Nova RTS 9147 Posted May 28, 2010 Share #26 Posted May 28, 2010 The B49LTD should be A.M. and P.M. rush hours at both directions. I've been around that area for years, and this is my first time hearing about a B49LTD. Btw, half of this thread has been me thinking and wondering "why does this route need a limited" like the M1/M2, the M5, B49LTD, ect. If the is authentically concerned about saving money, they should be thinking about this too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akamtabx36 Posted May 29, 2010 Share #27 Posted May 29, 2010 i always take the Bx36 home and i find that the limited is useful and that it should stay but i think that M100 could use a limited cause people on amsterdam always take the M100 instead of the M101 they dont take the M101 becuse it says limited and people see that the M100 sign is local so i think that after 1 av-125 st they should take that limited sign out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted May 29, 2010 Share #28 Posted May 29, 2010 -B6 LTD is a must have. -B8 to become LTD, maybe, maybe not.* (i over heard a Gleason driver on the B16 saying that they wanted to make a B8 LTD before the cuts occured.) -B12 could use a LTD route during rush hours, but then again why if service between Cypress Hills and Alabama Av is getting canned. -B15 could use a LTD route like the Q10. it makes way too many stops on the line from beginning to end (Bed Stuy to JFK Airport). Id say during the day, let B15 LTD run all JFK trips, and all B15 Locals make all stops and head to the Postal Facility. All night service could remain the same. -B49 LTD should be rush hours AM and PM. -B57 doesnt look like it needs a limited, but at least during rush hour since its being extended to Carrol Gardens after 6/27. -B61/B62 service is retarted. they shouldve just done the whole B61/B61 LTD thing instead of B61/B62. -B82 could use a LTD route. Coney Island to Starret City is pretty long. -S81, S86, S90 and S92 are a waste. -S93 should be LTD all day on Weekdays and maybe saturdays for those who take saturday classes at CSI. -S59/S89: i think the S89 is good, but it should run all day being that it runs to and from Jersey during weekday rush hours. During Nights and Weekends, let the S59 take over and operate it between Eltingville and Jersey and make the S59 a 24/7 stop. service to Port Richmond via the S59 can be discontinued and customers can use alternatives. -S84 id keep because of its route length. all LTD route in manhattan like the M1, and M4 (mostly the M4) are pointless. if theres already a M2 and M5 LTD, why need two more? -M101 LTD can also skip a few stops above W 125 St via Amsterdam Av because the M100 is also providing local service along the same route. -M7 can be a LTD during the day also because the M11 provides local service via Columbus Av, M104 (heading back uptown). since the M6 is going bye-bye, the M7 can make all stops from 57 St to 23 St via 6/7 Aves. -M98 should be an all day LTD bus as well. it can help out the M101 LTD, M102 and M103 via Lexington and 3 Aves. -B103 should operate on sundays as well. all other bus routes id leave alone. these are just my opinions. of the LTD's and what i think they should do. my question is, do we really need an N6 LTD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted May 29, 2010 Share #29 Posted May 29, 2010 I've been around that area for years, and this is my first time hearing about a B49LTD. Btw, half of this thread has been me thinking and wondering "why does this route need a limited" like the M1/M2, the M5, B49LTD, ect. If the is authentically concerned about saving money, they should be thinking about this too! I think the B49 LTD was introduced in 2006. It started out with 3 runs in the AM rush and now runs 7 runs in the AM rush (It only runs from Empire Blvd - KCC) On certain routes, the limited-stop runs replace some of the local runs, so the MTA actually saves money, since it has to pay drivers for that much less runtime, since they are now driving a limited-stop bus. However, you bring up a good point that certain useless limited routes could save money if they were cut back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBus 5121 Posted May 29, 2010 Share #30 Posted May 29, 2010 I think the best thing to do is this. We often talk about what shouldn't be a limited and what should. How about this. How about we reduce the number of local bus stops (instead of 1 or 2 every block) and make it into 2-4 or 3-4, 3-5 every block (in certain situations like in the outer bouroughs). Obviously there are pros and cons to this but to me its pathetic when in manhattan for example, you can have for on madison ave (this is theoretical) a bus stop at 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42 St (or something along those lines) when it can just be 34 st, 38 st and 42 st as the stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstar1 Posted May 30, 2010 Share #31 Posted May 30, 2010 When they were making the bus split between B61/B62, I thought that they would still make the B61 operate to Queens, but B62 instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted May 30, 2010 Share #32 Posted May 30, 2010 Deleted post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted May 30, 2010 Share #33 Posted May 30, 2010 Replies in bold -B6 LTD is a must have.Agree -B8 to become LTD, maybe, maybe not.* (i over heard a Gleason driver on the B16 saying that they wanted to make a B8 LTD before the cuts occured.) I think it should at least be a limited rush hours, seeing as it goes all the way from Bay Ridge To Brownsville -B12 could use a LTD route during rush hours, but then again why if service between Cypress Hills and Alabama Av is getting canned. -B15 could use a LTD route like the Q10. it makes way too many stops on the line from beginning to end (Bed Stuy to JFK Airport). Id say during the day, let B15 LTD run all JFK trips, and all B15 Locals make all stops and head to the Postal Facility. All night service could remain the same. Agree. That would make it the same as other local/limited-stop pairs with the limited going further out. I don't know if some of the streets are wide enough though. New Lots Avenue is pretty narrow. -B49 LTD should be rush hours AM and PM. I agree. I don't agree with any one-way limited -B57 doesnt look like it needs a limited, but at least during rush hour since its being extended to Carrol Gardens after 6/27. -B61/B62 service is retarted. they shouldve just done the whole B61/B61 LTD thing instead of B61/B62. -B82 could use a LTD route. Coney Island to Starret City is pretty long. It's getting one. -S81, S86, S90 and S92 are a waste. The S90 is needed because of crowd control, and instead of cutting the S92, you could cut back S62 service in the PM rush to Jewett Avenue, and cut back S61 service in the PM rush hour, to make the AM and PM pattern the same. I don't think too many people are going to CSI in the afternoon, so the S92 could cover it -S93 should be LTD all day on Weekdays and maybe saturdays for those who take saturday classes at CSI. I agree with the all day weekdays, but I don't think it needs Saturday service just yet. -S59/S89: i think the S89 is good, but it should run all day being that it runs to and from Jersey during weekday rush hours. During Nights and Weekends, let the S59 take over and operate it between Eltingville and Jersey and make the S59 a 24/7 stop. service to Port Richmond via the S59 can be discontinued and customers can use alternatives. I don't think there is much demand for service to Bayonne on the weekends. Also, I don't think service to Port Richmond should be discontinued. The S44 only covers part of Port Richmond Avenue and the buses north of Post Avenue (the S53/S57) don't run anywhere near the S59. -S84 id keep because of its route length. The portion west of Richmond Avenue hits little traffic and doesn't get much ridership. Maybe adding AM service and cutting back the S74 to Richmond Avenue in the AM rush would attract riders. all LTD route in manhattan like the M1, and M4 (mostly the M4) are pointless. if theres already a M2 and M5 LTD, why need two more? -M101 LTD can also skip a few stops above W 125 St via Amsterdam Av because the M100 is also providing local service along the same route. -M7 can be a LTD during the day also because the M11 provides local service via Columbus Av, M104 (heading back uptown). since the M6 is going bye-bye, the M7 can make all stops from 57 St to 23 St via 6/7 Aves. I agree -M98 should be an all day LTD bus as well. it can help out the M101 LTD, M102 and M103 via Lexington and 3 Aves. I don't really think so, as the Lexington Avenue Line is right under them -B103 should operate on sundays as well. It already does. all other bus routes id leave alone. these are just my opinions. of the LTD's and what i think they should do. my question is, do we really need an N6 LTD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 30, 2010 Share #34 Posted May 30, 2010 I've been around that area for years, and this is my first time hearing about a B49LTD. Btw, half of this thread has been me thinking and wondering "why does this route need a limited" like the M1/M2, the M5, B49LTD, ect. If the is authentically concerned about saving money, they should be thinking about this too! I'm not sure they should cut all limited routes. They are sort of like the express to the locals, they take on a greater load of riders more quickly while the locals picks up riders gradually. So I do think they have a use, but obviously it is a case by case basis. For example, there's no way you can cut the B41 limited as those are ALWAYS packed. And the local counterpart still has some room if not end up empty. Long distance routes needs limiteds to speed up the ride especially for areas that do not have subway alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 30, 2010 Share #35 Posted May 30, 2010 Replies in bold. -B6 LTD is a must have.agreed -B61/B62 service is retarted. they shouldve just done the whole B61/B61 LTD thing instead of B61/B62. I think the point was to eliminate the bottleneck in the middle, so on that point, I think it was worth the split. -B82 could use a LTD route. Coney Island to Starret City is pretty long. Yes, this should've been done ages ago. That or they never should've merged the B5 and B50. And that combined line should've been called the B5. The B82 designation makes no sense at all. Also they should've called the B83 the B50. -B103 should operate on sundays as well. But doesn't the BM2 run as well? If you run one you should not run the other. There's no need to run that much service. But I suppose it is fine as long as they all end on Av H and Nostrand since people can take the B41 or the to get to Downtown Brooklyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q101viaSteinway Posted May 30, 2010 Share #36 Posted May 30, 2010 The B103 already runs on Sundays since January 4th, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted May 30, 2010 Share #37 Posted May 30, 2010 outside of staten island, to be frank with all of you, I think most LTD runs are useless.... furthermore, I'm willing to read anyone's explanation of why the B38, Q36 &/or the Bx36 just had to get LTD's... hell, I'll even throw the N6 in that department too; majority of riders on that route are heading to either terminal in either direction anyway... while I already come to realize why the B49 got them, I still don't see the point in running LTD service solely during the AM hrs heading in that one direction (SB); regardless if it's (supposed to be) for KCC students...... -B82 could use a LTD route. Coney Island to Starret City is pretty long. Yes, this should've been done ages ago. That or they never should've merged the B5 and B50. And that combined line should've been called the B5. The B82 designation makes no sense at all. Also they should've called the B83 the B50. You (GC) know where I stand on this... those that don't... well, I (will continue to) say that the B82 should've never came to pass in the first place... there was nothing wrong w/ the 50 (and FWIW, that could've been the route to extend to Gateway before the 83 was considered).... IMHO, somehow merging/fusing the (old) B5 schedule & route into the (current) B7's would've made a little more sense... this way, you have one continuous route traveling down all of kings hwy {it would run similar to how the current Q27 runs (with only a select few runs running the full route; flushing to cambria hgts in that case)}.... This way, you kill a couple birds with one stone... 1) eliminating flatbush/kings hwy as a full time terminal in its totality (which was one of the reasons they combined the B5 & the 50) {CI/quentin would be one SB terminal, and the "full" route would end over there on 25th/cropsey.. don't really have to run them all the way down to stillwell, or even canal av} 2) the B7 not running on half ass headways like it currently does (lol) 3) consistent service along kings hwy, all times (B82 simply isn't reliable no matter when it runs, and the B7 (still) stops dead @ f'bush/kings hwy after a certain hour.... ....and lastly, no need for having to create LTD service on a route (B82) 15 some'n odd years after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 30, 2010 Share #38 Posted May 30, 2010 Very true, excellent points. I would agree the B5-B7 merger would've made more sense and of course they could've cut the B7 designation so there won't be that 'B7/&' joke. Other than Flatbush-Flatlands, there no point in a bus service on Flatlands av b/w FB and Utica [the main segment I have observed - can't comment on the line past Utica]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted May 30, 2010 Share #39 Posted May 30, 2010 ehh, I'm game.... have some time to kill.... let's spark up some conversation... -B6 LTD is a must have.yes, one of the few routes that I think should probably have a LTD on it -B8 to become LTD, maybe, maybe not.* (i over heard a Gleason driver on the B16 saying that they wanted to make a B8 LTD before the cuts occured.) don't see where it would help on this route; the bulk of B8 ridership is b/w Newkirk ( & Utica/av. D... and running LTD's on 18th av IMO is similar to the current situation w/ the B35 LTD (which I greatly despise) not saving much of any time along church... -B12 could use a LTD route during rush hours, but then again why if service between Cypress Hills and Alabama Av is getting canned. disagree... absolutely no need for LTD service on the B12.... ridership patterns on this route is the main reason (same reason why it aint make one ounce of sense putting LTD's on the B38)... furthermore, buses on this route for the most, part coast on Liberty anyway, since usage is so sparse.... -B15 could use a LTD route like the Q10. it makes way too many stops on the line from beginning to end (Bed Stuy to JFK Airport). Id say during the day, let B15 LTD run all JFK trips, and all B15 Locals make all stops and head to the Postal Facility. All night service could remain the same. ok, but... the problem with running LTD's on this route, is the B15 routing itself (especially in bed stuy & ocean hill).... where do you put LTD stops? Where would LTD service begin/end on this route... what I think should happen on this route, before LTD service is instantiated, is having more B15's (outside of rush hr) run the "combo" route like they do in the early AM hrs; that is, serving BOTH the postal facility & JFK.... -B49 LTD should be rush hours AM and PM. B49 LTD shouldn't exist. -B57 doesnt look like it needs a limited, but at least during rush hour since its being extended to Carrol Gardens after 6/27. Good luck getting carroll gdns residents to want to ride the B57 after that gets extended... after having buses coming from Maspeth (as opposed to downtown bklyn like the current 75 does)... ....the discussion on running LTD's on the *new* 57, IMO, is a pointless one. why? b/c I really do feel those residents (especially) are gonna get fed up with even worse service along smith/court sts, to the point where they're gonna end up taking the or the .... -B61/B62 service is retarted. they shouldve just done the whole B61/B61 LTD thing instead of B61/B62. would it have killed them to have (more) short turns on the original B61 IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, instead of splitting the route, outright; The only short turns that existed on that route, were some runs that went from red hook to downtown brooklyn during the AM hrs (including the rush)..... this is where they got the idea of splitting it in downtown brooklyn.... so yeh, I do agree with you on the retardation of splitting the B61; even though the B62 part of the split (finally) serves williamsburg bridge plz. -B82 could use a LTD route. Coney Island to Starret City is pretty long. see my last reply in this thread... -S81, S86, S90 and S92 are a waste. don't know about the 92, but I have to agree w/ you on the S90... the S51 & the S76 normally crawl on its respective routes; the 81 & the 86 are a help, coming out of St George.... -S93 should be LTD all day on Weekdays and maybe saturdays for those who take saturday classes at CSI. between 6 & 7 PM, I think the 93 could maybe use another run... far as running them on saturdays, I'll let someone else opinionate on that... -S59/S89: i think the S89 is good, but it should run all day being that it runs to and from Jersey during weekday rush hours. During Nights and Weekends, let the S59 take over and operate it between Eltingville and Jersey and make the S59 a 24/7 stop. service to Port Richmond via the S59 can be discontinued and customers can use alternatives. No way should the S89 run all day... that would be a waste of resources... you'll see a trend on the PM runs... the later they run, the worse ridership gets.... that last run out of Bayonne around 7:30pm should be eliminated... that run is almost always either empty, or has less than a handful of ppl. on it.... and I totally disagree on sacrificing pt. richmond riders of the S59, for (w/e possible) riders that could be obtained by sending 59's up to Bayonne during those hrs during the weekday, and the weekend... -S84 id keep because of its route length. all LTD route in manhattan like the M1, and M4 (mostly the M4) are pointless. if theres already a M2 and M5 LTD, why need two more? agree 100% -M101 LTD can also skip a few stops above W 125 St via Amsterdam Av because the M100 is also providing local service along the same route. I never quite understood that about the M101 LTD; it runs local from Ft. george to over there in east harlem, then it runs LTD south of like 121st (or w/e that stop south of 125th is).... IMO, the M101 should run local b/w Ft George & washington hgts (broadway/amsterdam; where both the 100 & the 101 diverge, to be exact)... -M7 can be a LTD during the day also because the M11 provides local service via Columbus Av, M104 (heading back uptown). since the M6 is going bye-bye, the M7 can make all stops from 57 St to 23 St via 6/7 Aves. -M98 should be an all day LTD bus as well. it can help out the M101 LTD, M102 and M103 via Lexington and 3 Aves. have to disagree w/ you on this... given traffic on the harlem river drive on some instances, you don't want buses in service constantly getting stuck in that, on an all day basis... besides, I don't think the ridership would be there anyway.... -B103 should operate on sundays as well. as was said, it already does run on sundays, bro..... all other bus routes id leave alone. these are just my opinions. of the LTD's and what i think they should do. I can respect all of them. my question is, do we really need an N6 LTD? I would have to say no.... if people want to get b/w Jamaica & Hempstead faster, take the LIRR Hempstead branch.... reply in bold, red..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted May 31, 2010 Share #40 Posted May 31, 2010 Didn't we have a B50 and the B83 running to Spring Creek-Starrett City back in the day? IIRC the B83 ran from Pennsylvania-Liberty (A)/© station to Vermont St-Cozine Ave and was extended to Berriman St. When Starrett opened the route was changed to Broadway-ENY station and it was sent over to Van Siclen Ave via New Lots Ave and down into Starrett City. I think the B50 came down Flatlands Ave from Rockaway Parkway-Glenwood Rd station. I remember many residents of the (then) new Starrett were afraid to go to Broadway-ENY for SOME reason back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 31, 2010 Share #41 Posted May 31, 2010 Well ok, true [i don't know the whole history about the B5/50]. I'm just saying that if they 'justified' calling the new combo route the B82 because of the B83, then that to me makes no sense. If they wanted those two lines to be 'close', they could've just renamed the B83 to the B50 once the B50 designation was no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted May 31, 2010 Share #42 Posted May 31, 2010 Didn't we have a B50 and the B83 running to Spring Creek-Starrett City back in the day? IIRC the B83 ran from Pennsylvania-Liberty (A)/© station to Vermont St-Cozine Ave and was extended to Berriman St. When Starrett opened the route was changed to Broadway-ENY station and it was sent over to Van Siclen Ave via New Lots Ave and down into Starrett City. I think the B50 came down Flatlands Ave from Rockaway Parkway-Glenwood Rd station. I remember many residents of the (then) new Starrett were afraid to go to Broadway-ENY for SOME reason back then. hmm, unless I'm missing something.... you could've been thinking of the old B84 that used to run down flatlands, coming from Rockaway Pkwy )... (b/c remember, the B82 didn't start out serving the subway station; up until complaints started arising... it just continued down flatlands, on down to starrett {I still call it starrett also}.... I don't remember the 50 directly serving the Rockaway Pkwy sta. either.....) ....and broadway/ENY was gang territory back in the 80's... you still have some people that are petrified of that general area, still to this day.... I'm just saying that if they 'justified' calling the new combo route the B82 because of the B83, then that to me makes no sense. If they wanted those two lines to be 'close', they could've just renamed the B83 to the B50 once the B50 designation was no more. lol... but agreed. ....and now that I think about it; in what I just brought it up in my reply to Trainmaster, you had (well, we still do... lol) the B83 that runs in that general area... there was the B84 (which was later absorbed into what we now know as the B6) that also ran in that area.... maybe the B82 numbering was their way of being nostalgic, iono... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 31, 2010 Share #43 Posted May 31, 2010 hem true, lol. It's just crazy B82-84. The B82 just needs to be split up. And going back to your B5+B7 idea, I think that is a better combo line and then they should call it the B5 . They split up the B61 to the B61-62, why not the B82? That line is just too long as is and you're right, this limited service is no solution either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemoreira81 Posted May 31, 2010 Share #44 Posted May 31, 2010 Are they planning to have short turn Bx15s at 149th Street? They said that they would add some Bx15 service.By the way, does the Bx15 run artics already or not? The Bx15 will be running artics once the Bx55 gets cut down. Also, the B82 is getting a Limited-Stop service come fall 2010. The Q58 is also getting a Limited-Stop service. The B82 Limited will be peak hour and PM pre-peak shoulder (bidirectional), and the Q58---Queens' second busiest route after the Q44---will be getting a 7-day-a-week Limited Stop service. These are not rumors and were discussed on BusChat last week or the week before. The MTA has already finalized the stops for both. I would not be surprised if by 2011, the B82 gets a full weekday Limited service, with locals running between 25 Avenue and Rockaway Parkway and possibly interlined with the B3, B42, or B64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted May 31, 2010 Share #45 Posted May 31, 2010 ^^ we're not implying LTD service on the 82 as being a rumor... we're saying/asking/discussing what difference would it make; what problems does it solve on that route.... it's not a matter of disbelieving that the service will or won't happen.... I think the best thing to do is this. We often talk about what shouldn't be a limited and what should. How about this. How about we reduce the number of local bus stops (instead of 1 or 2 every block) and make it into 2-4 or 3-4, 3-5 every block (in certain situations like in the outer bouroughs). Obviously there are pros and cons to this but to me its pathetic when in manhattan for example, you can have for on madison ave (this is theoretical) a bus stop at 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42 St (or something along those lines) when it can just be 34 st, 38 st and 42 st as the stops. if the train of thought is to oust the idea of LTD service, period.... then I could maybe agree w/ this.... hmm, instead of 1-2 blocks apart... well, the stops on the crosstown buses have to be one "avenue" apart... outside of x-town buses, most stops are spaced 2-3 blocks apart... anything above let's say, every 4 blocks (~1/5 mile) may be a bit much for a lot of people.... I mean, FWIW, on the b/w 14th & 34th, those subway stops are 4, 5, 5, & 6 blocks apart, respectively.... it's not that your idea is farfetched, it's just that I think, realistically speaking, they're better off keeping bus stops 2-3 blocks apart, and keep LTD service on most the routes that currently have them as counterparts (b/c again, I still don't feel every route that has LTD service, needs them)... basically what I'm sayin is, it's a moot point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted May 31, 2010 Share #46 Posted May 31, 2010 Great suggestion B35. A B5/B7 would have made more sense than the existing B5/B50 that the ended up creating 15 years ago. With that said the other way the (NYCT) could have done to 'modernize' the B5 and B50 was this. IMO The B5 should have just been extended to Rockaway Pwy Station while the B50 could have ran between the US Postal Center on Elderts Lane/Stanley via Spring Creek Gateway Mall and Starret (or even JFK Airport)and the Kings Highway currently served by the station. Those 2 options made a hell alot of more sense than the current B82 bus route.:confused::eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNQtrain3912 Posted May 31, 2010 Share #47 Posted May 31, 2010 the b35 limited is useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 31, 2010 Share #48 Posted May 31, 2010 Will you state why it is useless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted May 31, 2010 Share #49 Posted May 31, 2010 Will you state why it is useless? I know this wadn't directed at me.... but my reasons for despising the B35 are documented, on here & straps.... that's why I didn't bother mentioning the B35 ltd.... b/c given the question in the thread title, it would've been my answer by default. But word, I'm also curious as to why dude feels that way. at least he can give a reason(s)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43 Floral Park Posted June 1, 2010 Share #50 Posted June 1, 2010 Bx36: LTD is a huge waste to me and there are at least 3 other routes that come to mind in the Bronx that need LTD service more. 1st off the several times I've used it I've gotten bypassed by locals. The Bx36 was never a route that crawled, the only place it does crawl is 181 because they refuse to change the traffic pattern. The buses still bunch, you'll see 2 locals and 2 LTDs in a line basically. I'd rather see LTD service on the Bx10 (I have a logical explanation behind this one), Bx19 and Bx28 especially the latter because that bs Bx28/38 is going to make things so much worse Q36/Q43: To begin with I hate all the Hillside Avenue routes but I have to say these 2 are my least favorite. When one lives in deep East Queens getting to the , or is a huge pain. The LTD service on the Q36 isn't worth discussing why its a waste. But the Q43 has potential, the main issues are that it only runs between Springfield & 179 when it should at least go to 165 st and the fact that everyone who off-peak would simply get on the Q1/2/3/76/77 will let those buses go by, wait for the 43 then have to get off to x-fer anyway which slows it down a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.