B35 via Church

Yes, because routes getting cut & riders being unaware of it is so comical.....

There's a guy around here in my area that has an old NJT paratransit vehicle that's being used for dollar van service here in Brooklyn.... IDK how many different former public transit paratransit vehicles are being operated around here as dollar van services.... Hell, there's a guy on my block with a rabbit transit vehicle (which I never heard of, up until I googled it some odd years ago, when I first saw that bright ass red vehicle out here).....

What routes do Rockland Coaches even have left? Earlier this year (around when Spring ended or so) when I took the #836 Asbury, the b/o (who actually dapped up everyone that boarded & (left through the front door) - Me included) was talking to a couple passengers that was sitting towards the front of the bus & had mentioned that "our contract was up next year." (his words)... Dude appeared to be pretty happy about it, but that's neither here nor there... I'd like to know what happened in the meantime between time for NJT to take over those Monmouth routes this October....

Exactly, so there'd be virtually no other reason outside of traffic setbacks for the Q30 on the Little Neck end for buses to starting up late... As for the Q12 vs. the Q30 in terms of reliability, while I don't disagree, the Q12 for starters is simply more frequent than the Q30 to/from Little Neck.... Unfortunately, Missing/Unfilled trips are a growing problem in the industry altogether.... There's a need for more drivers across the board. Nah, having current Q15's & those proposed Q20's run up to Beechhurst would overserve that area.... My point in pointing out that the current Q15/a garners more usage north of the CIP over the pre-2010 Q14 & Q15 is a testament to just how low patronage used to be up there, compared to today....

Appeal in terms of what? It's existence in the network? The route is definitely needed.....

Yup, I've also had that very thing happen before!! Never complained or got irritated though, because on Saturdays way back when, all it meant was a shorter wait at JVM for the BL-16

Not anymore for me, it isn't. My favorite part of the old BL-12 was always that stint north of downtown Armonk (beginning from when it turned off Main st onto Armonk rd), on up to JVM..... May be dreary to some, but I loved the scenery along Armonk rd...... The ride in/out of the colleges were okay-ish to me, but TBH, I never really cared for the ride through the airport on the BL-12.... Same way I feel about the ride on the S57 (Suffolk county) through LI MacArthur..... What I do kind of miss from a fanning perspective (in a torturous kind of way... lol) is back when buses actually served every terminal inside JFK... But yeah, when they cut the BL-12 to Armonk, I just didn't care to want to fan it anymore.

Sure, but what difference would it really make if an altered version of their proposed Q39 went to WBP, compared to their proposing of the B62 running even deeper in Queens, up to Astoria? At that point, an attempt at nomenclature consistency would merely be splitting hairs at best & all for naught at worst.... Regardless, I don't think either will end happening.... The b/o's are going to take their allotted layovers on each end of the route regardless if they arrive at a terminal on time, or if they arrive at a terminal late.... Yeah, there are b/o's that abuse their layover time, but for the most part, I'm inclined to believe what you're describing with the Q30 are drivers arriving at the terminal late - Which gives off an illusion to passengers that b/o's are intentionally leaving late (as if they arrived at a given terminal on time).... As was already said, that level of traffic along HHE can easily set the Q30 back... That last bit about the MTA sending out warnings when certain buses are late or whatever, is a completely separate issue from bus bunching... For what you're asking for, you're simply not going to get that level of customer service from this agency.... Yeah those folks up there complained about buses terminating around that triangle back then... You also had a couple of patrons of the neighborhood "protest" the Q15a along 10th av. when that route inaugurated..... Not trying to be funny, but Whitestone's demographics has significantly changed since the Q14 got phased out & the Q15a was created.... White population's declined & there are more Asians & Hispanics up there now (similar to Bensonhurst's demographical shift, except there are more Asians & less Hispanics there than in Whitestone).... I remember fanning that route (Q14) & that shit used to tank at the Cross Island Pkwy anyway... You would even have b/o's going on whole layover's on the north side of the service road.... The Q15 was always more popular than the Q14 back then..... Today's Q15/a carries way more people north of the Cross Island Pkwy. than the Q14 & Q15 did, pre-2010.... Most of the Q15's usage north of the Cross Island back then, consisted of LeHavre apartment residents.... That's clearly not the case today. With that said, nothing should be terminating in that part of Whitestone.

The B103 always ran on Glenwood rd. - albeit between the Glenwood houses & E. 80th..... That sign on the corner of Glenwood & Williams (lol) was put there in error, around the time that scaffolding was put up on that corner (I wanna say that was sometime in 2020 or 2021).... Can't say I'm surprised it's still up, because there's still a bus stop along the B12 (don't remember which stop, right this second) that has the Cypress Hills signage up on it... Smfh.... As for that EB B12 stop at Utica being shifted across the street... Guess they got tired of replacing the glass at the bus shelter... At some point, they removed the entire shelter (with buses still stopping there) - Then next thing you know, the whole dam stop (pole) was gone.... Hit me by surprise that morning when I first noticed the stop shift...... Whatever the reason for it being moved was, I'm not in favor of it... Petty, but now I gotta cross Utica to get to White Castle, instead of being dropped off right there....

Sadly

Just noticed this reply... AFAIC, that Q15/19 combination is a more blatant example than the Q10/Q64 combination of being a cost cutting measure.... As if it weren't enough that the route would pan along Roosevelt (which'll make it more useful, although subjecting it to more traffic than the current {unofficial} nonstop portion of the Q19 b/w Astoria/108th & Northern/Main), they got it swinging up & over to the old Q14 terminal in Whitestone... SMFH.... I mean, while I get that they're trying to curtail the amount of buses terminating in Downtown Flushing, you still have to (or, at least Should) consider the quality of these routes that you're trying to create/alter.... As for whether I see the proposed Q10 or the proposed Q19 sticking, fortunately I do not (not that that means much of anything in the grand scheme of things)..... My guesses would be that: the Q10 on the northern end would be left alone some type of routing change would still occur with the Q64 (I don't see it ending up being left as-is, although I think it should) they'll amend/waver on having the Q19 end in Flushing via Roosevelt (because I don't see them bending on that Q50 extension to LGA), and... have the Q15 on: the southern end terminate somewhere along that pocket of College Pt. Blvd b/w Booth Memorial & the HHE... They have the proposed Q16 ending over there south of that Home Depot, which won't fly... Too much truck traffic & (onloading & offloading) of trucks on those backblocks in that immediate vicinity... the northern end of the Q15, I'd say that they'd put the Q15 back over there at the LeHavre apartments (current Q15/a terminal), to have the proposed Q20 truncated either [somewhere along the Cross Island Pkwy. service rd.] or [the College Point shopping center, with the Q76]...

I'll say this much... Instead of having that portion of the proposed B62 run between WBP & the Astoria projects [via 21st in Queens & via the old B61 (Red Hook - Queens Plaza) routing in Williamsburg (which has it bypassing WBP) ], I would turn the proposed Q39 away from Sunnyside & have it pan southwards towards Brooklyn to WBP, via the current B32 routing south of 44th Drive.... The thing that exacerbated the Q60 along (the service road of) QB was the implementation of those bike lanes... To be fair to the MTA, the vast majority of bus bunching that occurs city-wide is not intentional.... There are a few factors that contribute to bus bunching that they have no real control over.... I want to agree with this idea more (as it would cut down on time to get to/from the QB line), but I have to say/admit that the (current) Q88 is the perfect storm for those kids.... Subway station that's right there at the mall, that has a bus right there that takes you to the college.... Although the proposed Q88 would still accomplish that, the running of it to LNP/HHE is going to mar it - which could have those kids gravitating to such Q64's that'd directly serve Queens College more.....

Routes should be not be extended somewhere on the sole basis of possibilities being possible.... I mean, stating that you benefit from connectivity isn't really saying anything; if you transfer from any one mode to another, you benefit from connectivity.... To convey that point is implicative of the notion that nothing should connect to anything, which certainly nobody here has espoused.... So yeah, this isn't a network coverage issue; increased connectivity when reconfiguring a network only matters if enough riders stand to benefit from it.... I get that you want to refrain from discussing this aspect of it, but this is a cost-cutting measure with this combination.... You mentioned the line for waiting pax. at Kew Gardens, well the depth of the line for pax. on QB off 108th won't noticeably dissipate either.... Ditto for the line of people at Lefferts AIRTrain that would wait for the proposed Q10 of sorts.... This particular route proposal just screams unmanageable logistical mess to me.... I refuse to support a combination of 2 routes much of no one is really advocating for, that would negatively affect so many commuters' current commutes on both routes.... For their respective distances traveled, the Q64 & the Q10 already do quite well for themselves in the passengers per mile department, so it's clearly not an issue of lack of ridership on either route.... With that said, your comments in that paragraph regarding reliability are general issues that certainly need to be addressed... So yeah, agreed. Like I alluded to in the last post though, technological advances (like OMNY) isn't going to be nearly enough to make this particular proposal plausible or popular amongst patrons along/around the route... What some folks tend to not factor in (when they're all for speeding buses up by having all these stops be eliminated), is that dwell times would increase per stop - as there are less stops along the route for people to catch their bus at... Which, of course, assumes nominal to no ridership losses....

Ever since they cut the route back from JVM (which is more or less a ghost town now ), I've lost interest in wanting to fan that route....

Yeah It was, but now Jetblue is at Terminal B.

Still on the main road huh.... alright, thanks.

Speaking of Utica/Eastern Pkwy, do they still have the B14 picking up on the main road, or does it pick up on the service road (with the B17) like it used to?

Should read: "Lastly, the lines at Kew Gardens likely not being any different for the proposed Q10 in comparison to the current Q10...." Conceptually, I don't mind what they're doing with the proposed Q67 (although I would transform the Q67 by diverting & extending it eastward towards Woodhaven to attempt to draw more commuters to it, over merely attaching the southern portion of the current Q39 to it)... The proposed Q39 OTOH looks like a piecemealed route - even if you knew absolutely nothing about Queens' current network... Not that it's this ideal terminal per se, but at least the Q18 terminating over at 69th/Grand makes more sense than having this proposed Q39 end over there... I would say that 69th/Grand is a stub for the proposed Q39, but the proposed Q39 appears to have no direction (pun unintended)..... Rather, random. IINM, Frontier's out of Terminal A also... But yeah, that's it... Just those 2.

Yeah, I also saw those cuts to their service spans as a precursor to complete discontinuation. Slangily speaking, I read this as "...but there's simply no way we can continue to do so.... So, 'one' " (as if to say Deuces... Later.... Peace out...)

It appears that you like to latch on to the concept of connectivity to justify routes being prolonged to have them have different O/D pairings.... Different doesn't necessarily equate to being better; these things gotta be analyzed on a case-by-case basis if it's truly about benefiting riders...... "Case" in point - Short, efficient routes like the current Q64 aren't some kind of hindrance to a bus network.... Having a route run between Electchester & JFK won't mean much of anything if so few people would benefit from riding through QB from either end - especially in juxtaposition to the masses of riders on both routes (current Q10 & current Q64) that are seeking QB.... Where exactly is this latent demand for this through-riding through QB on, or from areas around those routes? Using the efficiency argument to try to justify this proposed Q10... It would be one thing if this was a case of combining 2 inefficient routes to create a resultant efficient route.... This is a case of combining 1 efficient route in terms of passengers per mile with 1 highly utilized middle-of-the-road route in terms of efficiency (some would even say it's higher up on the ladder in efficiency, compared to all the city's bus routes, which I wouldn't necessarily argue one way or the other) that would result in one route carrying significantly more passengers than either of the 2 pieces individually.... That isn't for the sake of "providing connectivity" & creating a more efficient route, that is for the sake of cutting costs.... Technological advances won't significantly wane [the traffic plaguing Jewel av during the rush] & [dwell times at bus stops along Lefferts, due to all the passenger activity per stop (especially w/ the Q10 LTD) ], to have the MTA try to sell those affected riders increased efficiency.... Their attempting to even do so, is a slap in the face to those riders.... (For them) to use the current layover situations on both (or either) routes as an actual sticking point in having opted to propose the proposed Q10 would expose their intentions.... Too many buses on layover around their individual/respective intersections are supposedly such this problem.... That implicates that (they think) that there are too many resources being cumulatively utilized in excess... Lastly, the lines at Kew Gardens likely not being any different for the proposed Q10 in comparison to the proposed Q10, literally has nothing to do with anything the current Q64 has to face...... That is by no means a reason that the 2 routes should be combined.... A route having near 100% turnover at one particular stop mid-route isn't exactly something that should be advocated for....

The only thing I'll say to this, is that I'm not arguing the past (as if to say it was never the case), I'm arguing the present..... I don't/didn't disagree with your earlier point about these things being generational, because hell, there are certain neighborhoods today that are either getting smaller, and/or having subsections being carved out of them.... The perfecr example I always point to is Manhattan's Little Italy.... I think it's only like one or two blocks now.... Most of the old neighborhood has been swallowed up/encapsulated by Chinatown... I'm looking at how google maps designates the area, and I can say without a doubt that today, Little Italy does not pan as far east as the Bowery & pan as far west as Lafayette..... Not even remotely.

Nostrand/Church isn't Flatbush, like Brighton Beach/Coney Island av's isn't Manhattan Beach.... You got the analogy, it just isn't in tune with your claim.

Ah, so you're closer to Brookdale then.... I'm right there, close to the ass end of KCH..... Lol, that popeyes on the corner of Church/Linden.... See them seagulls & pigeons fighting for scraps every morning going to work (I dunno why they leave that dumpster area open like that)... lmfao.... Anyway, that little pocket along Church b/w Linden & 98th is part of E. Flatbush (so, we gotta claim that jank ass chicken spot on the corner of Church/Rockaway Pkwy also) .... You'd be hard pressed to hear a Brownsville patron say that Church/Linden is a part of their neighborhood.... Matter fact, I've never heard anyone make the case for it. So you consider Nostrand & Church a part of Flatbush? Nah; that's like saying Coney Island av. is the borderline between Brighton Beach & Manhattan Beach..... I have to concur with whatever consensus says that Nostrand is the border between Flatbush & E. Flatbush..... Usually, the disagreement between folks in this neighborhood as to what the western border is, is with either Rogers or Nostrand....

You said there's a difference though, regarding my mentioning of [folks not wanting to be on buses longer than they have to] & [eastern Jamaica av. riders enduring a ride on the proposed Q57 to get to the ] being contradictory.... Your conveying of the notion regarding choices of buses that take you to the & offers no explanation of a difference.... I'd even say it's a non sequitur..... The fact that there's no solitary current bus route that takes you from that part of Queens to the , doesn't somehow mean any rider that would even resort to enduring such a ride on the proposed Q57, would necessarily want to endure that ride.... This latest scenario you bring up in the middle of your reply there, is merely the inverse of the initial scenario being spoken about.... The MTA is not going to get near enough folks willing to abandon the in such a scenario, for a longer ride on that proposed Q57... I'd leave the Q72 there on a part-time basis. With the Q47, my bigger gripe has always been having anything even terminating at Terminal A (yes, over the fact that patronage in/out of Terminal A historically's been severely subpar).... I've already expressed my sentiments regarding doing away with the Q48 as-is ad nauseam on this forum.... As for a Bronx-LGA route, yeah, AFAIC, such a route would be a larger draw descending down from the West Bronx, over that of down from Co-op & Pelham Bay..... That part. Yeah, I don't think anyone here's defending the current Q112 as-is.... As for what runs out of Terminal A, yeah, I believe it's only Frontier & Spirit....

From eastern Jamaica av, I'm obviously not contesting the connection to the .... What I'm contesting is the connection to the . The eastern Jamaica av. folks would still be spending a longer time on a bus than necessary if they directly took the proposed Q57 to Lefferts ... You just got through mentioning a scenario which has folks utilizing the LIRR to get to Jamaica, to then xfer for the proposed Q57, to get to the ... And yes, I do believe for however many fringe riders out there that would benefit from a direct connection to the , more of them would consider the LIRR option to the Q57, over riding the Q57 straight to Lefferts... The Q48 & the M60 serves terminal A, fam....