B35 via Church

...and I never once said that you can't be pro-transit & pro-car..... At the same time, being pro-car & pro-transit doesn't nullify the sentiment that that same person being quick to advocate for the personal vehicle upon being fed up with some facet of public transit, being akin to an anti-transit stance.... It's their prerogative, but I've seen enough previously pro-transit folks turn into anti-transit, pro-car folks... While you have valid points, I personally have no particularly staunch opinion one way or the other, on whether someone being quick to advocate [car ownership] or [some rideshare service] being worse than the other, when we're talking about (or at least, supposed to be vying for) wanting (the MTA) to improve transit (in this city).... I get that you're making a sticking point about rideshare & bikeshare, but AFAIC, it's splitting hairs.... It's not public transit.

What real problem are you even opining on, as it relates to that reply of mine? To be clear, I'm not making the issue of the declination of the quality of public transit in this city as that of being an anti-transit ideology (although I do think that the MTA really isn't in it for the riding public).... What I am saying is, I would rather have the MTA improve the quality of public transit in this city, before instilling (or otherwise advocating) an *oh, go buy a car* mindset onto people, due to the lackadaisical quality of transit in this city.... I'm less concerned about that comical utopian-dystopian 15-minute city crap (which is an anti-transit concept by proxy anyway, but that's neither here, nor there) & are more concerned with improving public transit - Especially for the people that can't pull money out of their asses to buy cars & have to rely on public transit... Absolutely, positively not.... Stabbings, shootings, robberies, petty thefts, and other crimes are less linked to pedestrian deaths than reckless/irresponsible motorists and/or poor street design is.... Case in point, Queens Blvd. wasn't nicknamed the "boulevard of death" because crime in general was just so rampant along it....

You can deduce congestion as being a factor, but the main reason they're taking Q20's away from Jamaica lies in what you just said about the Q44 being very frequent & is an artic route on top of it... In other words, they're saving a buck cutting Q20's back to Briarwood to have everybody cram onto Q44's..... Albeit not for their apparent frugal reasons, I'm against the consensus that the Q20 should stay running to Jamaica at this point (especially given the Q20's extension north & east of Flushing)... At the same time, I'm against running Q44's to Fordham... Even still, What percentage of people, is the question..... Even during peak times, the Q20 carries a lot of air along Archer (that's one thing I would notice on my commute home, looking down from the LIRR as the train was approaching Jamaica, when I used to work out in Nassau).... It's no different during the AM rush either, I'd notice that when I'd go rush off to the store before my train to Mineola would arrive... Merrick/Archer, forget it - Q44's snatch up virtually 100% of that ridership.... Yes, at Sutphin/Archer, people do start boarding Q20's if there's basically no Q44 in sight (which isn't all that common) - but it still don't be anywhere near in robust numbers.... The general trend over there at Sutphin/Archer is to pay the Q20 no mind & bombard onto Q44's.... Trend over there on Sutphin/Jamaica isn't much different - with the exception of more of a willingness to board Q20's if both the Q20 & Q44 either [arrives simultaneously] or [if a Q44 arrives first & the bus is so dam crowded, you can't feasibly get on the thing]..... With trends like that, I'd take the Q20 away from Jamaica also if I was a public transit provider.... The Q20 north of Flushing is obviously where it'll gain more ridership (than the Q44 north of Flushing, within Queens), as there'll be no one in their right minds that'd want to walk over to the Whitestone expwy. service rd. due south (as in, towards Flushing) from all them co-op's in Mitchell-Linden, at minimum... Not to mention their having of it run up & over to the LeHavre apartments in Beechhurst (current Q15/a territory), which I think is a good tradeoff to have the Q20 do that instead of running to Jamaica - where the Q44 is the king, queen, rook, and every other dam chess piece... lol.... I would also keep the Q83 as a local route... The idea to have the proposed Q42 & the Q65 act as cumulative local service along that part of Liberty, I don't see flying either.... The Q42 to Jamaica Hosp. is one of those ideal ideas (the general notion of having a route end at a hospital & what not), but that immediate area is a horrible place to end a bus route from a logistical standpoint... Just getting back to Jamaica av. (for the corresponding EB trip) would loom nightmarish...

funny you mention that QT65, because I just linked to it in my last post.... That proposal was worse.

Yeah, the current setup along Merrick is simply simpler than what they're proposing having buses do along it... The proposed Q25 is basically the new current Q27 of the network - in the sense that it'll be this long-winded route that's going to amass a massive amount of pax, given the "high-priority" (as they coin it... lol) corridors it'd serve.... Even during the overnight hrs, having this proposed Q65 run to LIRR QV would be just as bad, if not worse than the QT65 that they initially proposed(in the first draft... You'll get used to it.... Besides, we could use some new blood on this forum.

Albeit for the wrong reasons IMO, I'd say the proposed Q25 would actually result in a net gain in ridership, compared to the current Q25.... For whatever losses it'd incur north of those Linden Towers Co-op's over by the Whitestone Expwy., it'd gain back panning south of Downtown Jamaica, running all the way down to Springfield Gdns.... The proposed Q65 OTOH, yeah, I'd say it'd result in a net loss of ridership, compared to the current Q65.... Not to the tune of 15-30% per se, but still likely a net loss.... As was previously stated, both carry heavy enough north of Flushing.... However, for as much as the MTA dickrides the Q25, it's actually the Q65 that carries more a] north of Flushing & b] overall (as in, from end to end)..... Can't say I'd disagree.... Poor place to terminate a bus route, esp. on a full time basis. Given that they're turning the Q83 into one of those rush routes (with having the proposed Q42 & Q65 act as "locals" along a portion of the general corridor), I'd say that overnight portion up to LIRR QV is toast.

I wouldn't go that far with the analogy, because the Q25 & the Q65 definitely gets good usage b/w Flushing & College Point.... With that said, I don't really take issue with swapping the current Q25 & Q65 stints between Flushing & College Point for their proposed Q17 & Q27 between that said stretch.... Even though neither of them would serve LIRR Jamaica anymore, at least they still maintained having the proposed Q25 & Q65 both serving Flushing proper & Jamaica proper..... Basically, I would (also) question the real need for 2 routes running b/w College Point & Jamaica at this point..... Maybe 1 at the most, but not both of them (although I will admit that the way the proposed Q31 would do College Point - Jamaica is laughable/pathetic).... Better allocation of route mileage. The proposed Q17 & proposed Q27 simply have better route compositions than the current Q17 (whose southern half drastically pales in comparison with the northern half of the route) & the current Q27 (while hitting key points mid-route, carrying as many cumulative pax. that it does, it's still a long, drawn out route.... SE Queens - Flushing travel is massively overrated [which is the problem I have with the proposed Q26])....

Currently for Flushing - Jamaica travel, you have the Main st. corridor, Kissena/Parsons corridors, 165th corridor, and 188th..... I agree with dismantling the current Q17, but I do think either the Kissena/Parsons corridor or the 165th corridor should have a bus route remaining serving LIRR Jamaica (even if it doesn't specifically terminate at it)....

I'll say this much.... Not having anything specifically terminate along the Sutphin side of LIRR Jamaica, I have to agree with.... What I don't agree with, is forcing everybody from the Flushing area to have to take the Q44 to get to LIRR Jamaica - especially given that they're proposing expanding that route's footprint to Fordham,..

Nobody's implicating nobody in life should ever use cars..... At the same, I'm not going to sit here & advocate the personal vehicle because this, or any other transit agency can't get their shit together... I just don't care to be in anybody's pockets...

This is a good example of 2 wrongs not making a right. That is exactly what I said to myself when I read that post of his yesterday morning.... It's one thing to resort to that as a personal solution, but to advocate personal vehicle usage because this transit agency can't get their shit together? Although I most certainly have my gripes with this agency, that's not a message I'd start pushing.... At that point, that starts to project, and segue into an anti-transit stance - even if that's not the original intent... I get that you're venting, but the solution you're presenting to your biggest critique of the push for more public transit, is the antithesis to public transit....

Not the entire network, no.... I'd say NJT's attempting to go about their redesigns the right way though; it's best to analyze the network from major regions & try to build up the network that way.... North Jersey's separate interstate & intrastate networks alone are too extensive for a clean slate approach - even if you wanted to do away with having separate networks for each (which would be the cheap [and stupid] way to go about it).... Generally speaking, the #76 is one of the more straighter routes NJT has.... My critique about the #76 (if anything) is that is has too many variants.... As far as indirectness within its network, it's nothing like these 2 examples: ____________________(The NJT #452)____________________________________________(The NJT #5)

While they also have buses straightened to continue on Av B, they still have buses ultimately running to Rockaway av/Hegeman.... I'd have buses ending at Rockaway Pkwy/Church instead... Part of why I'm suggesting what I am, is to do away with that WB stint on Linden... It's a ridership deterrent, as it stifles coverage in the immediate area... The current WB B8 runs on Linden b/w Rockaway av & Church, while their proposed B8 still has to run on Linden to get b/w Rockaway av & Rockaway Pkwy....

Perhaps, but the core issue, which is a valid one, that you laid out in your prior post would still reign true. Funny how their dubbing of the two resultant splits of the n20 have long had people complaining that the connection b/w the two at LIRR Great Neck are the furthest thing from timely.... I just don't concern myself with route nomenclature.... I mean, they still got a route called the "n40/41" rolling around - although the part of the former n41 (as a standalone route) that distinguished it from the n40, has been absorbed by the n43... Still chuckle when I hear the announcement literally say "n forty forty one" to this day.

lol,.... Nah, No anger here, and you didn't break any forum rule.... You're good... I get that you're eager about the redesign..... More than anything though, just don't get too caught up with what any ole joe schmo says on social media.... That's all.

NICE does it, yet again... While not exactly good news for passengers, at least they're displaying the news on the destination signage that the fare's going up to $2.90... Noticed it the other day, when I was on the n25, as a Jamaica bound n22 passed by.... The whole sequence went like n22 Jamaica <next frame> new fare 8.20.23 <next frame> $2.90

...and the entire borough of Staten Island.

Yes, 165th st. mall is what I've heard it being referenced as. Are you putting it like that because it's that common, or for some other reason (if so, why aren't you surprised at that) ?

I really don't wanna be the so-called wait & see guy here, but you gotta chill with forwarding what some random is saying on FB on here, like it's gospel or something..... Quite honestly, considering the quality of these redesigns, I'm in no "rush" for any of them to be implemented. They don't know their elbows from their a**holes, so they themselves not knowing when these concoctions they call plans will officially come to fruition, is par for the course...

I get that this was an example, but N6's reply put the example into perspective.... There's no way the B15's carrying 15,000 people a day to/from JFK. 3,000 sounds closer to the total amount of daily riders taking B15's to/from JFK per day... Maybe 4-5 thousand.... Whatever the number is, some fraction of that number would represent how many ppl. solely use the B15 to get to/from JFK... While I agree with BrooklynBus that the percentage isn't all that important, to me, it's ultimately splitting hairs (given my position with this proposed B35/B55 plan).... Even if we're to assume that the proposed B55 would bring in more folks that would directly use it to get to JFK (meaning, on top of those currently xferring from the B35 to the B15), I'd still say that number wouldn't warrant running (any sort of a tinkered version of) the B35 to JFK.... When I saw N6's question (regarding the percentage of 1-seat riders to/from JFK on the B15), what you're essentially getting at here, was going to be my follow-up question.... I was going to ask "From Where?" But I wanted to see how the discussion was going to play out, before asking that question/bringing that up.....

They still have buses going Jamaica-Hicksville on weekends.

Sad what happened to Linden Plaza (it's completely demolished, for those that don't know). Learned this the hard way a couple years back; I walked from the last stop of the #94 in Linden (W. Elizabeth / N. Stiles) to Linden Plaza, attempting to catch the #57 at Linden Plaza (where it used to terminate)... At the time, the entire area was barricaded; I couldn't figure out where they moved the #57, so I gave up & hoofed it from there, over to the #57's stop for Aviation Plaza, along S. Stiles..... Bear in mind that that general area around Aviation Plaza/Linden Plaza isn't exactly ped. friendly..... Anyway, thought nothing of it all, up until I see the changes for the #57 in this thread.... Just went to MyBusNow, and I see that they got buses ending along Av. C, just short of rt. 1/9..... Cutting it back to Aviation Plaza (which is what I actually proposed on here in the past) I think would've sufficed, but I suppose they kept a corresponding stop proximate to (well, what was) Linden Plaza, for access to Linden Commons (which is on the other side of Av. C)....... In any case, whenever buses start operating to this Legacy Sq. shopping ctr (which is apparently on the opposite side of rt. 1/9 from Aviation Plaza, Linden Commons, and (what was) Linden Plaza), I want to see if they'll still have buses diverting to serve Linden Commons, or if buses will just go Wood > 20th > S. Stiles > rt. 1/9, straight to wherever they play on ending buses inside Legacy Sq.... * side note: So they moved the Wal-mart that was inside Linden Plaza, inside this Legacy Sq.... Obvious one, but still, smart move.... * side note 2: Regarding what was proposed in the NewBus Newark redesign proposal, the proposed #54 (southern split of the current #94 that has it running b/w Irvington Bus Terminal & "an extension to the Target and Walmart Supercenter off W Edgar Rd."), can't come fast enough....

Gradually, eventually.... I've never been a proponent of riding some new route{s} when they first come out anyway.... Quite frankly, I'm (more) concerned about the morale of the drivers when this new network goes into effect.... With the current system right now, well let's just say Rome is burning & London Bridge has fallen...... Too many missing (or extremely late) trips, drivers taking longer layovers than normal, the general disposition of drivers being more negative than positive - IME's anyway.... The feeling is more of a *let me get this done with, so I can go home*, than it is a (genuine) *can I help you*..... This may be extreme, but I'll say it anyway - I'd go as far as to say that it doesn't even feel like a public bus system anymore out there.... I started feeling like this since 2020/21..... My interest level in SCT has taken a flat out nosedive in those past 2-3 years or so - this is coming from someone that used to be high on SCT too.... For all we've been saying about the redesigns for the boroughs, while I wouldn't say excited, I'm still intrigued on how (bad) things are going to pan out...

Nah, even back when the N78/N79 ran to Mineola, ridership from points east of Hicksville on both of those routes used to tank at Hicksville RR.... In turn, N78/79's along OCR were even emptier than the current eastern split of the n24 (as in, RFM - Hicksville) were.... Having the n24 go Jamaica - Hicksville was/is a far better use of resources than having N78's go Plainview - Mineola, and especially having N79's go South Huntington - Mineola.... Killing the span of the n78/n79 ultimately did that route pairing in.... Well, that, and the waning demand for Walt Whitman (n79).....

You're making it sound like those that farebeat that don't have criminal intentions after beating the fare, are coming up with some elaborate scheme (like wearing winter apparel in the summertime) in order to farebeat.... That may be some one-off, but that's simply not what's going on, by far & large.... These people casually walking through the emergency exit door, jumping turnstiles, or ducking under turnstiles in their regular apparel to beat the fare, be regular commuters (that aren't looking to do something criminal after they beat the fare) more often than not.... It's second-nature at this point; farebeating is a culture in this city... Yeah, and that why I either chuckle or scoff (depending on my mood) whenever I hear that announcement on the train, informing pax. that there are police on the platform (or whatever it says, verbatim)....