Q43LTD Posted June 25, 2013 Author Share #1551 Posted June 25, 2013 Yeh, the DOT came out w/ this massive study of the routes that were formerly PBL ran.... Study I suppose took place sometime in the mid 2000's..... One suggestion was having Q102 service split into a Q102/Q102a that would run to either the astoria projects (like today's 102) or run up to 19th/hazen via along the rest of 31st st (102a)... I don't remember all of them, but some of them included: Q45/Q47 combination (which eventually happened), Q8 to Gateway (which eventually happened), Q33 extension to Woodside-61st, Q21 elimination, Q11 extension to jackson heights-74th st, and a couple I abhor: a Q22/Q35 combination, Q12/Q66 combination, and Q7 to Green Acres.... Others were:Q6 having 2 additional terminals in JFK. Terminal 5 and Cargo. Q9 to 150 Av. The 10 via 130 St would be eliminated and proposed putting artics on the route SMH Q18 to Metro Mall Q34 eliminated. A modified Q14 replaces it Q25/65 truncated to Flushing. A through College Pt Boulevard route is created. Q40 extended to Jamaica Terminal because "it was no longer a necessity to connect to the Q41 truncated to Ozone Park Q23 extended to LaGuardia Q72 extended to LGA Q9A extended to Cambria Hts eastward and Rockaway Blvd westward. Q110 merged with the 56. The 36 would go to Belmont Park when the 110 goes to Floral Park The Q111/112/113 would no longer serve Parsons Blvd because it's "no longer a necessity" The Q112 would travel on Liberty from Guy R Brewer to Broadway Junction 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 26, 2013 Share #1552 Posted June 26, 2013 The Q42 route is short enough for the Q44 to handle it meaning MTA would save $$$ on running. B84's brooklyn segment is weak as it is and many other brooklyn routes would make a brooklyn extension duplicative.You add service to all of linden blvd in queens and make getting to the casino easier from that part of queens and a direct access to the for downtown brooklyn and manhattan downtown. It creates a crosstown that actually links to many lines the Q89 failed to connect to. You don't even know that yet. You're jumping to conclusions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 26, 2013 Share #1553 Posted June 26, 2013 1. Except that isn't the case.... The bulk of people in Lindenwood are not taking QM15's & riding Q21's up to Queens blvd.... In suggesting that the Q41 be cut back to the from Jamaica on weekends, you're underestimating how many of those folks in Lindenwood take the bus to the - even on weekends.... They're not taking the Q21 to the QB local (subway) over taking Q21's/Q41's to the ..... Hell, there are more of those folks that take the QM15 to manhattan over taking the Q21 to the QB local (subway)..... The bulk of ppl. in that neighborhood take Q21's/Q41's to the & take the QM15 to manhattan.... That's the deal. -------------- 2. Still doesn't make sense for buses to loop around Lindenwood to have its only layover in Elmhurst when you already have Q11's running along woodhaven locally..... Since you're still stuck on the whole 2 minute thing, to remedy that, it would make more sense to simply adjust the scheduling of the Q21 & having it continue to terminate/layover on both ends of the route..... There is no more of a benefit of having Q21's take no layover in Lindenwood, over a schedule adjustment... None. You're not gonna maintain that perfect uniformity b/w Pitkin/Cross Bay & Queens Center Mall anyway.... -------------- 3. Yeah, that's the same thing that was said (disaster waiting to happen) when the first SB Q11 pickup stop was moved from Woodhaven onto Hoffman..... Anyway, if they're to keep the Q11, Q21, the (would-be) SBS's, and the Q29 & Q38 on hoffman, that would be the likely solution.... Don't really see the (current) Q29 stop being pushed too far back on hoffman.... Unlike the S79 & the M34/a SBS', If Woodhaven were to get SBS, I think they'd opt to throw artics on it - meaning more necessary space needed along hoffman.... Otherwise, something's gonna have to be kicked back to stopping around the corner from hoffman, on Woodhaven again.... 1. Okay you do bring up a good point. The thing is, is there enough ridership for both routes to be running south of Lindenwood? 2. I know its not gonna maintain a uniformed headway all the time. However, you would have more balanced loads, compared to both buses being together and one having all the riders while the other has less (although they both come packed, most of the time). 3. I don't know how the original bus stops were on the QM10/11 and the Q11/29/38 were placed (the Q53 used to stop at the Q59/60 stop prior to its streamlining onto Woodhaven). Currently, the space between the 52/53 is enough to fit one Artic in (I have seen 52's stop at the Q38 stop before when a 53 ahead was blocking it because of an 11 and 21 ahead, but generally, unless something happens on the LIE from Woodhaven to Lefrak Eastbound, it normally isn't that congested. The Q38 and Q52 Combined have the highest headways of the Hoffman routes on weekends. I could see the QM10/11 stopping with the Q38 together in the future, so that the 52/53 get bumped up to where the 11/21 is, so that the 11/21 get bumped to where the 10/11 is currently, and in the process make the 11/21 stop at the Q38 stop northbound to lessen its layover route (59 Avenue > 92 st > Exit Ramp > Queens Blvd > Woodhaven Blvd compared to Queens Blvd > 90 st > 57 Avenue > Hoffman Drive). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 26, 2013 Author Share #1554 Posted June 26, 2013 Overserving Roosevelt Island? I'm not sure I'm understanding your idea/plan then.... I get that you want to straighten the Q102 along 30th av west of the subway, and/but you say you agree w/ that proposed 102a (with the exception of serving RI)..... Again, the 102 & the 102a that the DOT proposed, entailed alternating service to the astoria houses & to Steinway (meaning, less 102 service for anyone that utilizes it b/w the astoria houses & 30th st ) - Y'know, like how the Q11 serves Old Howard & Hamilton beaches.... ------------------------------------ So my question is.... - Would you keep the 102 under current headways and add 102a's that would run from [QB or QBP] to Steinway? (in other words, a straight up service addition between [[QB or QBP] & 30th av ]) or - Would you split the headways of the current 102 - Into a 102 that would run b/w RI & astoria projects and into a 102a that would run b/w [QB or QBP] & Steinway? (in other words, a service cut for those between [QB & RI] and overall service between [[QB or QBP] & 30th av ] being exactly the same as today's 102) * (for anyone else reading, QB=queensbridge, QBP=queensboro plaza, RI=roosevelt island) I'll take option B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 26, 2013 Share #1555 Posted June 26, 2013 - Would you split the headways of the current 102 - Into a 102 that would run b/w RI & astoria projects and into a 102a that would run b/w [QB or QBP] & Steinway? (in other words, a service cut for those between [QB & RI] and overall service between [[QB or QBP] & 30th av ] being exactly the same as today's 102) I'll take option B Understood. Since you think there's currently too much service to RI (which is what the above plan suggests), how much service do you think RI overall should get? 1. Okay you do bring up a good point. The thing is, is there enough ridership for both routes to be running south of Lindenwood? 2. I know its not gonna maintain a uniformed headway all the time. However, you would have more balanced loads, compared to both buses being together and one having all the riders while the other has less (although they both come packed, most of the time). 3. ....Currently, the space between the 52/53 is enough to fit one Artic in (I have seen 52's stop at the Q38 stop before when a 53 ahead was blocking it because of an 11 and 21 ahead, but generally, unless something happens on the LIE from Woodhaven to Lefrak Eastbound, it normally isn't that congested. The Q38 and Q52 Combined have the highest headways of the Hoffman routes on weekends. I could see the QM10/11 stopping with the Q38 together in the future, so that the 52/53 get bumped up to where the 11/21 is, so that the 11/21 get bumped to where the 10/11 is currently, and in the process make the 11/21 stop at the Q38 stop northbound to lessen its layover route (59 Avenue > 92 st > Exit Ramp > Queens Blvd > Woodhaven Blvd compared to Queens Blvd > 90 st > 57 Avenue > Hoffman Drive). 1. I don't think it's a matter of the number of routes (the fact that it's two routes).... I think it's more a matter of how many Q21 pax are riding past the towards Elmhurst, compared to how many Q41 pax are riding past the towards Jamaica..... Either way, that still doesn't mean that the Q41 should be cut back to the A on weekends.... The Q21 vs Q41 discussion is a separate one from the Q11 vs the Q21 discussion anyway..... But the common denominator there is the Q21 - which is why it's the supplementary route in Lindenwood & along Woodhaven locally..... -------------- 2. I'm not arguing the scheduling of Q11's/Q21's being 2 minutes apart from one another as the best way to handle loads of local riders along Woodhaven/Cross Bay..... I'm arguing this idea of having Q21's run through Lindenwood w/ no layover as being a better way to balance loads..... That's why I presented the option of better scheduling (to go about accomplishing the same thing you're trying to, with your Q21 suggestion).... You basically ignored another option to go about better balancing said loads, to repeat yourself... I already know that it's an attempt to balance loads...... -------------- 3. If a Woodhaven SBS were to come to fruition, yeah, that's what I'm saying - Either *something* would get bumped over to Woodhaven (off Hoffman) or the Q29/38 would end up sharing a stop on Hoffman if they were/wanted to keep all the (local) buses along Hoffman, on Hoffman.... You may not like the latter, but it is an option.... The scenario you post here is one of where the Q11/21 would get bumped back over to Woodhaven (off Hoffman).... As far as the last inbound QM10/11 stop, yeah - it would likely be moved to stopping along Hoffman to where it would either be shared w/ the Q29 or shared with the Q38 (if you're gonna have the Q11/21 vacate the current QM10/11 last inbound stop instead)..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted June 26, 2013 Share #1556 Posted June 26, 2013 Others were: Q6 having 2 additional terminals in JFK. Terminal 5 and Cargo. Q9 to 150 Av. The 10 via 130 St would be eliminated and proposed putting artics on the route SMH Q18 to Metro Mall Q34 eliminated. A modified Q14 replaces it Q25/65 truncated to Flushing. A through College Pt Boulevard route is created. Q40 extended to Jamaica Terminal because "it was no longer a necessity to connect to the Q41 truncated to Ozone Park Q23 extended to LaGuardia Q72 extended to LGA Q9A extended to Cambria Hts eastward and Rockaway Blvd westward. Q110 merged with the 56. The 36 would go to Belmont Park when the 110 goes to Floral Park The Q111/112/113 would no longer serve Parsons Blvd because it's "no longer a necessity" The Q112 would travel on Liberty from Guy R Brewer to Broadway Junction Well the NYCDOT has a vivid imagination when it comes to routing. The Q6 to serve the terminals I can agree with that it can help out the Q3 especially with since the Q6 had LTD service. The Q9 to 150AV it might of worked at the time, but there is no need for Artics because after the bus leaves Jamaica it empties out and those streets are too small anyways. Eliminating the Q10 from 130st is a big no. The majority of the service is there vs Lefferts blvd south. I've had changed opinions about the Q34. It does get service after Flushing during parts of the day but most of the people don't stay on going to and or from Jamaica. I've thought that the Q20B could service that area since it runs weekdays as well but I guess it's doesn't need to be changed. A through route in College Pt is not needed. Both the Q25/Q65 got packed in College Pt before MTA takeover and after the takeover Q40/Q111/Q112/Q113 I guess it's a case of no love for the . Sometimes the Q111 and Q113 are crowded at the first stop. The Q112 on the other hand is a weaker route but it should stay with the Q111 and Q113 Q110 wow foam big time Q41 is used in Lindenwood/ Howard Beach after the Q112 to broadway Junction no. That's is the reason the B12 was cut from Liberty Ave. Q9A/ Q89 just hopeless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 26, 2013 Share #1557 Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) 2. I'm not arguing the scheduling of Q11's/Q21's being 2 minutes apart from one another as the best way to handle loads of local riders along Woodhaven/Cross Bay..... I'm arguing this idea of having Q21's run through Lindenwood w/ no layover as being a better way to balance loads..... That's why I presented the option of better scheduling (to go about accomplishing the same thing you're trying to, with your Q21 suggestion).... You basically ignored another option to go about better balancing said loads, to repeat yourself... I already know that it's an attempt to balance loads...... The other options for it the buses to be somewhat more frequent is to 1. Have the Q21 have a 30 minute layover in Lindenwood (the 15 minute layover right now makes it every 2 minutes, an extra 15 minutes would be 17, but whatever, close enough). Or 2. The Q21 could have a 5 minute layover (10 minutes less, but those 10 minutes will be recovered at QCM). This would make the Q21 8 minutes ahead. I would then make the Q11 leave 7 minutes later. At QCM, it would have 7 minutes less of layover time. It would be 15 minutes or around it in both direction, instead of the 28/2/27/3 gap per hour. Edited June 26, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 27, 2013 Share #1558 Posted June 27, 2013 You don't even know that yet. You're jumping to conclusions. you will see. Well the NYCDOT has a vivid imagination when it comes to routing. The Q6 to serve the terminals I can agree with that it can help out the Q3 especially with since the Q6 had LTD service. The Q9 to 150AV it might of worked at the time, but there is no need for Artics because after the bus leaves Jamaica it empties out and those streets are too small anyways. Eliminating the Q10 from 130st is a big no. The majority of the service is there vs Lefferts blvd south. I've had changed opinions about the Q34. It does get service after Flushing during parts of the day but most of the people don't stay on going to and or from Jamaica. I've thought that the Q20B could service that area since it runs weekdays as well but I guess it's doesn't need to be changed. A through route in College Pt is not needed. Both the Q25/Q65 got packed in College Pt before MTA takeover and after the takeover Q40/Q111/Q112/Q113 I guess it's a case of no love for the . Sometimes the Q111 and Q113 are crowded at the first stop. The Q112 on the other hand is a weaker route but it should stay with the Q111 and Q113 Q110 wow foam big time Q41 is used in Lindenwood/ Howard Beach after the Q112 to broadway Junction no. That's is the reason the B12 was cut from Liberty Ave. Q9A/ Q89 just hopeless My B84 extension idea can help with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 27, 2013 Share #1559 Posted June 27, 2013 Speaking of the Q89, it's ironic that the DOT wanted to restructure it to provide through service on Linden Blvd in Queens, since it's quite possible that the Q89 was created just to be one of that routes that prevents proper service (in this case, through service on Linden Blvd in Queens) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 27, 2013 Author Share #1560 Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) My B84 extension idea can help with that. So uh, do you know anybody in Cambria Hts that's looking for direct access to Gateway? Edited June 27, 2013 by Q43LTD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2013 Share #1561 Posted June 27, 2013 The other options for it the buses to be somewhat more frequent is to 1. Have the Q21 have a 30 minute layover in Lindenwood (the 15 minute layover right now makes it every 2 minutes, an extra 15 minutes would be 17, but whatever, close enough). Or 2. The Q21 could have a 5 minute layover (10 minutes less, but those 10 minutes will be recovered at QCM). This would make the Q21 8 minutes ahead. I would then make the Q11 leave 7 minutes later. At QCM, it would have 7 minutes less of layover time. It would be 15 minutes or around it in both direction, instead of the 28/2/27/3 gap per hour. It's not making service more frequent, you're redistributing when buses arrive... It's still the same 4 BPH on weekends b/w the 2 routes... Look man.... Yeah, it's all inter-connected, but you're too stuck on layover time..... A bus on layover does nothing for the riding passenger.... All you'd have to do is re-schedule when whichever route (Q11 or the Q21) leaves its respective terminal to eradicate that 28/2/27/3 gap you're speaking of b/w the 2 routes on weekends, if that's the end goal..... It's that simple.... Speaking of the Q89, it's ironic that the DOT wanted to restructure it to provide through service on Linden Blvd in Queens, since it's quite possible that the Q89 was created just to be one of that routes that prevents proper service (in this case, through service on Linden Blvd in Queens) Currently, with the current bus hubs that connect Jamaica to SE Queens (parsons/archer, 165th st term.), the focus is getting all those patrons to the closest subway - whether it be the at 179th or the at Jamaica Center.... With the proposal of streamlining Linden Blvd service, the question that would have to be asked is -How many SE Queens folks would want to endure a longer trip on a solitary bus to get to the nearest subway (which would be the at Rockaway Blvd)? A linden blvd route b/w Euclid av & Cambria Hgts/235th I think would do much more for Brooklyn riders than it would for Queens riders, which isn't fair to Queens riders.... - The Queens riders that live around Linden b/w the van wyck & Merrick would continue to make their way (meaning, walking) to the north/south buses in the area that run to Jamaica (which is one reason why the old 9a/89 performed so terribly).... Those that reside around Linden (east of Merrick) would likely either xfer at Merrick itself or Sutphin (which is making matters worse for as many of them); I don't think you're gonna get many of those riders in SE Queens to ride past Sutphin (and that's best case scenario)..... See, the old Q89 served much of no one & the Q4 serves a slew of riders (even if we were to subtract those that use the Q4 supplementarily to get off somewhere along Merrick).... This better serves the needs of SE Queens folks IMO than a through Linden blvd route would..... - For Brooklyn riders, it's simple - anyone coming from city line (or anywhere else in the borough that made their way to city line) wouldn't have to worry about putting up w/ the long/drawn out Q8 to Jamaica, or xferring off Q7's to 41's or 112's (both of which lag like hell b/w Rockaway Blvd & Jamaica).... More of em (moreso than SE Queens folks) would take the streamlined linden blvd service to (would-be) connecting buses to get to Jamaica proper, instead of dealing with Q8's, Q41's, or Q112's to get there.... To sum it up, I think there are more Brooklyn riders that would benefit from a 1-seat ride to SE Queens, than vice versa.... Maybe I'm wrong, but again, I don't think SE Queens folks are tryna get to Brooklyn like that - to the point where streamlining bus service along Linden Blvd would be equally (or as close to being equally) beneficial for patrons of both boroughs... It would be less about tryna get to a subway for Brooklyn riders that would utilize the route..... Sure, that proposal would've close up a bit of a "hole" in the bus network, but you are not gonna make getting to the a viable/considerable option for as many SE Queens folks b/c it would mean a stark increase in commuting time..... Just throwing this out there for something for you guys to think about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q90 Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1562 Posted June 28, 2013 The Q42 route is short enough for the Q44 to handle it meaning MTA would save $$$ on running. B84's brooklyn segment is weak as it is and many other brooklyn routes would make a brooklyn extension duplicative. You add service to all of linden blvd in queens and make getting to the casino easier from that part of queens and a direct access to the for downtown brooklyn and manhattan downtown. It creates a crosstown that actually links to many lines the Q89 failed to connect to. Really extending the Q44 along the Q42 route is a waste. The Q42 has extremely low frequency and ridership. Extending the Q44 along the route would be overkill as it would be way too much frequency. Plus the Q44 is a limited service and it would have to make a bunch of stops on the route. I'm actually surprised the Q42 wasn't cut during the 2010 budget cuts. Q42 only works as a weekday rush hour route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1563 Posted June 28, 2013 Really extending the Q44 along the Q42 route is a waste. The Q42 has extremely low frequency and ridership. Extending the Q44 along the route would be overkill as it would be way too much frequency. Plus the Q44 is a limited service and it would have to make a bunch of stops on the route. I'm actually surprised the Q42 wasn't cut during the 2010 budget cuts. Q42 only works as a weekday rush hour route. I said select weekday Q44 trips not all. So uh, do you know anybody in Cambria Hts that's looking for direct access to Gateway? well they would love direct service to aquaduct casino and the . People don't have to use a route end to end cause only a few actually do. Very few NYCT bus riders ride the bus from end to end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 28, 2013 Author Share #1564 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) well they would love direct service to aquaduct casino and the . People don't have to use a route end to end cause only a few actually do. Very few NYCT bus riders ride the bus from end to end. I think you should've read B35's piece on a through Linden Blvd route. A through route on Linden would favor Brooklyn riders more than Queens riders. Edited June 28, 2013 by Q43LTD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1565 Posted June 28, 2013 ....well they would love direct service to aquaduct casino and the . People don't have to use a route end to end cause only a few actually do. Very few NYCT bus riders ride the bus from end to end. ...and very few would "love direct service to aquaduct casino".... Try again. I think you should've read B35's piece on a through Linden Blvd route. A through route on Linden would favor Brooklyn riders more than Queens riders. Oh, he read it.... that's why he referenced using the route from end to end, as if that was the only reason I mentioned that the route would do less for Queens patrons.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 28, 2013 Author Share #1566 Posted June 28, 2013 ...and very few would "love direct service to aquaduct casino".... Try again. Oh, he read it.... that's why he referenced using the route from end to end, as if that was the only reason I mentioned that the route would do less for Queens patrons.... Like I said before, when the B84 gets extended it should stay in Brooklyn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1567 Posted June 28, 2013 I said select weekday Q44 trips not all. well they would love direct service to aquaduct casino and the . People don't have to use a route end to end cause only a few actually do. Very few NYCT bus riders ride the bus from end to end. The Q44 is long as it is it should be left alone. I said select weekday Q44 trips not all. well they would love direct service to aquaduct casino and the . People don't have to use a route end to end cause only a few actually do. Very few NYCT bus riders ride the bus from end to end. The Q44 is long as it is it should be left alone. The Q42 is good the way it is especially now that off peak service was added again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1568 Posted June 28, 2013 Since the qm21 is declining in ridership i suggest we elimnate it and route 5 x63 trips from the qm21 terminal to the regular x63 manhattan terminal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1569 Posted June 28, 2013 Like I said before, when the B84 gets extended it should stay in Brooklyn. Yes, of course... I'm not dignifying that (or this other recent garbage about Q44's w/ Q42's) particular suggestion of his with a response...... I was referencing the DOT's proposal about Linden Blvd, not his suggestion.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1570 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Q25 reroute: Stops at the LGA Terminals (including the Marine Air Terminal), heading to Flushing via Ditmars and Northern, making limited stops at 82nd/23rd, 94th/23rd, Ditmars/23rd and Ditmars/Astoria. Replaces the Q48. Q34 rerouted onto the current Q25 route in College Point. Q34 to Willets Point Blvd either discontinued, or turned into a branch and the Q34 runs similar to the Q20. One of three things happens for weekend routings:Q34 does not run on weekends, and certain Q25 runs run down the original route. LGA buses could remain as Limited buses. Q34 runs from College Point to Flushing. Q25 might have some limited runs. Q25 continues to make Limited runs, while Q34 runs from College Point to Jamaica. If Q34 service to Willets Point Blvd is continued, these "Q34A" runs do not operate. This basically copies the Q20/Q44 setup on weekends. Possible short turns include Main St for Q34s from College Point and Q25s from Jamaica, and Kissena/Jewel for Q34s from College Point or Q25s from LGA. Thoughts? Edited June 28, 2013 by bobtehpanda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1571 Posted June 28, 2013 I think you should've read B35's piece on a through Linden Blvd route. A through route on Linden would favor Brooklyn riders more than Queens riders. What is wrong with benefitting brooklyn folks? If it would benefit brooklyn folks then ridership on B84 would increase why not give them a faster ride? Like I said before, when the B84 gets extended it should stay in Brooklyn. And where in brooklyn would you send it? Yes, of course... I'm not dignifying that (or this other recent garbage about Q44's w/ Q42's) particular suggestion of his with a response...... I was referencing the DOT's proposal about Linden Blvd, not his suggestion.... Q44 is quite reliable so I don't see the problem of having select runs cover the Q42's route or better yet a super LTD Q94 to an extent. Or a merger with Q25 instead of Q44 there are many possible combinations it doesn't have to be the Q44 actually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1572 Posted June 28, 2013 Is the Q42 even necessary? It looks like it's a relatively short distance from either the Q83 or the Q4, both of which have higher frequencies. Says he wants decentralization, but the route is nothing more than a subway feeder that runs on weekdays... SMH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1573 Posted June 28, 2013 Q44 is quite reliable so I don't see the problem of having select runs cover the Q42's route or better yet a super LTD Q94 to an extent. Or a merger with Q25 instead of Q44 there are many possible combinations it doesn't have to be the Q44 actually. No, just no. To all of it. Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1574 Posted June 28, 2013 No, just no. To all of it. Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta I guess it would be better with other routes absorbing Q42 it doesn't actually have to be Q44 but that was the first route that came to mind as the Q44 goes all the way to merrick blvd anyway and the extension would probably be no more than 10 mins anyway but when you look into how long the Q44 is I can see why you would make the argument against such an extension as If Q44 gets delayed then Q42 riders are screwed it that your stance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted June 28, 2013 Share #1575 Posted June 28, 2013 I guess it would be better with other routes absorbing Q42 it doesn't actually have to be Q44 but that was the first route that came to mind as the Q44 goes all the way to merrick blvd anyway and the extension would probably be no more than 10 mins anyway but when you look into how long the Q44 is I can see why you would make the argument against such an extension as If Q44 gets delayed then Q42 riders are screwed it that your stance? There's no point. You are literally combining routes for the sake of combining routes, without any concern to the impact on reliability or the actual utility of the combination whatsoever. No one is going to take a bus on the Q42 route all the way to the Bronx Zoo, because they can just use the Van Wyck and the Cross Bronx. There's no reasonable travel demand for any sort of combination like this. After a certain point, going after more transit users on a particular route is just burning cash. 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.