Q90

Yeah what purpose does your Q38 style Q23/29 combination have? To make it incovenient for Q23 riders and provide unreliable service? Even Fredrick is smart enough not to suggest something like that. And it's good that people got outraged because it's one of the most bullshit ideas that was ever posted.

How many times do I have to tell you this: Penelope Avenue is TOO NARROW. It doesn't matter if it makes riders walk longer to catch the bus, because Penelope Avenue is so narrow, if buses were to meet each other in opposite directions on a street like that, it would cause delays. Since Furmanville Avenue bans parking on the Woodhaven Boulevard bound direction it allows buses to pass each other in opposite directions without causing delays.

It's 53 Avenue, not 58 Avenue and I made the Q26 run down there for coverage reasons. And it doesn't relieve the Q27 enough in it's current form. It has to go to QCC which is a very popular stop on the Q27 to relieve it and I sent it to Floral Park for coverage reasons as well. And I wouldn't want to short turn Q27s. It just reduces service elsewhere on the route for no reason.

I don't get it either what is the point of combining the Q23 and Q29 to create a Q38 like route when all that does is make the route unreliable and make it inconvenient for East Elmhurst riders. The only thing I would do is straighten the Q23 along 108 Street and 71 Avenue and extend it to LaGuardia Airport. Then as a result, I would reroute the Q48 out of LaGuardia and send it down 23 Avenue to terminate where the Q69 ends (at 82 Street/Astoria Boulevard). If the Q29 is going to be merged with any route it would be the Q33 since those two would not cause any service disruptions if combined. That proposal seriously is even worse than some of that Fredrick guy's bus routes on google maps smh.

Two enhancements I made. One will involve the Q26 and the other will be a redone proposal of the Q38 split. Q26: Extended to Floral Park while serving QCC to reduce crowding on the Q27 and make the route more useful. People have made similar proposals before but this imo is the best way to make the Q26 a useful route. The Q26 in it's current form is a useless shuttle route and doesn't supplement the Q27 like it is supposed to especially because it stops way short of QCC. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e378084409c7eba9c Q38 split: I decided to redo the Q38 split proposal from earlier in July. The Q38E portion would be sent to East Elmhurst via the Q23's routing off of 108 Street. As a result the Q23 would be straightened to stay on 108 Street to better serve that street. It begins at the Ridgewood Terminal. And the new Q51 which replaces the Q38P is unchanged except that instead of following the Q58's route to Ridgewood south of Metropolitan Avenue, it would go down Forest Avenue then turn onto Myrtle Avenue. (I also didn't bother to include stops because I had to work on the Q26 idea which took a while) https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e3793594fdeb9d0e3

My bad, I though the Woodhaven section was part of Forest Hills and Dry Harbor was in Elmhurst. Regardless still combining the Q23 and Q29 is a stupid idea.

Much of the demand comes from the people who use the to the M60 or the to the Q33 and there's plenty. And cabs although are more convenient as they go up to your door, they like to run up the meter and drive in circles (happens to me when I use it from the airport). And about free transfers I always had to pay again to change buses. Also about coverage well the Q70 isn't a coverage route and it will certainly be successful so that point is moot. They go near Middle Village but not through it. Even then BreeddekalbL's proposal is a horrible idea as it creates another Q38 like route and makes service unreliable for people in East Elmhurst.

I know about using the to the M60 or the to the Q33 (soon to be Q70) but those are 2-fare zones. You have to pay twice. The Q87 limited would be a one seat ride and not require any transfers so therefore it'll attract more riders and be more convenient and you even said it before that people don't like to transfer so I don't see what is wrong with it if people are going to use it.

Oh Hell NO! This is just really screwed up. -The route is a loop like the Q38 and the Q38 is such a reliable route, right? (sarcasm) -Neither the Q23 or Q29 go to Middle Village so your point is moot. -You're screwing bus riders in East Elmhurst from a one seat ride to Forest Hills for a loop route between Forest Hills and Glendale-what? Just because the Q38 is a loop doesn't mean that it is reliable. It in fact is very unreliable which is why me and other members made proposals to split it in half. What you are doing is creating an unreliable route that would make you lose riders. I said this hundreds of times if the Q29 is merging with any route, it's going to be the Q33. Q32 gets stuck in traffic a lot and extending it makes it even worse and your proposal would fail before it even went into effect. And the Q48 could get kicked out of LGA and be rerouted to Astoria Heights 82 Street/Astoria Boulevard where the Q69 terminates as no one uses it to LGA.

Yes all new routes begin with 30 minute headways. However they will add frequency if it creates demand. And 30 minutes is much better than 1 hour headways with only 7 buses operating between 10am and 5pm on weekdays. The former Q89 failed because of it's horrible operating schedule and that it lacked connections to the subway. And about the Q87 well it eliminates a 2 fare zone to LGA from Queens Plaza. I know that there is demand between Long Island City and LaGuardia Airport. I also heard of proposals to extend the Q69 to LaGuardia but I don't agree with that since it is a slow local and less people would want to use it. And about LaGuardia needing more buses lol! Well at least it doesn't need trains like JFK does. And LGA could use more service from places like Queens Plaza and even the Bronx (there was a limited route called the Bx50 from Fordham Plaza that MTA planned in 2008, I don't know what happened to it though).

Moving on from the Q21 debate, this time I have two proposals and one involves a new super limited that runs from Queens Plaza to LaGuardia Airport which would be similar to the Q70 and the other is a restoration of the Q89 however it has improvements. The new LIC-LGA super limited I called the Q87 Limited would only make 1 stop at 23 Street/Jackson Avenue (so riders can transfer to it) after leaving Queens Plaza then use Borden Avenue and the BQE/Grand Central to LaGaurdia Airport. It serves all terminals at LGA except for the Marine Air Terminal. Route Map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e365ca786857fb998 The Q89 restoration includes improvements. It would run from the Jamaica 165 Street bus terminal to the New Lots Avenue station in East New York. It would have good headways as opposed to the former Q89 and it would also connect to a subway station which the former failed to do as well. The former Q89 failed because it had bad headways and it didn't connect to a subway station so people used routes like the Q6, Q9, and Q111/113 instead. Subway stations are important because a huge percentage of bus ridership comes from them. This new Q89 also connects to the Rockaway Boulevard station. Route Map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=214089513480814599261.0004e365ca786857fb998

I looked that up.....and came up with some unrelated shit. Sometimes QJT says things that are confusing.

As much as I hate to say this but you are right that rerouting the Q21 is not a good idea, especially to Aqueduct when the Q11 already goes there.

I don't know what you mean by "Crosstown South Queens." Aqueduct is just a casino and racetrack and the Q11 already goes near it. And wait do you want the Q21 to go to the Airtrain? Again, Q11 serves that area too. I'm telling you now rerouting the Q21 won't work.

The Q11 technically goes there already. Just continue walking on Pitkin Avenue from that bus stop near Pitkin Avenue/97 Street. You would then walk under the train tracks and Aqueduct is right there. Even if the Q11 didn't go near there there's no demand anyways.

Really was that necessary. Also you made some grammar errors trying to modify my post. Getting rid of the Q21 imo actually improves the Q11 schedule by eliminating the bunching between Q11s and Q21s.

Now you're being ridiculous. I proposed cutting the Q21 to improve service on the Q11 and Q41. The Q41 would get better ridership and the Q11's schedules would be more organized. It has nothing to do with duplication whatsoever. And the Q52 is a shortened branch of the Q53 that only goes to Elmhurst (although I would send it to Woodside).

The Q90 does not duplicate the Woodhaven corridor routes and the Q104 would've been eliminated in that proposal. If the Q11 doesn't duplicate the Q52/53 than neither does the Q90.

Well if you cut the Q21 without increasing headways on other routes then yes it's a bad thing. But the Q11 would have shorter headways. Also Q21s and Q11s always bunch as the Q21 makes that long layover at 92 Street/164 Avenue. Getting rid of the Q21 or at least eliminating that long layover fixes that problem.

I know that the Q21 is a branch of the Q11, it's just imo it should be cut as people could use the faster Q52/53 or Q41 now that it longer goes to Rockaway (no one used it there anyways). What the hell does my Q90 route have to do with the Q21. Don't bring up bullshit that isn't related. Anyways it's useless not because of bad ridership, it's because people could just use the Q52/53 if they want to go south of Pitkin Avenue.

Do you really think I just pick out routes because that would be a stupid thing to do. Eliminating the Q21 would actually help increase ridership on the Q11, Q52/53 and the Q41. It doesn't matter how busy the Woodhaven/Cross Bay corridor is. The Q21 is now useless ever since the Q52 was started. So if the Q21 got eliminated no one would care.

You don't need to ride a route in order to know about it's ridership. The Q21's annual ridership is 1,147,774. Usually that's good ridership but since those people could use the Q11/Q41/Q52/Q53 (depending where you are) then it isn't needed.

Sometimes I do walk down Woodhaven Boulevard and see a Q21 and there are few enough passengers to discontinue it. Again have them use the Q52/53 which share the Q21's routing and make limited stops.

Well the people that use the Q21 on the non-shared Q11 parts could use the Q52/53. The Q21 is unnecessary and also kills ridership on the Q41.

Anyways how about eliminate the Q21. It has no purpose since that the Q52 was started and it was truncated to Lindenwood. Because of this, the Q21 is nothing more than a redundant route now. The Q11 covers like 90% of it and eliminating it would also help boost the ridership of the Q41 on Cross Bay since it doesn't get good usage there because the Q21. Also I have heard people say that the Q41 should be truncated to the Rockaway Boulevard station which I think is a bad idea and a better idea is to lay the axe on the Q21.