Eric B Posted June 27, 2011 Share #76 Posted June 27, 2011 You say that, but I get the sense that you want the Q39 and the Q67 to be this quick link b/w the two areas we've been discussing; that's why I asked you that question.... Whether it's the 39 or the 67, something has to directly serve the industrial area down there.... Like I said, one needs to be straightened, while the other one could then cover those industrial areas. You don't need to force through passengers to have to stop at all those industrial corners. Putting buses on Van Dam for any prolonged time period is almost like putting buses on Canal st.... Van Dam is a main road for trucks to travel along & what not, plus it's the main road used for entry/exit off the LIE..... I've looked at alternatives to Van Dam as well. (I don't like Jackson and the 67 route either, because that's basically heading the other way almost as well. On both the 39 and 67, it feels like it takes forever before you actually start heading out of LIC). Maybe just Queens Blvd straight to 48th, St. to 56th/Rust. That would sure be faster than the current route. (something else could cover 48 Av if necessary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #77 Posted June 27, 2011 Like I said, one needs to be straightened, while the other one could then cover those industrial areas. You don't need to force through passengers to have to stop at all those industrial corners. I still say this solidifies your real position, in total, on the matter... Someone that genuinely wants the industrial folks to have some type of direct service doesn't say something as spiteful as this..... Well How else are you gonna have buses cover the industrial areas w/o stopping along those pockets?? People are only going to walk but so far... I've looked at alternatives to Van Dam as well. (I don't like Jackson and the 67 route either, because that's basically heading the other way almost as well. On both the 39 and 67, it feels like it takes forever before you actually start heading out of LIC). Maybe just Queens Blvd straight to 48th, St. to 56th/Rust. That would sure be faster than the current route. (something else could cover 48 Av if necessary). Yes, as its stints on Van Dam & on Laurel Hill are the main choke points on the Q39... That's why it baffles me as to why you want to run buses on Rust & Review, to mention that court sq. is a time loser.... to then go on & suggest you want to move buses clear along Van Dam, and a congested part of QB under the where the current Q32 & 60 travels along..... it's a wash; the time savings that would be made by bypassing the industry, would be lost b/w Van Dam/LIE & Queensboro Plaza... If that's the case, may as well leave the current Q39 alone.... ...and as far as maybe moving 39's on QB, how are you getting westbound buses from 48th st to Queens blvd? This goes back to what I & others were telling QJT & Shortline Bus; it's the same reason you can't extend the Q104 down 48th past QB; it's blocked off over there..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T J Trainman Posted June 27, 2011 Share #78 Posted June 27, 2011 Do you realize how many more buses LGA would need???? They short as it is already....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #79 Posted June 27, 2011 My take on your (Cotb's) takes :cool: ^^ http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=443704&postcount=74 Q18: agreeability - 3/5 I agree w/ a SB extension of that route.... however, I wouldn't send it that far south, and I'm not sure I'd route it the way you would... I'd stop it right dead at the train station (Metropolitan av, first/last passenger stop)... It can pan on down to Fresh pond rd for the turnaround or w/e.... Q23: agreeability - 2/5 what you want for the route is ideal, but it may be too much to have to serve both LGA terminals & to have to swing over to Atlas on the other end.... I agree the current Q23 terminal over on Union Tpke isn't the most ideal, but I'm not sure what more you can do w/ the route on that end.... Furthermore, I'd keep buses running along 108th where it currently does... Q29: agreeability - 5/5 (lol) Q33: agreeability - 0/5 pointless... those sons of guns want the subway... 74th is as ideal as you're gonna get... I wouldn't do anything to disrupt the current success (high usage) of that route Q39: agreeability - 2/5 this is pretty much a hybrid of what Eric & I are discussing..... I don't like the fact that buses have to use van dam either, but I would rather the route gut it out on van dam the way it does & turn on/off thomson than: - moving the route onto QB b/w (Queens plz. subway) & (Thomson) - shifting the route where it would serve hunterspoint * FYI, they moved devry inside of manhattan mall... the bldg that was part occupied by devry, is now used for laguardia college students Q45/Q47: agreeability - 5/5 Q67: Why would you start the route in the middle of Maspeth like that, to then have it end out in LeFrak? Sorry bro, I don't see the logic w/ this one..... Q49: agreeability - 5/5 So you wanna get rid of that terminal over there on 102nd/Astoria also huh... lol... not a bad idea to have it serve that pocket up there in east elmhurst... Q69 & Q100: agreeability - 1/5 1) The Q100 IMO is fine as is... 2) The current Q69 serving Court Sq. is nothin more but for turnaround purposes (albeit a long one... lol).... I would keep the current scenario (where it ends around QBP & serves Court Sq on the return trip), since those riders coming from the north aren't seeking Court Sq..... Q101: agreeability - 0/5 Don't see the point in adding another bus route into Midtown Manhattan... Q102: agreeability - 3/5 interesting.... haven't thought of a route panning down broadway.... The Q102 is another antiquated route that needs total restructuring.... I'm not sure what demand there is for a through broadway route, but it does fill in a gap that's partially covered by the Q18.... this could take some riders off the Q66 (and subsequently bring them onto the )..... Q104: agreeability - 0/5 just by looking at the streets it would run down, I think such a route would underperform.... Steinway st is the headache that it is, true, but those residing north of Astoria blvd will rather resort to taking the 101 along Steinway, than a route that meanders around local streets to get to the subway & what not.... B48: agreeability - 4/5 I think the B48 should be restored on its southern end more than anything..... but with how the MTA botched up that route I suppose a 48 extension to Sunnyside makes sense... not sure where buses would layover at though.... B24: agreeability - 5/5 I would kill off the Greenpoint av portion entirely.... as for the other half of the B24, see what I said about your B48 idea.... - btw, I would turn the B20 up forest (at summerfield/decatur) & have it end @ the subway station, instead of what it currently does... the B13 I would leave alone; let that & the Q58 be the link b/w Fresh pond rd & Forest av - Your Q38, Q51, & Q58 ideas I will have to think more about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted June 27, 2011 Share #80 Posted June 27, 2011 I still say this solidifies your real position, in total, on the matter... Someone that genuinely wants the industrial folks to have some type of direct service doesn't say something as spiteful as this..... Well How else are you gonna have buses cover the industrial areas w/o stopping along those pockets?? People are only going to walk but so far... You're not getting where where I say that ONE of the routes should be straightened for through riders, and the OTHER would be for the industrial pockets (and adjusted to pick up the pockets abandoned by the other). You don't need BOTH as a mix of residential and industrial, and ending up inefficient for either use. I don't see what's the problem understanding that. Yes, as its stints on Van Dam & on Laurel Hill are the main choke points on the Q39... That's why it baffles me as to why you want to run buses on Rust & Review, to mention that court sq. is a time loser.... to then go on & suggest you want to move buses clear along Van Dam, and a congested part of QB under the where the current Q32 & 60 travels along..... it's a wash; the time savings that would be made by bypassing the industry, would be lost b/w Van Dam/LIE & Queensboro Plaza... If that's the case, may as well leave the current Q39 alone.... Well, maybe Van Dam is worse than it was when I was riding back in the 90's. All I know, is that I reember Ct Sq and other tight turns and out of the way swings as being far slower than Van Dam. It was only on the street for a couple of blocks anyway. ...and as far as maybe moving 39's on QB, how are you getting westbound buses from 48th st to Queens blvd? This goes back to what I & others were telling QJT & Shortline Bus; it's the same reason you can't extend the Q104 down 48th past QB; it's blocked off over there.....Well, I forgot about that. (That was also the problem with extending the 104 to that side). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted June 27, 2011 Share #81 Posted June 27, 2011 My take on your (Cotb's) takes :cool:^^ http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=443704&postcount=74 Q18: agreeability - 3/5 I agree w/ a SB extension of that route.... however, I wouldn't send it that far south, and I'm not sure I'd route it the way you would... I'd stop it right dead at the train station (Metropolitan av, first/last passenger stop)... It can pan on down to Fresh pond rd for the turnaround or w/e.... Q23: agreeability - 2/5 what you want for the route is ideal, but it may be too much to have to serve both LGA terminals & to have to swing over to Atlas on the other end.... I agree the current Q23 terminal over on Union Tpke isn't the most ideal, but I'm not sure what more you can do w/ the route on that end.... Furthermore, I'd keep buses running along 108th where it currently does... Q29: agreeability - 5/5 (lol) Q33: agreeability - 0/5 pointless... those sons of guns want the subway... 74th is as ideal as you're gonna get... I wouldn't do anything to disrupt the current success (high usage) of that route Q39: agreeability - 2/5 this is pretty much a hybrid of what Eric & I are discussing..... I don't like the fact that buses have to use van dam either, but I would rather the route gut it out on van dam the way it does & turn on/off thomson than: - moving the route onto QB b/w (Queens plz. subway) & (Thomson) - shifting the route where it would serve hunterspoint * FYI, they moved devry inside of manhattan mall... the bldg that was part occupied by devry, is now used for laguardia college students Q45/Q47: agreeability - 5/5 Q67: Why would you start the route in the middle of Maspeth like that, to then have it end out in LeFrak? Sorry bro, I don't see the logic w/ this one..... Q49: agreeability - 5/5 So you wanna get rid of that terminal over there on 102nd/Astoria also huh... lol... not a bad idea to have it serve that pocket up there in east elmhurst... Q69 & Q100: agreeability - 1/5 1) The Q100 IMO is fine as is... 2) The current Q69 serving Court Sq. is nothin more but for turnaround purposes (albeit a long one... lol).... I would keep the current scenario (where it ends around QBP & serves Court Sq on the return trip), since those riders coming from the north aren't seeking Court Sq..... Q101: agreeability - 0/5 Don't see the point in adding another bus route into Midtown Manhattan... Q102: agreeability - 3/5 interesting.... haven't thought of a route panning down broadway.... The Q102 is another antiquated route that needs total restructuring.... I'm not sure what demand there is for a through broadway route, but it does fill in a gap that's partially covered by the Q18.... this could take some riders off the Q66 (and subsequently bring them onto the )..... Q104: agreeability - 0/5 just by looking at the streets it would run down, I think such a route would underperform.... Steinway st is the headache that it is, true, but those residing north of Astoria blvd will rather resort to taking the 101 along Steinway, than a route that meanders around local streets to get to the subway & what not.... B48: agreeability - 4/5 I think the B48 should be restored on its southern end more than anything..... but with how the MTA botched up that route I suppose a 48 extension to Sunnyside makes sense... not sure where buses would layover at though.... B24: agreeability - 5/5 I would kill off the Greenpoint av portion entirely.... as for the other half of the B24, see what I said about your B48 idea.... - btw, I would turn the B20 up forest (at summerfield/decatur) & have it end @ the subway station, instead of what it currently does... the B13 I would leave alone; let that & the Q58 be the link b/w Fresh pond rd & Forest av - Your Q38, Q51, & Q58 ideas I will have to think more about.... For the Q67, it would start at Queens Plaza, but its reroute would be east of Maspeth. But with the Q39 heading on Hunters Point, this could kill the Q67. However, there won't be anything serving the Plateau (65th Place) since the Q18 would stay on 69th St. I could do this: Kill the Q67 Keep the Q39 reroute that I proposed in order to bypass Van Dam St and still serve Sunnyside Reroute the Q59 and terminate it at LeFrak City to replace the Q38 there Route: Grand Av, Rust St, Maurice Av, 53rd Dr, 65th Pl, Borden Av, Grand Av, 57th Av, then Q38 route to LeFrak. This would allow the Q59 to have a quicker route from Maspeth to Queens Center Mall and it would fill a crosstown gap between Grand Av and Eliot Av. This could also be crucial in the future since the new Maspeth High School is getting built on 74th St and 57th Av. As for the Q104, I had it run via 46/47 Sts in order to create an eastern alternative to Steinway St and serve William Cullen Bryant HS, connecting to the Queens Blvd locals at 46th St. For the Q23, I had it run down to the Atlas in order for those in Middle Village and Glendale to have better transfer opportunities to the routes in Eastern Queens, such as the Q88 and Q64, which would help to increase access to places like Flushing and Queens College. They wouldn't be forced to get on a crowded subway after taking a bus if they needed those places. As for its northern end, it was only filler to replace the Q48 and its reroute was to connect to the at 111th St and to have a bus serving the Hall of Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4P3607 Posted June 27, 2011 Share #82 Posted June 27, 2011 I thought they were combining the Q67 & Q39 since the Q67 has low ridership. I guess not :confused:. Keep the Q39 reroute that I proposed in order to bypass Van Dam St and still serve SunnysideReroute the Q59 and terminate it at LeFrak City to replace the Q38 there Route: Grand Av, Rust St, Maurice Av, 53rd Dr, 65th Pl, Borden Av, Grand Av, 57th Av, then Q38 route to LeFrak. That would be HORRIBLE! Why would you replace the Q38?!?!?! That route is heavily used during morning & evening rush hours! I even use it almost every day! They should then in that case just send the Q59 down via LeFrak & keep the Q38, that would actually be a great idea because it would: 1) take pressure off the load of people that usually get on at 59 Avenue / Queens Blvd-92 Street 2) Would make an optional route from LeFrak to the at Marcy Avenue rather than only to the . Keep the Q38, and send both routes down there. That way it would improve service & take some of the load off the Q38. btw, 57 Avenue is a one-way street, so you would have to send the Q59 via 59 Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted June 27, 2011 Share #83 Posted June 27, 2011 I thought they were combining the Q67 & Q39 since the Q67 has low ridership. I guess not :confused:. That would be HORRIBLE! Why would you replace the Q38?!?!?! That route is heavily used during morning & evening rush hours! I even use it almost every day! They should then in that case just send the Q59 down via LeFrak & keep the Q38, that would actually be a great idea because it would: 1) take pressure off the load of people that usually get on at 59 Avenue / Queens Blvd-92 Street 2) Would make an optional route from LeFrak to the at Marcy Avenue rather than only to the . Keep the Q38, and send both routes down there. That way it would improve service & take some of the load off the Q38. btw, 57 Avenue is a one-way street, so you would have to send the Q59 via 59 Avenue. Didn't you see my list. I have the Q38 going to Flushing via Eliot Av, thus losing service for LeFrak City, which is why I sent the Q59 there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousNYLover Posted June 27, 2011 Share #84 Posted June 27, 2011 Actually Q69 does serve Court Square after last stop and first stop. When bus arrived at 28th St/42nd Rd, passenger can stay on bus to get to Court Square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T J Trainman Posted June 27, 2011 Share #85 Posted June 27, 2011 The Q-38 needs a total restructure period. what happened to the Q-103? Any ideas to extend that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #86 Posted June 27, 2011 You're not getting where where I say that ONE of the routes should be straightened for through riders, and the OTHER would be for the industrial pockets (and adjusted to pick up the pockets abandoned by the other). You don't need BOTH as a mix of residential and industrial, and ending up inefficient for either use. I don't see what's the problem understanding that. You know neither one of us was discussing keeping BOTH of them the way they are..... why even bring that up.... Regardless of that, I GET what you're sayin.... I don't BELIEVE you're being forthright with it; just goin by the nature of your replies to me.... Clearly you want the 39 to bypass the industry so that Ridgewoodians would have a faster trip to court st & queensboro plz... I get that.... Me, I don't think that should happen w/ that particular route.... So we disagree. You only brought up that 'one or the other' stance after I made my point as to why I feel the 39 should serve ridgewood & the industrial area.... and the 67 should be reconfigured to serve ridgewood & middle village, while bypassing said industrial area.... This is all moot... We both have our beliefs as to what should happen to the neighboring routes... I'm just not as selfish with mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted June 27, 2011 Share #87 Posted June 27, 2011 You know neither one of us was discussing keeping BOTH of them the way they are..... why even bring that up.... Regardless of that, I GET what you're sayin.... I don't BELIEVE you're being forthright with it; just goin by the nature of your replies to me.... Clearly you want the 39 to bypass the industry so that Ridgewoodians would have a faster trip to court st & queensboro plz... I get that.... Me, I don't think that should happen w/ that particular route.... So we disagree. You only brought up that 'one or the other' stance after I made my point as to why I feel the 39 should serve ridgewood & the industrial area.... and the 67 should be reconfigured to serve ridgewood & middle village, while bypassing said industrial area.... This is all moot... We both have our beliefs as to what should happen to the neighboring routes... I'm just not as selfish with mine. First, you talk about "spite", now you're tossing out "selfish", and all the while trying to assign some kind of hidden motive (not "forthright", the 'one or the other' comment); like I'm hiding some sinister plot to screw someone else. (I can't even go back and leave the idea open to do it more your way; that's some sort of false concession or something). What in the world are you talking about? Every response is showing that you don't get what I'm saying; you're making up a whole bunch of stuff out of thin air, like you're having a totally different conversation with someone else! I didn't think this was some kind of fight of Ridgewood vs Middle Village or something, or whoever you think I'm being so "selfish" against. For one thing, whichever way either route would be changed, they would still serve both residential and industrial areas. There's no way around the industrial. Along with the cemeteries, it forms a wide "belt" between mainstream Queens and Brooklyn and its Queens County "suburbs" so to speak. My idea to continue down Rust would serve industrial areas. (Ones without current service even, though I don't know if there's really demand in those particular places). Your idea has the 39 run with the 67 down one industrial street. Rust to 48th would differ minimally from your plan. Even all the way down Review straight to Van Dam, if that could be done, would not really bypass any more industrial areas, except where it crosses the 67. It would bypass 48th St and 48th Ave., which are otherwise mostly residential, and my plans always looked to see how that could be replaced. So just cool it, already! As someone alluded to, thy were originally talking about merging the two lines, so then you would have less service with only one even more slow, winding route; so we're lucky they did not do that. Making one line faster and focus on connecting residential areas, while the other focuses on all the industry would make them less similar in function where they would be ripe for consolidation in the first place, while perhaps drawing more riders. Also, I've looked at straightening either one, (and long before this discussion); and the reason why I have tended to favor the 39 for straightening is because the 67 starts out going a bit out of the way down Jackson to cover industrial areas, while the 39 is more direct and residential in the beginning. So it was easier to have 67 as the industrial route, and 39 as the residential route. The one benefit to trying to straighten out the 67 was that it takes the somewhat quicker run down Borden in places, so the idea was to have it go straight down Borden, but then it would have been harder to have the 39 to pick up the vacated pockets (residential and industrial). You would probably need a third route, and I'm sure they'll never do that. So again; cool it! These are just ideas (that will probably never be implemented anyway). No one is trying to put anything over on you, or whatever it is you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #88 Posted June 27, 2011 For the Q67, it would start at Queens Plaza, but its reroute would be east of Maspeth. But with the Q39 heading on Hunters Point, this could kill the Q67. However, there won't be anything serving the Plateau (65th Place) since the Q18 would stay on 69th St. I could do this: Kill the Q67 Keep the Q39 reroute that I proposed in order to bypass Van Dam St and still serve Sunnyside Reroute the Q59 and terminate it at LeFrak City to replace the Q38 there Route: Grand Av, Rust St, Maurice Av, 53rd Dr, 65th Pl, Borden Av, Grand Av, 57th Av, then Q38 route to LeFrak. This would allow the Q59 to have a quicker route from Maspeth to Queens Center Mall and it would fill a crosstown gap between Grand Av and Eliot Av. This could also be crucial in the future since the new Maspeth High School is getting built on 74th St and 57th Av. As for the Q104, I had it run via 46/47 Sts in order to create an eastern alternative to Steinway St and serve William Cullen Bryant HS, connecting to the Queens Blvd locals at 46th St. For the Q23, I had it run down to the Atlas in order for those in Middle Village and Glendale to have better transfer opportunities to the routes in Eastern Queens, such as the Q88 and Q64, which would help to increase access to places like Flushing and Queens College. They wouldn't be forced to get on a crowded subway after taking a bus if they needed those places. As for its northern end, it was only filler to replace the Q48 and its reroute was to connect to the at 111th St and to have a bus serving the Hall of Science. Q67: That's why I don't want the 39 bypassing the industry & serving hunterspoint.... rather than giving reason to kill off the 67, I would look into finding ways to encourage more usage on that route..... ok, so you still have it goin to queensboro plz... gotcha... your idea would be one way of going about it (inc. usage)... Interesting that you'd expand it going east.... Me, I would have the Q67 take on the Q58 routing until Eliot.... then have it take eliot, to 69th, across borden av, to 48th (st), back onto borden, to hunters pt, etc etc... The main idea is to have it connect ridgewood & middle village to southwestern Queens without serving the industry as much as it currently does.... it would make no stops b/w borden/hamilton pl & borden greenpoint... that's where I would "straighten" the current 67 route.... in short form: Q67 - Queensboro plz. to Ridgewood terminal Q23: The northern portion, I totally understand... that's where I like your idea; have the 23 enter inside LGA, and oust the 48 in the process.... I think the 48 should be relegated to a "transfer route" (lol), meaning if anyone wants access to Flushing and they're inside the airport, they will have to take any route that would enter the airport (Q33, 23, 47, 60, 72) & xfer to the 48... b/c the current 48 inside the airport iddn't cuttin it.... it'd go from flushing to east elmhurst, to terminate where the current Q69 does... far as the southern part of your rendering of the 23, I get you... but I still think it's a lil extra for that route... Met av seems to be the cutoff for the route.... Actually Q69 does serve Court Square after last stop and first stop. When bus arrived at 28th St/42nd Rd, passenger can stay on bus to get to Court Square. since when? The Q-38 needs a total restructure period. what happened to the Q-103? Any ideas to extend that one? Yes... the Q103 I'd totally reconstruct... I'd have it go from Vernon/Jackson to Ditmars blvd ... it would run 7 days a week taking on this routing: from the , current route until 36th av, where it would serve Roosevelt Island (both hospitals), then leave roosevelt island & continue along vernon blvd, to broadway, to 21st st, to ditmars blvd, to ditmars blvd. subway.... (turnaround would be 33rd st, to 23av, up 31st, ditmars blvd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #89 Posted June 27, 2011 First, you talk about "spite", now you're tossing out "selfish", and all the while trying to assign some kind of hidden motive (not "forthright", the 'one or the other' comment); like I'm hiding some sinister plot to screw someone else. (I can't even go back and leave the idea open to do it more your way; that's some sort of false concession or something). What in the world are you talking about? Every response is showing that you don't get what I'm saying; you're making up a whole bunch of stuff out of thin air, like you're having a totally different conversation with someone else! I didn't think this was some kind of fight of Ridgewood vs Middle Village or something, or whoever you think I'm being "selfish" against. For one thing, whichever way either route would be changed, they would still serve both residential and industrial areas. There's no way around the industrial. Along with the cemeteries, it forms a wide "belt" between mainstream Queens and Brooklyn and its Queens County "suburbs" so to speak. My idea to continue down Rust would serve industrial areas. (Ones without current service even, though I don't know if there's really demand in those particular places). Your idea has the 39 run with the 67 down one industrial street. Rust to 48th would differ minimally from your plan. Even all the way down Review straight to Van Dam, if that could be done, would not really bypass any more industrial areas, except where it crosses the 67. It would bypass 48th St and 48th Ave., which are otherwise mostly residential, and my plans always looked to see how that could be replaced. So just cool it, already! As someone alluded to, thy were originally talking about merging the two lines, so then you would have less service with only one even more slow, winding route; so we're lucky they did not do that. Making one line faster and focus on connecting residential areas, while the other focuses on all the industry would make them less similar in function where they would be ripe for consolidation in the first place, while perhaps drawing more riders. Also, I've looked at straightening either one, (and long before this discussion); and the reason why I have tended to favor the 39 for straightening is because the 67 starts out going a bit out of the way down Jackson to cover industrial areas, while the 39 is more direct and residential in the beginning. So it was easier to have 67 as the industrial route, and 39 as the residential route. The one benefit to trying to straighten out the 67 was that it takes the somewhat quicker run down Borden in places, so the idea was to have it go straight down Borden, but then it would have been harder to have the 39 to pick up the vacated pockets (residential and industrial). You would probably need a third route, and I'm sure they'll never do that. So again; cool it! These are just ideas (that will probably never be implemented anyway). No one is trying to put anything over on you, or whatever it is you think. I'm not angry or miffed at you, so there's no need for me to "cool it".... Don't try to make out like I'm forcing my idea upon you... You're sayin all this, just because I don't believe you're being forthright with me.... this is not about a "fight" b/w ridgewood & middle village... this is not about me believing you have some "sinister" plot.... say what you will about making up things & having a different convo w/ someone else.... this last reply out of you is showin that I struck a nerve.... The part of your post in bold is all you had to tell me from jump... you never did give a reason in this exchange as to why you favored the straightening of the 39... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted June 27, 2011 Share #90 Posted June 27, 2011 Yeah; because I don't know where all this is coming from. We were sharing ideas, and I didn't expect to be accused of something and called selfish. (A nerve must have been struck on the other end as well for such language to just come out of nowhere; and I don't understand what I did to warrant that). I'm not the one who thinks you're forcing anything on me (I'm open to just about anything); you're the one who thinks I'm trying to hide something (since you're accusing me of not being "forthright"). I don't even see where "forthrightness" has anything to do with it, when it's just two different ideas. Explain this. What do you think I'm trying to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted June 27, 2011 Share #91 Posted June 27, 2011 One thing I say. Almost the entire bus system in Western Queens mostly run by LGA depot aka former Triboro routes needs to be canned and start over. Many of these routes are using streets that 60-70 years ago in Western Queens would be consider a suburan area now in Suffolk County, LI. This part of the city i.e Glendale, Maspeth, Sunnyside, Astoria, etc. would be among the first region of the city IMO(the whole Bus network as two timer would say needs to be blown up in many places)to be dramtically changed to reflect actual ridership in 2011 not 1971. For instance why is there not more bus service say between Greenpoint and Western Queens? Or make better use of a route like the (Q19) (Q69) (Q67) etc.? I think the (Q47) (Q45) merger is a good start but more needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted June 27, 2011 Share #92 Posted June 27, 2011 Yeah; exactly what I've thought. Most of the area is a grid, like much of the rest of the city, and areas would be better connected with routes that remained on one street. Like the (Q39) runs on 58th St. for awhile, and then further up, the (Q18) runs on it for a bit. Everything over there is winding its way south and east, and all those turns slows things down, and makes for very indirect service. While an area like Ridgewood remains virtually cut off from everything, as it ends up quicker to take the train through Manhattan to get to that side of Queens. But to totally revamp service like that might disrupt people who are used to it (even if it would happen to be more efficient). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #93 Posted June 27, 2011 Yeah; because I don't know where this is coming from. We were sharing ideas. I'm not the one who thinks you're forcing anything on me (I'm open to just about anything); you're the one who thinks I'm trying to hide something (since you're accusing me of not being "forthright"). I don't even see where "forthrightness" has anything to do with it, when it's just two different ideas. Explain this accusation. What do you think I'm trying to do? Eric, after that last reply of yours directed at me, what's the point.... but since you insist... You never really stated WHY you think the 39 should be straightened (before your last reply, that is).... you shared the fact that you used to travel from roosevelt island to ridgewood... then the standoffish/dismissive replies ("well.... " "well..." "well....").... for me, that's reason alone to believe you were being selfish/biased.... the spite part comes in where you say this little number: You don't need to force through passengers to have to stop at all those industrial corners. ....as if to say, buses shouldn't stop there at all... as if it's torturous for buses to serve the industrial corners in any respect... One thing I say. Almost the entire bus system in Western Queens mostly run by LGA depot aka former Triboro routes needs to be canned and start over. Many of these routes are using streets that 60-70 years ago in Western Queens would be consider a suburan area now in Suffolk County, LI. This part of the city i.e Glendale, Maspeth, Sunnyside, Astoria, etc. would be among the first region of the city IMO (the whole Bus network as two timer would say needs to be blown up in many places) to be dramtically changed to reflect actual ridership in 2011 not 1971. For instance why is there not more bus service say between Greenpoint and Western Queens? Or make better use of a route like the 19, 67, 69 etc.? I think the 45/47 merger is a good start but more needs to be done. Yeah, that's what Cotb & I are sorta discussing.... That much, I think most of us would agree with.... I'm not sure what more you can do w/ the 19 to maximize it's usage... I would say to turn it down 31st, but that would "parallel subway service", something the MTA seems to against & looking to rid itself of (bus service of).... With the 67, w/e it is, *something* needs to be with that route; that much is evident... With the 69, having it run along 21st & along ditmars is as good as we're gonna get..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted June 27, 2011 Share #94 Posted June 27, 2011 Yeah; exactly what I've thought. Most of the area is a grid, like much of the rest of the city, and areas would be better connected with routes that remained on one street. Like the (Q39) runs on 58th St. for awhile, and then further up, the (Q18) runs on it for a bit. Everything over there is winding its way south and east, and all those turns slows things down, and makes for very indirect service. While an area like Ridgewood remains virtually cut off from everything, as it ends up quicker to take the train through Manhattan to get to that side of Queens. But to totally revamp service like that might disrupt people who are used to it (even if it would happen to be more efficient). Hey change is a part of life. Because of $$$/NIMBY's/Politics by in large most of the bus routes in Queens and rest of NYC is similar to say even 40 or 50 years ago. The ridership pattern though is very different and the has not kept up. An example is no though route to say Brooklyn ie. Ridgewood on Eliot Ave. One of the reasons the (Q58) (Q59) are SRO during weekdays is that IMO the puts too much '1 eggs in one basket. Other coordiors in Western Queens that should be 'new' or increased bus service IMO include 1)Greenpoint Ave 2)Northern Blvd between 65th and Queens Plaza. 3)Junction Blvd 4)Yellowstone Blvd. SW Queens 1)Conduit Ave between Brooklyn border and Van Wyck 2)Metro Ave between Fresh Pond and Lefferts. Again if you do these changes to better reflect ridership patterns you could even increase ridership. Thus you would have to do a whole network change for at least 20-25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted June 27, 2011 Share #95 Posted June 27, 2011 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 27, 2011 Share #96 Posted June 27, 2011 Hey change is a part of life. Because of $$$/NIMBY's/Politics by in large most of the bus routes in Queens and rest of NYC is similar to say even 40 or 50 years ago. The ridership pattern though is very different and the has not kept up. I don't think NIMBY's & politics have as much to do with it, in this case... as much as it is simply, these routes being outdated.... that's where I give credit to MTA Bus over NYCT.... you do see more aggression (or should I say, less passiveness) in wanting to make changes here & there to better serve people..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted June 27, 2011 Share #97 Posted June 27, 2011 Eric, after that last reply of yours directed at me, what's the point.... but since you insist... You never really stated WHY you think the 39 should be straightened (before your last reply, that is).... you shared the fact that you used to travel from roosevelt island to ridgewood... then the standoffish/dismissive replies ("well.... " "well..." "well....").... for me, that's reason alone to believe you were being selfish/biased.... So it's a case of miscommunication. For one thing, you read this "standoffishness/dismissiveness" where there was none. "Well, one or the other of them needs to be straightened!" was not some standoff or dismissal; it's just voiced out of frustration on how slow both of those routes are. The second "well" was actually in agreement with something you said! (about skipping the Van Dam area or something). the spite part comes in where you say this little number:You don't need to force through passengers to have to stop at all those industrial corners. ....as if to say, buses shouldn't stop there at all... as if it's torturous for buses to serve the industrial corners in any respect... The bold is what you assumed, and not what I said. We're talking about two different routes, and making one serve residential areas, and the other focus on industrial areas, instead of them both taking a circuitous route through both kinds of areas, and having low ridership likely because of that reason. (Too slow to be efficient). I see now, looking back, that what you think I was trying to do was have both routes skip all the industrial areas and go straight from LIC to Ridgewood. The irony is, that you originally claimed that in response to that first "well" statement, above, where I clearly said one should be straightened; not both. So I didn't just throw that in later, even! (I never envisioned both going straight, figuring some service would have to remain in the area. So my ideas were always one goes straight, the other serves all the little pockets). So that so-called "spite" statement was for one route to not have to serve the industrial pockets, not for no route to serve there. So again; it was a misunderstanding, and seeing past each other. You did not understand why I thought one particular route should be straightened, and I did not understand what you were put off by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 28, 2011 Share #98 Posted June 28, 2011 ^^ I wasn't referring to (what was said after) each individual "well" statement, I was referring to the simple action of beginning those replies like that... that to me comes off as dismissive, regardless if there's an agreeance or disagreeance... anyway, yes it's what I assumed... But, not once did I say you said anything of the sort - there is no misquoting goin on here..... A misunderstanding, yes, but no misquoting..... Before I made post 93 in this thread, I already came to the conclusion of there being a misunderstanding... so yeah, that's what I've chalked this whole thing as, also.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 29, 2011 Share #99 Posted June 29, 2011 This is my take: Q18: see above, extended to Ridgewood Terminal via 58th St, Roosevelt, Bway, 75th St, Woodside Av, 69th St, Metro Av, Forest Av, Gates Av Disagree Q23: extended west to Atlas Park where the Q45 ends, allowing Middle Village/Glendale riders to reach Forest Hills and eastern Queens buses In addition, runs to LGA to replace Q48 and rerouted via 111th St to serve Hall of Science and connects with at 111th St.Disagree. Keep its southern terminal at Crescent Apartments. Agree with extending it to LGA Route: 108th St, 49th/50th Avs, 111th St, Roosevelt Av, 108th St, then Q48 route Q29: left alone Agree Q33: extended west to Woodside LIRR Station Disagree. Keep it at Roosevelt/74th Q39: rerouted between Court Square and Forest Av in Ridgewood This would allow the route to bypass the congested Van Dam Street area, although it would mean a loss of service to the high schools within Devry and Laguardia CC No comment SB: Jackson Av, 21st St, 49th Av, 30th Pl, 48th Av, 48th St, Rust St, 59th Dr, 60th St, Metro Av, Forest Av NB: Forest Av, Metro Av, Andrews Av, 59th Pl, 59th Dr, Rust St, 48th St, 48th Av, 30th St, 49th Av, 21st St, Jackson Av Q45 & Q47: agree with the merger, but extended south to Myrtle Av/81st St and runs via 75th St/Woodside Av to avoid Roosevelt Avenue For those wanting Atlas, get off at 80th/Cooper in front of the bank like Q29 does. Agree NB: Q45 route, then Woodside Av, 75th St, Bway (uses current S/B Q45 first stop), 74th ST, then regular Q47 route SB: Q47 route, then 35 Av, 75th St (stops at a new stop on the near side at Broadway, if the slip is used, making the left turn would become a major pain in the rear end), Woodside Av, 69th St, then Q45 route Q67: new eastern terminus is LeFrak City Rerouted east of the Plateau (65th Place area where the Q18 would no longer serve) to serve 57th Av (Queens Center Mall, LeFrak City, and the future site of Maspeth High School on 74th St) Disagree. Keep as is Route: 53rd Drive, 65th Pl, Borden Av, Grand Av, 57th Av, then Q38 route to LeFrak City Q38: restructured as an Eliot Av route running between Flushing Library and Ridgewood Terminal, replacing Q58 in Flushing Use new Q51 for Penelope Avenue I'd split it Fresh Pond Rd Route: Q58 route in Flushing then, LI Expwy, Junction Blvd, 57th/59th Avs, Woodhaven Bl, Eliot Av, 69th St, Metro Av, Forest Av, Gates Av Q58: new eastern terminus is 31st Av/102nd St, replacing Q23 in Corona Use Q38 or xfer to at 103rd St for Flushing New Limited Stops Junction Blvd/Corona Av Roosevelt Av/National St or 104th St then runs local route: Corona Av, National St, then Q23 route to 31st Av/102nd St In addition, Q58 LTD is restructured and all Q58's run via 61st St/Grand Av to connect with B57 Runs local between Ridgewood Terminal and Fresh Pond Rd/Putnam Av Putnam Av/Fresh Pond Rd Metropolitan Av Flushing Av/61st St 69th St/Grand Av 74th St 84th St Queens Blvd South Justice Av/Broadway 91st Place/Corona Av Junction Blvd Roosevelt Av/National St and 104th St then runs local to 31st Av/102nd St Q49: extended to 23rd Av/102nd St to replace Q23 on 29th Av/Ditmars Blvd No comment Q51: new route running between Forest Hills Co-ops and Williamsburg Bridge Plaza via Penelope Av/63rd Drive Agree Route: Bway, Kent/Wythe Avs, Grand St, Roebling St, Metro Av, Union Av, Grand St, Metro Av, 69th St, then Q38 route to Forest Hills Co-ops Q69 & Q100: extended south to Court Square to connect with and lines. Disagree Q101: extended west to Penn Station Disagree Q102: becomes a Broadway route running between Rego Park and Roosevelt Island as an alternative to the Queens Blvd locals Disagree Route: Roosevelt Island, Vernon Blvd, Broadway, Queens Blvd Q104: becomes a 48th St route, filling a gap between Steinway ST and Hobart St and replacing part of B24 Runs between 19th Av/Hazen St and Greenpoint Route: Hazen St, 20 Av, 49 St, 25 Av, 46/47 Sts, Northern Blvd, 48 St, 43 Av, 47/50 Sts, 47 Av, 48 St, then B24 route to Greenpoint Disagree. I'd extend the Q104 to Williamsburg BP. I'd create a new route to operate between Flushing and Greenpoint B48: extended north to Sunnyside/46-Bliss station to replace part of B24 Disagree. I'd restore service back to Prospect Park B24: eliminated Agree I know I got carried away and you only wanted Middle Village/Ridgewood area, but I felt other areas nearby needed restructuring too. Replies in red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T J Trainman Posted June 29, 2011 Share #100 Posted June 29, 2011 I wonder if LGA will be getting more routes or, if they plan on expanding any more of their current routes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.