Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Furmanville is easier for buses to pass through because cars only park on one side of the street and it has a line that separates the two directions. Penelope has cars parking on both sides so therefore that's why I rerouted the bus. Also at RIT, there's also space there. Just get rid of the assignments of buses on Palmetto Street and it will fit there. Also I said this before and I'll say it again: YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY AGAIN IF YOU USE THE TRAIN! Also Rego Park needs a direct service to Flushing as I mentioned before and the Q51 would do just that.

Use the Q58. There is no need for extra service, the Q58 handles it well. The travel time on both routes would be about the same. It's unessecary. Nobody is gonna get what they want. Rego Park wants Flushing, take the 72 to the 58. It's not a very long commute to do with transfers.

 

Lol about a double solid line on Furmanville. What does that have to do with switching buses on it. Penelope is much more convinient.

 

That's like saying the Q47 go on 69 street and Grand Avenue because Calamus and 79 street are too narrow and don't have a solid line dividing up the road.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal

[Q90]

Use the Q58. There is no need for extra service, the Q58 handles it well. The travel time on both routes would be about the same. It's unessecary. Nobody is gonna get what they want. Rego Park wants Flushing, take the 72 to the 58. It's not a very long commute to do with transfers.

Lol about a double solid line on Furmanville. What does that have to do with switching buses on it. Penelope is much more convinient.

That's like saying the Q47 go on 69 street and Grand Avenue because Calamus and 79 street are too narrow and don't have a solid line dividing up the road.

 

Not exactly because Grand Avenue has traffic issues but Furmanville doesn't and no, Furmanville is more convenient because unlike Penelope, you can have two buses pass by each other in opposite direction at the same time. At Penelope, either bus would be delayed if this happened. Also Q51 is quicker than Q58 because it's routing is more direct and it doesn't operate on streets with huge amounts of traffic (aside from Main Street)

[NewFlyer 230]

Not exactly because Grand Avenue has traffic issues but Furmanville doesn't and no, Furmanville is more convenient because unlike Penelope, you can have two buses pass by each other in opposite direction at the same time. At Penelope, either bus would be delayed if this happened. Also Q51 is quicker than Q58 because it's routing is more direct and it doesn't operate on streets with huge amounts of traffic (aside from Main Street)

This topic has been beat to death already before. The Q58 is very frequent. With LTD buses run every 3 to 4 minutes which is quicker than any Q51 or any other route you propose to go to Flushing. I think the Q38 should stay the way it is if people want Flushing they can easily walk three blocks to 108th street to catch the Q58

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

This topic has been beat to death already before. The Q58 is very frequent. With LTD buses run every 3 to 4 minutes which is quicker than any Q51 or any other route you propose to go to Flushing. I think the Q38 should stay the way it is if people want Flushing they can easily walk three blocks to 108th street to catch the Q58

Thank you!

 

Not exactly because Grand Avenue has traffic issues but Furmanville doesn't and no, Furmanville is more convenient because unlike Penelope, you can have two buses pass by each other in opposite direction at the same time. At Penelope, either bus would be delayed if this happened. Also Q51 is quicker than Q58 because it's routing is more direct and it doesn't operate on streets with huge amounts of traffic (aside from Main Street)

Furmanville will still have that problem. Furmanville doesn't warrant the bus going there. Penelope doesn't have traffic problems. People ride the Q38P coming from points north of Penelope, so that's just a PITA to route it on Furmanville.

[Q90]

This topic has been beat to death already before. The Q58 is very frequent. With LTD buses run every 3 to 4 minutes which is quicker than any Q51 or any other route you propose to go to Flushing. I think the Q38 should stay the way it is if people want Flushing they can easily walk three blocks to 108th street to catch the Q58

Yeah how about no. The current Q38 is unreliable as it is as it loops plus the terminals are a walking distance away from each other and I said millions of the times the Q51 is SUPPOSED to supplement the Q58 since the Q58 is such a busy route. Even the LTD would still be slower if traffic starts bunching up on Fresh Pond Road and Grand Avenue. And still Rego Park needs that direct route to Flushing an even the Q58 doesn't even get a clip of Rego Park. Also even with the frequency Q58 buses are still crowded (I've been on the Q58 many times and usually at the least every seat is filled with a few people standing.

 

Thank you!

 

Furmanville will still have that problem. Furmanville doesn't warrant the bus going there. Penelope doesn't have traffic problems. People ride the Q38P coming from points north of Penelope, so that's just a PITA to route it on Furmanville.

I never said Penelope had traffic problems, I said it's too narrow. Also Furmanville only doesn't have demand because the Q38 is on Penelope and not Furmanville. Also with those people that are north of Penelope that use the Q38, I'm sure it wouldn't be a pain in the ass for them to walk just a couple more short blocks

[NewFlyer 230]

The Q38 is a weird route yeah you can walk to both parts of the Q38 within 5 to 10 minutes.

I guess the reason it's like that because one part has lesser ridership and I guess both the Q38 and then Q50 were combined in order to increase ridership. It took me about 8 minutes to walk from both terminals which is something you can't do on any NYC bus route.

Edited July 12, 2013 by College Pt Man

[Q90]

Anyways moving on from the Q38 split debate how about make some changes to the Q25/Q34. First, add Saturday service to Q34. Then, eliminate the Q25 limited but convert Q34 into a limited between 35 Avenue/Linden Place and the terminus at Sutphin/Archer. Q34 would run local before 35 Avenue/Linden Place since there would be no reason to run it limited between Whitestone and that specific bus stop because it diverges from the Q25 and the Q25 limited starts making all local stops from near there. The Q34 limited would run on weekdays and Saturdays and make all current Q25 limited stops and have 8-minute headways like the current Q25 limited does on weekdays (well Q25 limited currently operates weekdays only) Q34 would have 15 minute headways on Saturdays. Also since the Q34 is a duplicate of the Q25, it would have more purpose if it was a limited and the Q25 would be the local.

[bobtehpanda]

Anyways moving on from the Q38 split debate how about make some changes to the Q25/Q34. First, add Saturday service to Q34. Then, eliminate the Q25 limited but convert Q34 into a limited between 35 Avenue/Linden Place and the terminus at Sutphin/Archer. Q34 would run local before 35 Avenue/Linden Place since there would be no reason to run it limited between Whitestone and that specific bus stop because it diverges from the Q25 and the Q25 limited starts making all local stops from near there. The Q34 limited would run on weekdays and Saturdays and make all current Q25 limited stops and have 8-minute headways like the current Q25 limited does on weekdays (well Q25 limited currently operates weekdays only) Q34 would have 15 minute headways on Saturdays. Also since the Q34 is a duplicate of the Q25, it would have more purpose if it was a limited and the Q25 would be the local.

 

Then you're screwing over the majority of riders, because the College Point branch of the Kissena/Parsons buses is the more heavily used one by far.

 

The Q34 route in Whitestone is not that far from the Q44.

[Q90]

Then you're screwing over the majority of riders, because the College Point branch of the Kissena/Parsons buses is the more heavily used one by far.

 

The Q34 route in Whitestone is not that far from the Q44.

Oh yes your right. I'll reverse the situation. When Q34 operates on weekdays and Saturdays, it would be the local and all Q25s will run limited between 35 Avenue/Linden Place and Sutphin/Archer. On Sundays and overnight hours when the Q34 doesn't operate, all Q25s run local. Does that make more sense now?

[NewFlyer 230]

Anyways moving on from the Q38 split debate how about make some changes to the Q25/Q34. First, add Saturday service to Q34. Then, eliminate the Q25 limited but convert Q34 into a limited between 35 Avenue/Linden Place and the terminus at Sutphin/Archer. Q34 would run local before 35 Avenue/Linden Place since there would be no reason to run it limited between Whitestone and that specific bus stop because it diverges from the Q25 and the Q25 limited starts making all local stops from near there. The Q34 limited would run on weekdays and Saturdays and make all current Q25 limited stops and have 8-minute headways like the current Q25 limited does on weekdays (well Q25 limited currently operates weekdays only) Q34 would have 15 minute headways on Saturdays. Also since the Q34 is a duplicate of the Q25, it would have more purpose if it was a limited and the Q25 would be the local.

Leave my Q25 and Q34 alone. Do you even take these routes if not it is not necessary to make changes if you don't know them. If anything add Saturday and Sunday service on the Q25LTD and do the same for the Q65LTD.

[NewFlyer 230]

The Q25 has far more riders than the Q34

Weekdays is about 19,000 riders and on Saturday and Sunday the Q25 has 21,000 riders vs on weekdays the 6,800 the Q34 has.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1.Yeah how about no. The current Q38 is unreliable as it is as it loops plus the terminals are a walking distance away from each other and I said millions of the times the Q51 is SUPPOSED to supplement the Q58 since the Q58 is such a busy route. Even the LTD would still be slower if traffic starts bunching up on Fresh Pond Road and Grand Avenue. And still Rego Park needs that direct route to Flushing an even the Q58 doesn't even get a clip of Rego Park. Also even with the frequency Q58 buses are still crowded (I've been on the Q58 many times and usually at the least every seat is filled with a few people standing)

 

 

2.I never said Penelope had traffic problems, I said it's too narrow. Also Furmanville only doesn't have demand because the Q38 is on Penelope and not Furmanville. Also with those people that are north of Penelope that use the Q38, I'm sure it wouldn't be a pain in the ass for them to walk just a couple more short blocks

If the buses are full with only a few standing, what makes you think they're gonna abide by the Q51 and add more service like that. The Q58 is enough, don't know how much longer Im gonna keep saying that.

 

2. Furmanville doesn't warrant it because more people take the Q38 coming from North of Penelope to along Penelope, more than people coming from Furmanville. The current Q38 Penelope Branch is as good as its gonna get in terms of routing.

 

I (and error) would know more about you in the Q38 riding patterns, because I (along with error) actually utilize the damn thing. Go ask any Q38 rider along 63 Drive and ask if the Q38 should be routes down Furmanville. And ask the home owners as well. When you do get back to me.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Leave my Q25 and Q34 alone. Do you even take these routes if not it is not necessary to make changes if you don't know them. If anything add Saturday and Sunday service on the Q25LTD and do the same for the Q65LTD.

I'd add Sunday service on the Q25 LTD, not the Q65 LTD yet.

 

Also, add midday service on the Q58 LTD. It has a weird service pattern IMO.

[Q90]

Leave my Q25 and Q34 alone. Do you even take these routes if not it is not necessary to make changes if you don't know them. If anything add Saturday and Sunday service on the Q25LTD and do the same for the Q65LTD.

Did you not see my quote to bobthepanda? I said l would reverse the situation and have all Q25s run limited on Weekdays and Saturdays and the Q34 would run local. When Q34 doesn't operate overnight and Sundays, then Q25 makes all local stops. And I know these routes and I used the Q25 before.

[Q90]

If the buses are full with only a few standing, what makes you think they're gonna abide by the Q51 and add more service like that. The Q58 is enough, don't know how much longer Im gonna keep saying that.

2. Furmanville doesn't warrant it because more people take the Q38 coming from North of Penelope to along Penelope, more than people coming from Furmanville. The current Q38 Penelope Branch is as good as its gonna get in terms of routing.

I (and error) would know more about you in the Q38 riding patterns, because I (along with error) actually utilize the damn thing. Go ask any Q38 rider along 63 Drive and ask if the Q38 should be routes down Furmanville. And ask the home owners as well. When you do get back to me.

I said at LEAST a few standing and seats full. Usually, the buses are completely packed. Did you misread my post or something? Q58 needs a supplemental bus route which is the Q51. Also I said those people north of Penelope would just come down to Furmanville. Only two blocks more, not like it's gonna break their legs to walk to Furmanville. Why don't you stop being such a stubborn ass because it seems you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about.

[bobtehpanda]

Oh yes your right. I'll reverse the situation. When Q34 operates on weekdays and Saturdays, it would be the local and all Q25s will run limited between 35 Avenue/Linden Place and Sutphin/Archer. On Sundays and overnight hours when the Q34 doesn't operate, all Q25s run local. Does that make more sense now?

 

So... the current pattern plus Saturday service.

 

I think the first thing on the wishlist is for the Jamaica-Flushing MTAB routes to adhere to some sort of schedule before we start getting ahead of ourselves.

[qjtransitmaster]

I said at LEAST a few standing and seats full. Usually, the buses are completely packed. Did you misread my post or something? Q58 needs a supplemental bus route which is the Q51. Also I said those people north of Penelope would just come down to Furmanville. Only two blocks more, not like it's gonna break their legs to walk to Furmanville. Why don't you stop being such a stubborn ass because it seems you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about.

your wasting time he thinks the indirect Q58 is actually a practical way to get to flushing from buses like the Q53 LULZ too slow.

[qjtransitmaster]

Yeah how about no. The current Q38 is unreliable as it is as it loops plus the terminals are a walking distance away from each other and I said millions of the times the Q51 is SUPPOSED to supplement the Q58 since the Q58 is such a busy route. Even the LTD would still be slower if traffic starts bunching up on Fresh Pond Road and Grand Avenue. And still Rego Park needs that direct route to Flushing an even the Q58 doesn't even get a clip of Rego Park. Also even with the frequency Q58 buses are still crowded (I've been on the Q58 many times and usually at the least every seat is filled with a few people standing.

 

I never said Penelope had traffic problems, I said it's too narrow. Also Furmanville only doesn't have demand because the Q38 is on Penelope and not Furmanville. Also with those people that are north of Penelope that use the Q38, I'm sure it wouldn't be a pain in the ass for them to walk just a couple more short blocks

why put buses on furmanville? Explain this. I do agree with Q38 Penelope to flushing those 2 are stuck in the status quo arguing is a waste of time. You can propose a great plan and it will still take a lengthy debate to get your point across. Just look at my bee-line argument it took several mins almost an hour to explain why some changes were needed and how a certain bus was not used and why a more direct bus is better than some meandering crap. It will take a long time for you to get the point as to why taking an indirect Q58 or transferring 2 times to get similar time savings makes zero sense. Just don't get me started on an express bus.

[Q90]

why put buses on furmanville? Explain this. I do agree with Q38 Penelope to flushing those 2 are stuck in the status quo arguing is a waste of time. You can propose a great plan and it will still take a lengthy debate to get your point across. Just look at my bee-line argument it took several mins almost an hour to explain why some changes were needed and how a certain bus was not used and why a more direct bus is better than some meandering crap. It will take a long time for you to get the point as to why taking an indirect Q58 or transferring 2 times to get similar time savings makes zero sense. Just don't get me started on an express bus.

The buses would run down Furmanville because it's wider than Penelope so buses can pass each other in the opposite direction at simultaneously. Penelope is narrow plus cars park on both sides of the street so only one bus can travel down the street at a time in either direction. Especially since the Q51 would have higher frequency than the current Q38, it is necessary to do that. Also it is an alternative to the Q58 which is more indirect and uses crowded streets. Q51 uses streets that only a few cars at a time use and don't get clogged in traffic at all.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1.I said at LEAST a few standing and seats full. Usually, the buses are completely packed. Did you misread my post or something? Q58 needs a supplemental bus route which is the Q51.

2.Also I said those people north of Penelope would just come down to Furmanville. Only two blocks more, not like it's gonna break their legs to walk to Furmanville.

3.Why don't you stop being such a stubborn ass because it seems you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about.

1.Now lemme ask you this: Do you know where those people south of Metro go at all, because if you do know, they dont go to Rentar Plaza, or to 63 Drive. Also, who the f**k takes the bus from Flushing to Ridgewood.

2. Yeah, but you are enlongating their commutes, only for the bus to come up to 63 Drive again. Leave it on Penelope

3. Oh the hypocrisy in that statement. I have yet to hear a logical statement from you about :

a. Sending the bus to Ridgewood

b. Making more of in inconvienience to passengers sending this 51 along furmanville then penelope.

 

I give you reasons why those proposals wont work, especially the Furmanville proposal

You give me that you would have to pay to get to the M train , Furmanville has a double solid line whereas penelope doesnt (and they are similar widths. Not only I have been against that, but several members also have mentioned similar aspects to what I said. And now all of a sudden I dont understand what you're saying, lol, give me a break.

 

Ridgewood is a grid lock, get that through your head.

 

Example

 

This topic has been beat to death already before. The Q58 is very frequent. With LTD buses run every 3 to 4 minutes which is quicker than any Q51 or any other route you propose to go to Flushing. I think the Q38 should stay the way it is if people want Flushing they can easily walk three blocks to 108th street to catch the Q58

 

Your Response

Yeah how about no. The current Q38 is unreliable as it is as it loops plus the terminals are a walking distance away from each other and I said millions of the times the Q51 is SUPPOSED to supplement the Q58 since the Q58 is such a busy route. Even the LTD would still be slower if traffic starts bunching up on Fresh Pond Road and Grand Avenue. And still Rego Park needs that direct route to Flushing an even the Q58 doesn't even get a clip of Rego Park. Also even with the frequency Q58 buses are still crowded (I've been on the Q58 many times and usually at the least every seat is filled with a few people standing.

 

 

Now tell me if I'm the stubborn one.

FOH with that!

 

your wasting time he thinks the indirect Q58 is actually a practical way to get to flushing from buses like the Q53 LULZ too slow.

Yes, yes I do, it would be a much better way then pin pointing Flushing and (Some Place) and just going through the highway system with 0 riders.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal

[NewFlyer 230]

Did you not see my quote to bobthepanda? I said l would reverse the situation and have all Q25s run limited on Weekdays and Saturdays and the Q34 would run local. When Q34 doesn't operate overnight and Sundays, then Q25 makes all local stops. And I know these routes and I used the Q25 before.

Yeah I did and its funny how you're telling me what should happen to the Q25 and Q34.

I know those routes also because 1. I live on Kissena Blvd where those routes run and 2. I use those routes all the time. People and myself will be pissed off if the Q25 was a limited only route and we had to rely on the Q34. Why screw a route with a very high ridership just because you used those lines before and thought they needed to be change? Where do you think the Q34 gets its ridership from basically when it's with the Q25 on Parsons and Kissena Blvd.

If anything why not just add more LTD service on the Q25 on weekdays and Saturday and Sunday.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Yeah I did and its funny how you're telling me what should happen to the Q25 and Q34.

I know those routes also because 1. I live on Kissena Blvd where those routes run and 2. I use those routes all the time. People and myself will be pissed off if the Q25 was a limited only route and we had to rely on the Q34. Why screw a route with a very high ridership just because you used those lines before and thought they needed to be change? Where do you think the Q34 gets its ridership from basically when it's with the Q25 on Parsons and Kissena Blvd.

If anything why not just add more LTD service on the Q25 on weekdays and Saturday and Sunday.

Yeah you're gonna have to te used to that.

[qjtransitmaster]

1.Now lemme ask you this: Do you know where those people south of Metro go at all, because if you do know, they dont go to Rentar Plaza, or to 63 Drive. Also, who the f**k takes the bus from Flushing to Ridgewood.

2. Yeah, but you are enlongating their commutes, only for the bus to come up to 63 Drive again. Leave it on Penelope

3. Oh the hypocrisy in that statement. I have yet to hear a logical statement from you about :

a. Sending the bus to Ridgewood

b. Making more of in inconvienience to passengers sending this 51 along furmanville then penelope.

 

I give you reasons why those proposals wont work, especially the Furmanville proposal

You give me that you would have to pay to get to the M train , Furmanville has a double solid line whereas penelope doesnt (and they are similar widths. Not only I have been against that, but several members also have mentioned similar aspects to what I said. And now all of a sudden I dont understand what you're saying, lol, give me a break.

 

Ridgewood is a grid lock, get that through your head.

 

Example

 

 

Your Response

 

Now tell me if I'm the stubborn one.

FOH with that!

 

Yes, yes I do, it would be a much better way then pin pointing Flushing and (Some Place) and just going through the highway system with 0 riders.

moron you can't compare highways to this Q38 split instead of going to Ridgewood I would have that Q51 end at middle village thus rendering your argument useless. Plus allowing Bm5 transfer points at 63rd drive means some Ridgewood and Brooklyn and even woodhaven rockaway folks get a fast direct way to flushing via connection you have yet to provide a valid argument for keeping that Q38 out of flushing why cause you have none. You are stubborn as in you refuse to acknowledge that some lines are just stupidly indirect. There are gaps out there you can't just sit here and say otherwise. Look at the rego park traffic bus service to that area sucks and you know it. I do admit Q90 guy would be wise in having that route avoid Ridgewood. BULLSHIT about highway with 0 riders LGA is a major destination and upper Manhattan M60 goes there having a direct bus from 179th at hillside or even down SE queens would cut travel time to upper Manhattan by a huge margin in addition to those going to LGA. Lets see at the NICE meetings many complained about lack of Bronx service which would be rectified if a bus used the Clearview it doesn't have to even be NICE. Some do transfer to N20/21. Again the belt later on can be something Just not now. You even tried to make up BS to make some lines that carry air seem useful they aren't. Starret city plus spring creek and Q53/52 plus Ridgewood all going towards flushing try again. Do those areas have 2 seat rides without going through Manhattan? Or using very indirect lines. Want to see woodhaven traffic they come off the belt and other areas even spring creek some use GCP to reach isolated areas in queens or even the Bronx. Express buses give you 2 local transfers PPR via that is much less than $7.50.

 

Yeah I did and its funny how you're telling me what should happen to the Q25 and Q34.

I know those routes also because 1. I live on Kissena Blvd where those routes run and 2. I use those routes all the time. People and myself will be pissed off if the Q25 was a limited only route and we had to rely on the Q34. Why screw a route with a very high ridership just because you used those lines before and thought they needed to be change? Where do you think the Q34 gets its ridership from basically when it's with the Q25 on Parsons and Kissena Blvd.

If anything why not just add more LTD service on the Q25 on weekdays and Saturday and Sunday.

If service on Q34 is boosted that becomes a non issue unless so many need college point that is.

[NewFlyer 230]

Really who would want to go to Flushing from Brooklyn and the Rockaways. The Q38 needs to stay where it is because it's not going to help the Q58. All that's going to happen is get stuck in traffic in Flushing and on that little segment between 108th street and College Pt Blvd. I don't understand why is it really necessary to split the Q38 anyway. Yeah one part of the Q38 may have more riders but why not have short turns at Metropolitan Ave at the appropriate headways. Leave the Flushing part for the Q58 which is very fast. And if you complain about crowding tough this is New York the biggest city in the country you can't always expect a seat on the train or bus.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1. moron you can't compare highways to this Q38 split instead of going to Ridgewood I would have that Q51 end at middle village thus rendering your argument useless. Plus allowing Bm5 transfer points at 63rd drive means some Ridgewood and Brooklyn and even woodhaven rockaway folks get a fast direct way to flushing via connection you have yet to provide a valid argument for keeping that Q38 out of flushing why cause you have none. You are stubborn as in you refuse to acknowledge that some lines are just stupidly indirect.

2.There are gaps out there you can't just sit here and say otherwise. Look at the rego park traffic bus service to that area sucks and you know it. I do admit Q90 guy would be wise in having that route avoid Ridgewood. BULLSHIT about highway with 0 riders LGA is a major destination and upper Manhattan M60 goes there having a direct bus from 179th at hillside or even down SE queens would cut travel time to upper Manhattan by a huge margin in addition to those going to LGA. Lets see at the NICE meetings many complained about lack of Bronx service which would be rectified if a bus used the Clearview it doesn't have to even be NICE. Some do transfer to N20/21. Again the belt later on can be something Just not now. You even tried to make up BS to make some lines that carry air seem useful they aren't. Starret city plus spring creek and Q53/52 plus Ridgewood all going towards flushing try again. Do those areas have 2 seat rides without going through Manhattan? Or using very indirect lines. Want to see woodhaven traffic they come off the belt and other areas even spring creek some use GCP to reach isolated areas in queens or even the Bronx. Express buses give you 2 local transfers PPR via that is much less than $7.50.

1. First of all I haven't denied anything about Flushing, and stop trying to make this backfire to save his (and probably your's) ass and seem like the hero in the situations. In talking to him not you, so your argument is invalid, because I didn't even reference you until you stuck your head in this for no reason. And this Q38 to Flushing will succeed, eh? The reason is that there isn't enough demand, if there is, it wouldn't been made years ago. If demands is high, them the MTA will consider it. For now its the 72 to the 58. If you don't want to take it, go to the . What the f**k does this have to the BM5, leave the damn route alone.

2. That's the same proposal that Federick Wells guy also was proposing (NICE), but transit is to seve the masses. I didn't even mention LGA in that sentence at all.

 

Who is going from Ridgewood to Flushing. Tell me who?

 

And what BS have I said about routes that have low ridership that I've said the opposite. Tell me. Name ONE!

 

Really who would want to go to Flushing from Brooklyn and the Rockaways. The Q38 needs to stay where it is because it's not going to help the Q58. All that's going to happen is get stuck in traffic in Flushing and on that little segment between 108th street and College Pt Blvd. I don't understand why is it really necessary to split the Q38 anyway. Yeah one part of the Q38 may have more riders but why not have short turns at Metropolitan Ave at the appropriate headways. Leave the Flushing part for the Q58 which is very fast. And if you complain about crowding tough this is New York the biggest city in the country you can't always expect a seat on the train or bus.

 

Just save yourself the keystrokes man, because you know no matter what you say, they'll never listen.

Anyways, that last part is if the Q38 gets better headways, because if that happened with current headways, it would create 30+ minute waits on one branch.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal