bus leaving Flushing at 10 PM and the last bus leaving Astoria at 11 PM). I currently don't like that buses DH back to CP once reaching Astoria Houses (the last few buses). Thwy could go back into service instead. They don't even have to go the full route, perhaps to like 102 Street and then DH. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl

[IAlam]

Well I guess the Q19 problem was addressed before I got to mention it. 

 

 

Ignoring the Q66, it varies (but would be a significant amount):

 

On weekdays, in percentage, cutting the Q100 cuts 37.5-60% of service on 21 Street. The biggest cuts would be during the evening hours.

 

On Saturdays, for most parts of the day, cutting Q100 cuts 33-62% of service on 21 Street. The biggest cuts would be during the daytime, when the Q100 is more frequent than the Q69 (every 10 minutes vs every 15 minutes, respectively).

 

On Sundays, for most parts of the day, cutting the Q100 cuts 33-71% of service on 21 Street. The Q100 runs more frequent service on Sundays than any other day of the week (every 8 minutes), compared to the Q69 running every 20 minutes. Evening service is hourly, so in terms of percentage, it isn't much.

 

Obviously, during the overnight hours, it is at or close to a 100% cut of service on 21 Street.

 

10-11 PM should be fine for the Q19 (with the last bus leaving Flushing at 10 PM and the last bus leaving Astoria at 11 PM). I currently don't like that buses DH back to CP once reaching Astoria Houses (the last few buses). Thwy could go back into service instead. They don't even have to go the full route, perhaps to like 102 Street and then DH. 

 

deadheading from Flushing to CP is not very difficult especially at night. 

[B35 via Church]

Ignoring the Q66, it varies (but would be a significant amount):

 

On weekdays, in percentage, cutting the Q100 cuts 37.5-60% of service on 21 Street. The biggest cuts would be during the evening hours.

 

On Saturdays, for most parts of the day, cutting Q100 cuts 33-62% of service on 21 Street. The biggest cuts would be during the daytime, when the Q100 is more frequent than the Q69 (every 10 minutes vs every 15 minutes, respectively).

 

On Sundays, for most parts of the day, cutting the Q100 cuts 33-71% of service on 21 Street. The Q100 runs more frequent service on Sundays than any other day of the week (every 8 minutes), compared to the Q69 running every 20 minutes. Evening service is hourly, so in terms of percentage, it isn't much.

 

Obviously, during the overnight hours, it is at or close to a 100% cut of service on 21 Street.

Cool, but how long did it take for you to figure all of that out?

 

10-11 PM should be fine for the Q19 (with the last bus leaving Flushing at 10 PM and the last bus leaving Astoria at 11 PM). I currently don't like that buses DH back to CP once reaching Astoria Houses (the last few buses). Thwy could go back into service instead. They don't even have to go the full route, perhaps to like 102 Street and then DH. 

I'd say 11pm is pushing it; that would mean a bus getting to Flushing around 11:25-11:30 or so.... Arriving to either terminal at/around 10:30-11pm to head back to the depot should be good enough for the route.....

 

Personally don't see the point of a Q19 running from Astoria to the Q49 terminal only.... For starters, the Q18 runs to around 1am IIRC, so let that route transport those folks to the subway if need be (which is what's done anyway).... There's a greater demand for later service from Flushing on the Q19, so if I were to take your stance, I'd have buses leaving Flushing at 11 & buses leaving Astoria at 10..... Run short turned buses to 82nd or something, then have them DH to the depot from there....

 

deadheading from Flushing to CP is not very difficult especially at night. 

Agreed.... But he's referring to the distance, which I don't see as problematic either....

[checkmatechamp13]

deadheading from Flushing to CP is not very difficult especially at night. 

 

Isn't the Q19 based out of LGA? I see on page 7 of the schedule PDF that it says LG (whereas page 16 of the Q25 schedule says CP)

 

In any case, I do agree with the general idea that buses should run back to the depot in service. So they should make at least a partial trip towards the other destination where it makes sense.

 

I'd say 11pm is pushing it; that would mean a bus getting to Flushing around 11:25-11:30 or so.... Arriving to either terminal at/around 10:30-11pm to head back to the depot should be good enough for the route.....

 

Personally don't see the point of a Q19 running from Astoria to the Q49 terminal only.... For starters, the Q18 runs to around 1am IIRC, so let that route transport those folks to the subway if need be (which is what's done anyway).... There's a greater demand for later service from Flushing on the Q19, so if I were to take your stance, I'd have buses leaving Flushing at 11 & buses leaving Astoria at 10..... Run short turned buses to 82nd or something, then have them DH to the depot from there....

 

The thing I realized is if the Q19 were to be combined with the Q48, Corona riders would get the short end of the stick with the shorter span. The Q48 generally leaves Flushing past 1am (except Sunday, when buses leave a little before midnight). Would you just have those late-evening riders take the or Q66 and make their way from there? (Buses also start around 4:30am as well, whereas the Q19 starts much later)

 

Or is that span outdated as well (being based off the idea that you have airport workers going to/from these odd shifts that requires such a long span)?

[danielhg121]

Isn't the Q19 based out of LGA? I see on page 7 of the schedule PDF that it says LG (whereas page 16 of the Q25 schedule says CP)

It's based out of CP now. It used to be LGA but they switched it back over to CP.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited May 28, 2017 by danielhg121

[B35 via Church]

Isn't the Q19 based out of LGA? I see on page 7 of the schedule PDF that it says LG (whereas page 16 of the Q25 schedule says CP)

 

In any case, I do agree with the general idea that buses should run back to the depot in service. So they should make at least a partial trip towards the other destination where it makes sense.

 

------------------

 

The thing I realized is if the Q19 were to be combined with the Q48, Corona riders would get the short end of the stick with the shorter span. The Q48 generally leaves Flushing past 1am (except Sunday, when buses leave a little before midnight). Would you just have those late-evening riders take the or Q66 and make their way from there? (Buses also start around 4:30am as well, whereas the Q19 starts much later)

 

Or is that span outdated as well (being based off the idea that you have airport workers going to/from these odd shifts that requires such a long span)?

1- Nope, not anymore.... Q19 (and the Q23) are now out of CP.

 

2- The later span is for the airport workers.... Since I would have the Q19 take over the Q48 b/w Flushing & Astoria (blvd) & kill off the Q48 north of Astoria, there wouldn't be much of a need to have Q19's leaving Flushing after midnight w/ the Q66 around..... Buses running along Astoria Blvd at 1am in the morning is overkill (regarding a span expansion), even if it means subtracting from what Corona currently has with the Q48....

 

So to answer the question, whatever Corona riders use the Q48 after 10:30 or so would have to resort to taking Q66's....

Edited May 28, 2017 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1)Cool, but how long did it take for you to figure all of that out?

 

2) I'd say 11pm is pushing it; that would mean a bus getting to Flushing around 11:25-11:30 or so.... Arriving to either terminal at/around 10:30-11pm to head back to the depot should be good enough for the route.....

 

Personally don't see the point of a Q19 running from Astoria to the Q49 terminal only.... For starters, the Q18 runs to around 1am IIRC, so let that route transport those folks to the subway if need be (which is what's done anyway).... There's a greater demand for later service from Flushing on the Q19, so if I were to take your stance, I'd have buses leaving Flushing at 11 & buses leaving Astoria at 10..... Run short turned buses to 82nd or something, then have them DH to the depot from there....

1) Not much. I more or less knew the Q100 schedule and the frequency, and compared it to the Q69. Plus, there's no off-the-top calculations.

 

2) As long as there aren't Q19 buses DH'ing all the way from the Astoria Houses, I really don't mind. That latter scenario can also work (and since the Q69 more or less runs close to the Q19 between Steinway and 80 Street, you don't need Q19 service as much towards the subway).

2- The later span is for the airport workers.... Since I would have the Q19 take over the Q48 b/w Flushing & Astoria (blvd) & kill off the Q48 north of Astoria, there wouldn't be much of a need to have Q19's leaving Flushing after midnight w/ the Q66 around..... Buses running along Astoria Blvd at 1am in the morning is overkill (regarding a span expansion), even if it means subtracting from what Corona currently has with the Q48....

 

So to answer the question, whatever Corona riders use the Q48 after 10:30 or so would have to resort to taking Q66's....

You could like a Q19/Q48 combo can run up to only Astoria Boulevard (from Main Street) after a certain hour (you would only need 1 bus during those times instead of 2 as it current is). But then, are there enough riders along 108 Street to justify that? You can probably have riders take the Q66 (as mentioned) and walk, or take the to the Q23. 

 

In a somewhat related scenario, I have mixed feelings about sending Q23's to the airport, because Q48 usage is pretty bad within the airport. The thing is, if I were to extend the Q23 into LGA, both the Q48 and Q72 would terminate outside the airport. I would have buses serve terminals B-C-D, then go down 94 Street, and onto 23 Avenue, in order to maintain connections to the Q33 and Q72 (the M60 stops there going into the airport).

Edited May 29, 2017 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl

[bobtehpanda]

This is neither here nor there, but how would beefing up Q19 service with a kind of M61 go? Essentially a LTD/SBS service from 125 St - Flushing via Astoria Blvd.

[B35 via Church]

2) As long as there aren't Q19 buses DH'ing all the way from the Astoria Houses, I really don't mind. That latter scenario can also work (and since the Q69 more or less runs close to the Q19 between Steinway and 80 Street, you don't need Q19 service as much towards the subway).

3) You could like (have?) a Q19/Q48 combo (that) can run up to only Astoria Boulevard (from Main Street) after a certain hour (you would only need 1 bus during those times instead of 2 as it current is). But then, are there enough riders along 108 Street to justify that? You can probably have riders take the Q66 (as mentioned) and walk, or take the to the Q23. 

 

4) In a somewhat related scenario, I have mixed feelings about sending Q23's to the airport, because Q48 usage is pretty bad within the airport. The thing is, if I were to extend the Q23 into LGA, both the Q48 and Q72 would terminate outside the airport. I would have buses serve terminals B-C-D, then go down 94 Street, and onto 23 Avenue, in order to maintain connections to the Q33 and Q72 (the M60 stops there going into the airport).

2] Your issue is DH distance & my issue is unwarranted short turning of a route like the Q19 (regardless of time of day)..... That route should be running to either Flushing or to the Astoria Houses at all times & nothing ending in-between (barring emergency situations, of course)..... Way I see it, DH-ing will always be a thing, so I don't harp on it as much as you & others might.... I don't see DH-ing from the Astoria Houses to CP depot as being near a big an issue as it sounds like you're making it as.... How long do you think that DH would be around 11pm/12 midnight?

 

3] Absolutely not, so I wouldn't bother running buses b/w Flushing & Astoria/108th...... A Corona-Flushing shuttle after a certain hour would be a waste of resources.....

 

4] Do you? Because I never wanted the Q23 to run inside the airport.... The outer 1/3rds of the route are a spaghetti mess & 108th is becoming more & more like a parking lot by the minute.... I mean it takes forever to get from residential Forest Hills to QB alone, sits in traffic along 108th when it's not picking up & dropping off pax (the Q23 isn't one of those routes (like... the Q19) that doesn't see activity for much of the stops along the route; I mean, especially once you hit QB heading north, forget it... makes you want to pull your hair out if you need to get to Corona or E. Elmhurst).... Which segues into getting in & out of the Corona plaza area, which is always fun... LMAO....

After that though, it's smooth sailing to the hotels along Ditmars....

 

^^ Adding getting in & out of the airport to that would be torturous.... No thanks.

 

I'm not seeing what current Q48 usage has to do w/ potential Q23 usage inside LGA though.... Q48 usage to/from LGA is horrid, due to the running from a major hub like Flushing, to the airport, not working like it would on paper... Fact of the matter is, it doesn't help that Flushing is a terminal on the - with which the Q48 enters it from the same direction the subway does.... The Q23 wouldn't have that problem... If anything, I think it'd see slightly less airport usage than the Q72 does....

 

 

This is neither here nor there, but how would beefing up Q19 service with a kind of M61 go?

Essentially a LTD/SBS service from 125 St - Flushing via Astoria Blvd.

Bus would likely get shunned in Manhattan.... intra-Queens riders'll take it b/c it's extra service....

 

This sounds excessive & unwarranted... The Q19 moves like a LTD along Astoria blvd anyway, so to have a LTD/SBS practically along the length of Astoria blvd to Flushing from Manhattan is funny to me.... I can't fathom there being any demand b/w Harlem/Upper Manhattan & Flushing/eastern Queens.... For all this, you may as well beef up Q19 service itself & call it a day....

[IAlam]

Q23 should not go to the airport that route is already a mess I'd rather just terminate it at the current Q49 terminal.

 

Also for the Q48 it's hard for me to ever be in favor cutting the only bus that serves eastbound riders, replacing the Q48 with the Q23 won't solve the problem that eastbound riders no longer have a connection to the airport. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by IAlam

[B35 via Church]

Q23 should not go to the airport that route is already a mess I'd rather just terminate it at the current Q49 terminal.

 

Also for the Q48 it's hard for me to ever be in favor cutting the only bus that serves eastbound riders, replacing the Q48 with the Q23 won't solve the problem that eastbound riders no longer have a connection to the airport. 

If said eastbound riders have no qualms in heavily embarking on Q48's to get from the airport, then neither do I...

 

At this point, I would rather have whatever Q48 riders taking it to the airport from Flushing, either:

* take the to the Q70, or

* take the (real/current) Q19 to the Q72....

 

It's not worth keeping the Q48 around as is, just for the masses of riders to get off at, or somewhere south of Astoria Blvd... It may not seem like much since LGA is right there, but the mileage wasted between Astoria blvd & Central Terminal is too great (I'm not even talking about the re-routed Q48's due to the construction, which is nuts in & of itself)... And to think, once upon a time, it wasted even more mileage serving virtually nobody at Marine Air Terminal too....

 

As far as what BM5 said about the Q23, I don't get the sense that he wants to replace the Q48 with the Q23.... For whatever reason, he's judging potential Q23 usage inside the airport to that of current Q48 usage.... That's not saying, screw the Q48 & put the Q23 in there instead.... If it's anyone saying screw the Q48, it's me - by saying the Flushing-Corona can be replaced w/ the Q19 & rest of the route goes bye-bye.... I'm guessing it's a matter of BPH as to why he feels the Q48 & the Q72 would have to terminate outside the airport if the Q23 were to go in there, since the Q23 has more service than either one of them..... That's something he'll have to clarify....

[IAlam]

If said eastbound riders have no qualms in heavily embarking on Q48's to get from the airport, then neither do I...

 

At this point, I would rather have whatever Q48 riders taking it to the airport from Flushing, either:

* take the to the Q70, or

* take the (real/current) Q19 to the Q72....

 

It's not worth keeping the Q48 around as is, just for the masses of riders to get off at, or somewhere south of Astoria Blvd... It may not seem like much since LGA is right there, but the mileage wasted between Astoria blvd & Central Terminal is too great (I'm not even talking about the re-routed Q48's due to the construction, which is nuts in & of itself)... And to think, once upon a time, it wasted even more mileage serving virtually nobody at Marine Air Terminal too....

 

As far as what BM5 said about the Q23, I don't get the sense that he wants to replace the Q48 with the Q23.... For whatever reason, he's judging potential Q23 usage inside the airport to that of current Q48 usage.... That's not saying, screw the Q48 & put the Q23 in there instead.... If it's anyone saying screw the Q48, it's me - by saying the Flushing-Corona can be replaced w/ the Q19 & rest of the route goes bye-bye.... I'm guessing it's a matter of BPH as to why he feels the Q48 & the Q72 would have to terminate outside the airport if the Q23 were to go in there, since the Q23 has more service than either one of them..... That's something he'll have to clarify....

I definitely see your point ... but 

 

But lets assume the Q48 was eliminated and we had people taking the your alternative routes. That practically eliminates a one ride trip to the airport for much of NE Queens, Little Neck up to as far as Hicksville (I'll admit now I doubt anyone from Hicksville would go to Flushing for the Q48), and some parts of the Bronx. Although for people going to catch a plane it really won't matter, but for Airport workers, that forces them 2 options either get an unlimited or fork over more.

 

Now let's the MTA implemented 2 Xfer system for Flushing riders taking the and Q70 or the rerouted Q19 to the Q72, do you really think many people would know about the 2 transfers. Regardless if the MTA advertised it, people still wouldn't know. On top of that you would definitely increase travel time for eastbound riders. Furthermore both the Q72 (outside of rush) and Q19 are infrequent just like the Q48, miss a connection you're adding another 20 min to the commute, to the same route since the Q19 would be taking the Q48 route.

 

I agree with you you on the milage part, but I'd rather just restructure it so it goes in on 94th st and out on 102nd st and make that permanent.

 

As for the Q19 the reroute over the current Q48, that would eliminate the current fastest east west connection to and from Flushing, I'm pretty sure Q19 riders would not be happy. As the retoure can easily add 10-20 min to the commute.

[checkmatechamp13]

For eastbound passengers, some of them could take the Q66 if they see the Q19 pulling away (also, by combining the two ridership bases, it should result in a single, more frequent route)

[bobtehpanda]

Did anything ever come of that variant of the Bx41 they wanted to send to LGA?

[B35 via Church]

I definitely see your point ... but 

 

But lets assume the Q48 was eliminated and we had people taking the your alternative routes. That practically eliminates a one ride trip to the airport for much of NE Queens, Little Neck up to as far as Hicksville (I'll admit now I doubt anyone from Hicksville would go to Flushing for the Q48), and some parts of the Bronx. Although for people going to catch a plane it really won't matter, but for Airport workers, that forces them 2 options either get an unlimited or fork over more.

 

Now let's the MTA implemented 2 Xfer system for Flushing riders taking the and Q70 or the rerouted Q19 to the Q72, do you really think many people would know about the 2 transfers. Regardless if the MTA advertised it, people still wouldn't know. On top of that you would definitely increase travel time for eastbound riders. Furthermore both the Q72 (outside of rush) and Q19 are infrequent just like the Q48, miss a connection you're adding another 20 min to the commute, to the same route since the Q19 would be taking the Q48 route.

 

I agree with you you on the milage part, but I'd rather just restructure it so it goes in on 94th st and out on 102nd st and make that permanent.

 

As for the Q19 the reroute over the current Q48, that would eliminate the current fastest east west connection to and from Flushing, I'm pretty sure Q19 riders would not be happy. As the retoure can easily add 10-20 min to the commute.

That's the point; just because it exists doesn't mean it should necessarily remain....

 

You're defending much too small a minority here; airport workers or NE Queens patrons don't come close to representing the bulk of the riders that utilize the route.... The route only serves a pocket of residential Corona & a sliver of East Elmhurst, outside of touching down in the heart of Flushing..... It doesn't have room for growth as is - all of which is why it only garners 3k riders a day on the entire route..... Practically no one xfers to the Q48 from off those quote-unquote Flushing feeders (Q12, 13, 15, etc.)..... I'm not even taking anyone coming from Nassau & xferring to the Q48 seriously.... A significant amt. of demand to LGA via the Q48 simply does not exist; the riders have spoken & have done so for years w/ that route..... Only party not following suit & doing anything about it, is this great agency of ours!

 

I'm not claiming to speed up travel time, the aim is to put these few people that are even taking Q48's to the airport, on other routes (plural) that serve it.... It's about consolidation here..... I mean, the only route that serves LGA that performs worse than the Q48 is the Q47 - which only serves Marine Air term.... We're not talking about swathes of riders here; if we were, we would not be having this discussion, I assure you... There would be no, run the Q19 over the Q48 b/w Flushing & Astoria Blvd..... That's how few of the 3k riders that take it to the airport I'd be more than willing to displace w/ the eradication of the route.... Otherwise, I want a route that runs along Church av that runs to Alabama ... I jest, but that probably would garner more daily ridership than the Q48.....

 

You make a sticking point of NE Queens... Well give me the NE Queens riders that would favor extending one of the Flushing feeders to the airport.... A direct 1 seat ride to the airport; surely you can't beat that..... Good luck finding those people.

 

To your last point, it'll add 10-20 mins to the commute - and a hell of a lot more people on Q19's due west from Flushing than the Q48 could ever muster.... The fact of the matter is, the more Q66's they have running to/from Queens Plaza, the more people you'll see giving up on Q66's & taking Q19's..... Running Q19's up along 108th would only add to that

 

Public transportation exists for the masses.

 

 

For eastbound passengers, some of them could take the Q66 if they see the Q19 pulling away (also, by combining the two ridership bases, it should result in a single, more frequent route)

Circle gets the square.

 

Did anything ever come of that variant of the Bx41 they wanted to send to LGA?

Nothing I know of.....

[Q43LTD]

Didn't someone propose the Q48 not serve LGA anymore and terminate in East Elmhurst by the Q69?

[checkmatechamp13]

I believe that was an old proposal of his before he decided it would be better to just do away with the Q48 entirely and have the Q19 cover Corona.

[IAlam]

That's the point; just because it exists doesn't mean it should necessarily remain....

 

You're defending much too small a minority here; airport workers or NE Queens patrons don't come close to representing the bulk of the riders that utilize the route.... The route only serves a pocket of residential Corona & a sliver of East Elmhurst, outside of touching down in the heart of Flushing..... It doesn't have room for growth as is - all of which is why it only garners 3k riders a day on the entire route..... Practically no one xfers to the Q48 from off those quote-unquote Flushing feeders (Q12, 13, 15, etc.)..... I'm not even taking anyone coming from Nassau & xferring to the Q48 seriously.... A significant amt. of demand to LGA via the Q48 simply does not exist; the riders have spoken & have done so for years w/ that route..... Only party not following suit & doing anything about it, is this great agency of ours!

 

I'm not claiming to speed up travel time, the aim is to put these few people that are even taking Q48's to the airport, on other routes (plural) that serve it.... It's about consolidation here..... I mean, the only route that serves LGA that performs worse than the Q48 is the Q47 - which only serves Marine Air term.... We're not talking about swathes of riders here; if we were, we would not be having this discussion, I assure you... There would be no, run the Q19 over the Q48 b/w Flushing & Astoria Blvd..... That's how few of the 3k riders that take it to the airport I'd be more than willing to displace w/ the eradication of the route.... Otherwise, I want a route that runs along Church av that runs to Alabama ... I jest, but that probably would garner more daily ridership than the Q48.....

 

You make a sticking point of NE Queens... Well give me the NE Queens riders that would favor extending one of the Flushing feeders to the airport.... A direct 1 seat ride to the airport; surely you can't beat that..... Good luck finding those people.

 

To your last point, it'll add 10-20 mins to the commute - and a hell of a lot more people on Q19's due west from Flushing than the Q48 could ever muster.... The fact of the matter is, the more Q66's they have running to/from Queens Plaza, the more people you'll see giving up on Q66's & taking Q19's..... Running Q19's up along 108th would only add to that

 

Public transportation exists for the masses.

 

 

Circle gets the square.

 

Nothing I know of.....

I just find it wrong to have no eastbound connection to the airport, whether it's the Q48 or an extended route that provides the coverage, there should be at least one east bound route serving the airport.

[B35 via Church]

Didn't someone propose the Q48 not serve LGA anymore and terminate in East Elmhurst by the Q69?

I believe that was an old proposal of his before he decided it would be better to just do away with the Q48 entirely and have the Q19 cover Corona.

Yeah... I did.... Before the pipe dream of extending the Q19 on both ends became reality!

 

 

I just find it wrong to have no eastbound connection to the airport, whether it's the Q48 or an extended route that provides the coverage, there should be at least one east bound route serving the airport.

Sure.... and I find it wrong that there are services still in existence, where there are so many more people that are being screwed citywide with inadequate service on other routes where a far greater demand for them exists....

Edited June 2, 2017 by B35 via Church