Stranded straphangers begin drive to bring back bus service to Queens

[B35 via Church]

In this case, yes. It's tough to argue that the Q79 "served the community" when the community explicitly rejected it. Such was the case with the Q79.

If the Q79 served one person in the community within the community, it still "served the community"....

 

...and since you keep preachin that BS, where's this proof that the community rejected the route? The lower ridership routes in the system aren't/weren't the way they are/were, due to community rejection... That is what I think you're basing that whole notion on.... Every route wasn't designed to carry a million ppl./year

 

If the Q79 was rejected by ppl. out there, there would have NEVER been attempts/talks to EXTEND the route to LIRR Floral Park...

 

you just come on here to repeat the same things over and over and over and over again....

[Shortline Bus]

That I agree with it. The whole bus network in the 5 boros should be re-examined from top to bottom. I bet at least 25% of the NYC bus routes are outdated since many of the bus lines have not been changed since the city took over the bus lines in the 1940's.

 

All options should be on the table such as 'light rail' expanded SBS(Bus Rapd Transit) using shorter 30-35 foot buses on lighter routes or just keeping the routes the same. A whole review citywide should have taken at least a few years back around 2006-'07 during the height of record ridership systemwide due to the metrocard.

 

 

Just because ridership was low doesn't mean that community rejected it. What the should do more of is study lines more closely with the community where possible to see how they can improve them. Many of the lines here in the city haven't been touched in years. Meanwhile communities are changing and transportation needs in these communities are changing as well, but the is not keeping up with these changes.

 

Many are quick to say that a route should be killed simply because ridership is low without examining why that is. Any route with poor frequencies and unreliability issues will generally have poor ridership unless there are absolutely no other alternatives around. The question is does the really want to keep some of these lines, or are they doing underhanded BS to see the lines fail? I still think that's the main problem in some cases.

[Amtrak7]

That I agree with it. The whole bus network in the 5 boros should be re-examined from top to bottom. I bet at least 25% of the NYC bus routes are outdated since many of the bus lines have not been changed since the city took over the bus lines in the 1940's.

 

Totally agreed!!! NYCT is basically taking an ancient route network that dates back to the start of New York City transit service (trolleys) and modifying it here and there to fit. After several decades, it's become a complete mess.

 

As for extending routes to cover the Q79, how about piecing it up?

 

-Extend Q36 up to Union Tpk

-Extend Q30 down to Union Tpk

-Or make the QM3, QM5, QM8 take on local passengers (since local ridership is likely to be low anyway)

 

Direct service to Jamaica or Flushing is highly likely to increase ridership.

[Shortline Bus]

Replies in red.

 

Totally agreed!!! NYCT is basically taking an ancient route network that dates back to the start of New York City transit service (trolleys) and modifying it here and there to fit. After several decades, it's become a complete mess.

 

As for extending routes to cover the Q79, how about piecing it up?

 

-Extend Q36 up to Union Tpk-Disagree. A better idea is the (Q30) extension to Little Neck (see below) and or extending the (Q46) Glen Oaks branch to LIE/HH.

 

-Extend Q30 down to Union Tpk-I disagree. Instead I heard IMO a better idea (forgot source or first poster to give credit)of extending the (Q30)up to Little Neck LIRR at least on alternative trips.

 

 

-Or make the QM3, QM5, QM8 take on local passengers (since local ridership is likely to be low anyway) That brings up another topic on whether 'Manhattan express bus" off-peak (i.e weekday evenings and weekends)should pick up riders but charge the express bus fee.

Unless that approved systemwide, 'no' for now to the QM3, QM5 and QM8

picking up along LNP.

 

Direct service to Jamaica or Flushing is highly likely to increase ridership.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Totally agreed!!! NYCT is basically taking an ancient route network that dates back to the start of New York City transit service (trolleys) and modifying it here and there to fit. After several decades, it's become a complete mess.

 

As for extending routes to cover the Q79, how about piecing it up?

 

-Extend Q36 up to Union Tpk

-Extend Q30 down to Union Tpk

-Or make the QM3, QM5, QM8 take on local passengers (since local ridership is likely to be low anyway)

Direct service to Jamaica or Flushing is highly likely to increase ridership.

 

What part of express bus is not clear??? So you think folks should pay the premium fare and have to make a thousand stops to pick up passengers that have totally different commuting needs?? :mad:

[Shortline Bus]

What part of express bus is not clear???

 

I think it should be explored at least for say weekends(if the route) is running.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think it should be explored at least for say weekends(if the route) is running.

 

 

And that's why there's something called the local bus. There's also limited stop buses too. Express buses are for express bus riders who already have long commutes who are paying a premium fare to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, not for everyone to jump on and jump off and slow down the bus. If you really understood how the express bus functions, you would see that the proposal is completely ridiculous. Your proposal could add a good 30 minutes to folks' commutes each way with people having to get off and then get on. There's a reason "Drop Off" only was created and for some reason you, Amtrak & checkmate don't get it. If the express bus was made for every commuter to use the wouldn't set up the service the way that it did.

 

The point of express buses is not to cram as many people onto the bus as possible, but to get people to their destinations as quickly as possible.

[B35 via Church]

I think I get what Amtrak was tryin to do with that... have those routes he mentioned make all local stops along LNP, then express again west of that point... problem is, there's no way to differentiate on the farebox who's traveling locally, and who's not... either way, I don't agree w/ the idea either....

 

as for the other two ideas.... My question is, why union tpke?

[Shortline Bus]

And that's why there's something called the local bus. There's also limited stop buses too. Express bus are for express bus riders who already have long commutes who are paying a premium fare to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, not for everyone to jump on and jump off and slow down the bus. If you really understood how the express bus functions, you would see that the proposal is completely ridiculous.

 

 

Correct B35. That what Amtrak was proposing as alternative to the (Q79).

Look Garbaldi in other cities (I always felt in NYC the term 'express bus' should really be called premium fare bus fares but that another discussion) 'premium fare' on weekends/holidays i.e San Diego instead of being limited stop or express make additional stops and charge a lower fare.

 

If for example you beloved X27/28 were to return weekend service(not endorsing but aking point it should be on the table for discussion)it could charge 1/2 fare discount (instead of the full fare weekdays like the LIRR and Metro North)but it would pick up local intra-boro riders at the express bus stops. Garbaldi you were not a member yet but about two years ago there was a thread about it.

FYI. On a number of occasion when I still lived in SW Brooklyn a decade ago, the drivers on weekends would pick up a rider in Lower Manhattan *charge the full express fare* and take them to 57th St over waiting for a then (M6) that never showed up. Plus most of the express buses on weekends are empty.

 

Again a food for thought and like a total start look to 'start over' re-creating the bus system in NYC so should the option of so called "Manhattan express' buses on weekends on lightly used lines pick up intra-boro riders.

It would never be on a route like the X-1 X-10 and BXM7.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think I get what Amtrak was tryin to do with that... have those routes he mentioned make all local stops along LNP, then express again west of that point... problem is, there's no way to differentiate on the farebox who's traveling locally, and who's not... either way, I don't agree the idea either....

 

as for the other two ideas.... My question is, why union tpke?

 

In addition to that you are serving two different types of commuters with completely different needs.

 

Correct B35. That what Amtrak was proposing as alternative to the (Q79).

Look Garbaldi in other cities (I always felt in NYC the term 'express bus' should really be called premium fare bus fares but that another discussion) 'premium fare' on weekends/holidays i.e San Diego instead of being limited stop or express make additional stops and charge a lower fare.

 

If for example you beloved X27/28 were to return weekend service(not endorsing but aking point it should be on the table for discussion)it could charge 1/2 fare discount (instead of the full fare weekdays like the LIRR and Metro North)but it would pick up local intra-boro riders at the express bus stops. Garbaldi you were not a member yet but about two years ago there was a thread about it.

FYI. On a number of occasion when I still lived in SW Brooklyn a decade ago, the drivers on weekends would pick up a rider in Lower Manhattan *charge the full express fare* and take them to 57th St over waiting for a then (M6) that never showed up. Plus most of the express buses on weekends are empty.

 

Again a food for thought and like a total start look to 'start over' re-creating the bus system in NYC so should the option of so called "Manhattan express' buses on weekends on lightly used lines pick up intra-boro riders.

It would never be on a route like the X-1 X-10 and BXM7.

 

The answer is not to slow down the express bus further, but make the local buses faster and more reliable. As B35 says you also can't tell the difference between a local bus rider and an express bus rider, which makes providing service more difficult.

 

If anything, you examine express bus routes to try to understand where adjustments can be made to make them more efficient. That could be extending the route or re-routing the route like the did with the BM3. The X16 extension was just completely stupid. It should've been extended, but not to Port Richmond down Jewett Avenue, simply because there was no ridership there to support the extension.

[Shortline Bus]

Just a thought from a thread from at least 2 years from a poster i can't find lol.

 

Back to topic. Would using a 30-35 foot buses used in the 'burus' in New Jersey on (NJT) Westchester's Bee Line be a comproise if a lower used route like the (Q79) was ever brought back?

 

In addition to that you are serving two different types of commuters with completely different needs.

 

 

 

The answer is not to slow down the express bus further, but make the local buses faster and more reliable. As B35 says you also can't tell the difference between a local bus rider and an express bus rider, which makes providing service more difficult.

 

If anything, you examine express bus routes to try to understand where adjustments can be made to make them more efficient. That could be extending the route or re-routing the route like the did with the BM3. The X16 extension was just completely stupid. It should've been extended, but not to Port Richmond down Jewett Avenue, simply because there was no ridership there to support the extension.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just a thought from a thread from at least 2 years from a poster i can't find lol.

 

Back to topic. Would using a 30-35 foot buses used in the 'burus' in New Jersey on (NJT) Westchester's Bee Line be a comproise if a lower used route like the (Q79) was ever brought back?

 

 

I don't support that either. Buses should be uniform. You never know when there are going to be problems like Queens Village Depot is having now with a bus shortage. They've got to borrow buses from other depots and I'm sure that they have some high capacity lines. Your proposal would make things rather complicated.

[Shortline Bus]

I don't support that either. Buses should be uniform. You never know when there are going to be problems like Queens Village Depot is having now with a bus shortage. They've got to borrow buses from other depots and I'm sure that they have some high capacity lines. Your proposal would make things rather complicated.

 

Hey have you been to other cities in US Garbaldi? Chicago, Boston, LA, San Diego, DC and other larger bus system around the country uses 'shorter' buses on lower used routes. You seem you want the status quo and 24/7 on most lines. While allowing the Manhattan express buses to pick up riders off peak for intra-boro usage, may not work you seem against change on NYC buses. why?

 

Plus NYC Transit is already not uniform.Heard of Artics? Just making a point.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Hey have you been to other cities in US Garbaldi? Chicago, Boston, LA, San Diego, DC and other larger bus system around the country uses 'shorter' buses on lower used routes. You seem you want the status quo and 24/7 on most lines. While allowing the Manhattan express buses to pick up riders off peak for intra-boro usage, may not work you seem against change on NYC buses. why?

 

Plus NYC Transit is already not uniform.Heard of Artics? Just making a point.

 

I meant uniform as in not having smaller buses. Just a bad idea. I'm not against change. I'm against poorly thought out ideas. You're looking at ways cram more folks in and I'm looking at how feasible and logical those ideas are.

[LRG]

It is not cost-effective to have 30-35' buses because they'll require the SAME amount of maintenance as a 40-foot bus would and the costs would not add up. You're seating less people and cramming standees closer together on these shorter buses.

 

It will never work. We are not like other systems, and we are certainly not like other cities.

[Shortline Bus]

It is not cost-effective to have 30-35' buses because they'll require the SAME amount of maintenance as a 40-foot bus would and the costs would not add up. You're seating less people and cramming standees closer together on these shorter buses.

 

It will never work. We are not like other systems, and we are certainly not like other cities.

 

 

If 30-35 foot buses ever came to (NYCT) or (MTA)bus it would be used on handful of lines like the former (Q79) and few other lower used lines.

Plus like artics it could be placed only in a handful of depots.

 

Yes there should be more artics in the system but also for lower used routes IMO, 30-35 foot buses as well.

[Nova RTS 9147]

It is not cost-effective to have 30-35' buses because they'll require the SAME amount of maintenance as a 40-foot bus would and the costs would not add up. You're seating less people and cramming standees closer together on these shorter buses.

 

It will never work. We are not like other systems, and we are certainly not like other cities.

 

Theres also the issues of interlining routes, where a driver may have one run on a route that may be good for a 30 footer, and his next run is a route where youre SRO with a 40 foot bus.

[LRG]

If 30-35 foot buses ever came to (NYCT) or (MTA)bus it would be used on handful of lines like the former (Q79) and few other lower used lines.

Plus like artics it could be placed only in a handful of depots.

 

Yes there should be more artics in the system but also for lower used routes IMO, 30-35 foot buses as well.

 

Did you not comprehend what I wrote? We DO NOT NEED 35' buses because it would not be cost-effective to have them.

 

If I need to elaborate more as to why, I'll do so:

 

For starters, it would not solve the problem as it would require the same amount of maintenance and parts on the side as a 40' bus would. The way I see it, you just want to put 35' buses on these lower-used lines to make the buses appear full. But what good is it going to do to make these buses appear full if the ridership on the bus line is weak?

 

And don't bring up the "other transportation systems do it too!!!" argument because we are not other transit systems. We have the largest transit network in the entire country and you want to scale us back by ordering short buses?

 

Give it a rest....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Did you not comprehend what I wrote? We DO NOT NEED 35' buses because it would not be cost-effective to have them.

 

If I need to elaborate more as to why, I'll do so:

 

For starters, it would not solve the problem as it would require the same amount of maintenance and parts on the side as a 40' bus would. The way I see it, you just want to put 35' buses on these lower-used lines to make the buses appear full. But what good is it going to do to make these buses appear full if the ridership on the bus line is weak?

 

And don't bring up the "other transportation systems do it too!!!" argument because we are not other transit systems. We have the largest transit network in the entire country and you want to scale us back by ordering short buses?

 

Give it a rest....

 

 

LMAO... He really believes that these lines could become more cost effective by having smaller buses. The driver is still going to get paid the same way so I don't see the point, esp. when you consider your points.

[Forest Glen]

You're chastising people who authentically needed the route for not forcing their neighbours to take a route that has no significance in their commute.

 

Gotham Bus Co. never offers solutions. All he does is make facetious, wise ass comments. He's been doing that for years.

 

-Or make the QM3, QM5, QM8 take on local passengers (since local ridership is likely to be low anyway)

 

no

[LRG]

LMAO... He really believes that these lines could become more cost effective by having smaller buses. The driver is still going to get paid the same way so I don't see the point, esp. when you consider your points.

 

And don't forget that he wants to solve problems by allowing local riders on an express bus...totally defeats the purpose of an express bus.

[Q43LTD]

How about this? Leave the (Q30) alone, except a possible extention to North Shore Hospital. Leave the (Q46) alone and finally leave the express buses alone. Just because Westchester has 30' buses, doesn't mean NYC or LI should get them.

[B35 via Church]

For starters, it would not solve the problem as it would require the same amount of maintenance and parts on the side as a 40' bus would.

 

LMAO... He really believes that these lines could become more cost effective by having smaller buses. The driver is still going to get paid the same way so I don't see the point, esp. when you consider your points.

 

word.... what's 5 feet gonna do?

 

If we already have the 40 footers, why the hell would we spend MORE money in purchasing buses that holds LESS people....

 

I'd like an explanation as to how that's cost effective.... LMAO !!!

 

 

....and if you ask me, obtaining smaller buses would be an underhanded way of DIScouraging ridership; not something we need right now....

[Q43LTD]

The solutions to increase ridership on NYC buses: light rail and 35' buses sarcasm

[Shortline Bus]

The solutions to increase ridership on NYC buses: light rail and 35' buses sarcasm

 

 

Maybe i was off base on the 35-foot bus ideas for NYC. With that said, not meant to off topic on the Q79 topic for a minute but make a point. I stand by my proposal on 'light rail' not to replace NYC buses but as a supplemental service. The average New Yorker is not like us who are bus/rail fans, they want to get to 'point a-b' asap. Other a couple of extensions like the current SAS, due to NIMBY's and most important lack of money, there never going to be a widespread expansions like in the first couple of decades of the 20th Century.

 

Yes some ideas like 1)computer signals that automatically turn the traffic lights to 'green' for buses 2)bus only lanes will help but needs to be more.

 

With that said, the only solution to improve NYC bus system for the 21st Century IMO(that is my view you don't have to agree)is 1)As I think Two-Timer suggested do a complete review of all 5 boros and if needed 'start over' with new bus lines. As i stated before at least 25% of the bus lines systemwide are 'outdated' and not where the riders want to go.

 

2)"Light Rail' Remember in the 1st couple of decades of 20th, NYC had 'trolley lines' before the buses replaced them. Matter of fact many of the current bus routes especially in Brooklyn and Queens are former trolley routes.

Thus there need to be a subway-type of rapid transit (instead of spending tens of billions on more subway lines)suppplemental service to the bus that faster than even SBS.That my whole point guys. We can make all of the route changes you want but long term IMO, a new NYC bus network that keeps some of the existing lines and creates new ones is the way to go. While a light rail or street car system like (NJT)Hudson-Bergen line, etc. that acts as a twin to the bus system is the best solution long term for NYC IMO.

 

 

Now it's out the way of my views (we just have to agree to disagree), back to the chat on restoring (Q79) service or not.:eek: