Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #76 Posted July 24, 2011 What I don't get is, how do you expect any of us to answer that... that's why I didn't reply the first time you asked that question.... Do I think those 2 runs/direction should revoked from city island, yes... Do I think it's preposterous that city island gets those 2 runs, no.... Does either of those last 2 questions have anything to do w/ there being 2 runs/direction in the first place.... absolutely not.... So if you don't know then how could you conclude so easily that no more runs should be given to City Island?? :confused: I mean just looking at the two runs and when they are, I don't see how in the world they would really do the neighborhood any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #77 Posted July 24, 2011 Delete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 24, 2011 Share #78 Posted July 24, 2011 So if you don't know then how could you conclude so easily that no more runs should be given to City Island?? :confused: I mean just looking at the two runs and when they are, I don't see how in the world they would really do the neighborhood any good. However, seeing that the commute to the train station is a good 17 minutes or more with no other alternatives, I don't see why more runs shouldn't be extended or at least have some of these runs run at better hours where there's a chance of picking up more people. You're asking us what's the point of having two runs... what kind of question is that, first of all.... and second, again, how in the hell are any of us supposed to give an answer to that, without formulating an opinion of our own, first... Just as easily as you sit there asking me what's the point of having two runs... I could ask you, what makes you think more service should run out there.... I'd rather have them have the 2 current runs they do have (per direction), than add more service & have folks bitching about "they get way too much service".... That's why ppl. feel the way about express buses the way they do now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #79 Posted July 24, 2011 You're asking us what's the point of having two runs... what kind of question is that, first of all.... and second, again, how in the hell are any of us supposed to give an answer to that, without formulating an opinion of our own, first... Just as easily as you sit there asking me what's the point of having two runs... I could ask you, what makes you think more service should run out there.... I'd rather have them have the 2 current runs they do have (per direction), than add more service & have folks bitching about "they get way too much service".... That's why ppl. feel the way about express buses the way they do now.... I think it's a pretty fair question. I mean the terminus for the BXM7A is at Pelham Bay train station of all places and then they (the ) acts as if the route isn't generating enough interest in City Island when they only give it two runs each way. It seems like a no brainer if not many folks are using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 24, 2011 Share #80 Posted July 24, 2011 I think it's a pretty fair question. I mean the terminus for the BXM7A is at Pelham Bay train station of all places and then they (the ) acts as if the route isn't generating enough interest in City Island when they only give it two runs each way. It seems like a no brainer if not many folks are using it. Which begs the question.... So what is your stance here? What seems like a no brainer.... Looks to me like you're makin the same argument for 2 totally different stances.. one for giving city island more service & one for getting rid of those 2 runs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #81 Posted July 25, 2011 Which begs the question.... So what is your stance here? What seems like a no brainer.... Looks to me like you're makin the same argument for 2 totally different stances.. one for giving city island more service & one for getting rid of those 2 runs.... What I'm basically saying is that just looking at this from a logical point of view, the less that you run bus service on any given route, naturally fewer people are going to use it, as reliability and waiting times start to factor in. If the is going to argue that they want the route to have more visibility, it seems like the natural thing to do would be to extend more runs there. If those two runs are doing so poorly and then extensions are run and nothing happens and it so expensive to run those buses an additional 17 minutes to City Island, then why bother running anything? As far as I'm concerned my stance is that more runs should be given considering that there is no train service in the immediate area, and also you have an express bus that has a terminus at a train station. lol Express buses are generally supposed to serve areas that don't have train service, though obviously we do have some express buses that don't follow this rule (particularly in the Bronx) so in this case it would make sense to extend the runs to an area that has no train service rather than terminating it at a train station. I would ask what would be your reason for not extending a few more runs and potentially taking fewer cars off of the road? Granted, I understand that City Island is small and doesn't have many residents, but if the change could be made and be cost netural by way of increasing ridership (even slightly) I say why not do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 25, 2011 Share #82 Posted July 25, 2011 I would ask what would be your reason for not extending a few more runs and potentially taking fewer cars off of the road? Granted, I understand that City Island is small and doesn't have many residents, but if the change could be made and be cost netural by way of increasing ridership (even slightly) I say why not do it. I don't see sending more express service out there taking any significant amt. of cars off the road, nor do I really see it increasing ridership out there.... City Island never struck me as an area that has any latent ridership when it comes to the express..... A lot of areas w/i the city you can say that for, that area is just not one of em..... You can be pro (something), and make a case for advocating that an(y) area receive certain amt. of service, but I'm sittin here like... where's the cutoff point.... how much do you really wanna give these people.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #83 Posted July 25, 2011 I don't see sending more express service out there taking any significant amt. of cars off the road, nor do I really see it increasing ridership out there.... City Island never struck me as an area that has any latent ridership when it comes to the express..... A lot of areas w/i the city you can say that for, that area is just not one of em..... You can be pro (something), and make a case for advocating that an(y) area receive certain amt. of service, but I'm sittin here like... where's the cutoff point.... how much do you really wanna give these people.... Understand that I'm playing devil's advocate. Like I said, if the argument is going to be made that folks aren't using the line by the , then the only way to confirm it is by seeing if extending a few more runs would make a difference. We're not talking about giving them weekend service and any service outside of rush hours. If at that point you extend a few more runs (3 - 4 more runs is not going to break the bank) and there is still no real demand for it, then I would say get rid of it all together, but I can't see how anyone can fairly conclude that just from two runs in the morning and in the evening not even at the real heart of rush hour that these folks have no need for it. Let put yourself in their shoes. Would you honestly use a bus that has two runs and basically runs once every hour when you need to get to work at X time? I know I wouldn't because it would be too risky and the other alternative involves taking a local bus which is an additional 20 minutes right there and then transferring. However, I do agree that quite frankly I don't see that many people using it either, as City Island is quite small and seems to be car dependent, as these folks probably would just drive to the BXM10 or BXM9 anyway which are also close alternatives to the BXM7A, but I would never advocate for yanking express bus service from isolated areas, especially with limited transit options unless it is clear that the service really isn't being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #84 Posted July 25, 2011 Understand that I'm playing devil's advocate. Like I said, if the argument is going to be made that folks aren't using the line by the , then the only way to confirm it is by seeing if extending a few more runs would make a difference. We're not talking about giving them weekend service and any service outside of rush hours. If at that point you extend a few more runs (3 - 4 more runs is not going to break the bank) and there is still no real demand for it, then I would say get rid of it all together, but I can't see how anyone can fairly conclude that just from two runs in the morning and in the evening not even at the real heart of rush hour that these folks have no need for it. Let put yourself in their shoes. Would you honestly use a bus that has two runs and basically runs once every hour when you need to get to work at X time? I know I wouldn't because it would be too risky and the other alternative involves taking a local bus which is an additional 20 minutes right there and then transferring. However, I do agree that quite frankly I don't see that many people using it either, as City Island is quite small and seems to be car dependent, as these folks probably would just drive to the BXM10 or BXM9 anyway which are also close alternatives to the BXM7A, but I would never advocate for yanking express bus service from isolated areas, especially with limited transit options unless it is clear that the service really isn't being used. The Bx29 isn't really an additional 20 minutes: The travel time to get to Pelham Bay Park and then take the regular BxM7 is only slightly longer than having the bus directly serve City Island. I'll agree with you there: 3 or 4 extra runs extended there isn't going to break the bank (I'm sure the BxM7A has a little bit of spare capacity so additional service wouldn't have to be added) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #85 Posted July 25, 2011 The Bx29 isn't really an additional 20 minutes: The travel time to get to Pelham Bay Park and then take the regular BxM7 is only slightly longer than having the bus directly serve City Island. I'll agree with you there: 3 or 4 extra runs extended there isn't going to break the bank (I'm sure the BxM7A has a little bit of spare capacity so additional service wouldn't have to be added) That's probably true, but in general, I find that very few local buses link up with their express bus counterparts, so somehow I feel like having to make that connection via the local bus to the BXM7 would take longer and would be inconvenient overall. Most express bus riders would rather transfer to another express bus rather than from a local bus to an express bus, simply because in many cases, the express buses are set up to connect a bit better. Then there's also the fact that some express bus riders don't want to deal with the riff raff that can be found on the some of the local bus (I've heard this on a number of occasions lol), but that's another separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 25, 2011 Share #86 Posted July 25, 2011 I'll agree with you there: 3 or 4 extra runs extended there isn't going to break the bank (I'm sure the BxM7A has a little bit of spare capacity so additional service wouldn't have to be added) Breakin the bank (so to speak) is the last reason why I think no more runs should be added out there.... Understand that I'm playing devil's advocate. Like I said, if the argument is going to be made that folks aren't using the line by the , then the only way to confirm it is by seeing if extending a few more runs would make a difference. We're not talking about giving them weekend service and any service outside of rush hours. If at that point you extend a few more runs (3 - 4 more runs is not going to break the bank) and there is still no real demand for it, then I would say get rid of it all together, but I can't see how anyone can fairly conclude that just from two runs in the morning and in the evening not even at the real heart of rush hour that these folks have no need for it. Let put yourself in their shoes. Would you honestly use a bus that has two runs and basically runs once every hour when you need to get to work at X time? I know I wouldn't because it would be too risky and the other alternative involves taking a local bus which is an additional 20 minutes right there and then transferring. However, I do agree that quite frankly I don't see that many people using it either, as City Island is quite small and seems to be car dependent, as these folks probably would just drive to the BXM10 or BXM9 anyway which are also close alternatives to the BXM7A, but I would never advocate for yanking express bus service from isolated areas, especially with limited transit options unless it is clear that the service really isn't being used. You state that the MTA should add more runs to see if there's any real demand for it.... but in the same breath, you agree that you don't see many ppl. using it..... I mean, do you see why I asked what's your stance on this.... You're agreeing & disagreeing w/ me at the same time.... Usually you stick to one side of an argument & beat it to death.... lol.... I'm not goin to entertain a devil's advocate argument any further.... I had a hunch you wanted to argue this, just for the sake of advocating express bus service in general..... That's probably true, but in general, I find that very few local buses link up with their express bus counterparts, so somehow I feel like having to make that connection via the local bus to the BXM7 would take longer and would be inconvenient overall. Most express bus riders would rather transfer to another express bus rather than from a local bus to an express bus, simply because in many cases, the express buses are set up to connect a bit better. Then there's also the fact that some express bus riders don't want to deal with the riff raff that can be found on the some of the local bus (I've heard this on a number of occasions lol), but that's another separate issue. the riff raff on the (for those from city island that opts to take the subway over the 7a), I'll give you... ...but the riff raff on the 29 b/w PBP & city island (during the time the express runs)... what? city island, it's the same general group of people... there is no elitism (regarding [what was] the BxM7b & the Bx29)... there is no exuding of the attitude of "express bus vs the local bus"... those that want to wait for the express when it comes, do so accordingly.... the only real gripe city islanders have w/ the 29, is that it doesn't come often enough (like a lot of bus riders claim about their route, whether justified or unjustified....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #87 Posted July 25, 2011 You state that the MTA should add more runs to see if there's any real demand for it.... but in the same breath, you agree that you don't see many ppl. using it..... I mean, do you see why I asked what's your stance on this.... You're agreeing & disagreeing w/ me at the same time.... Usually you stick to one side of an argument & beat it to death.... lol.... I'm not goin to entertain a devil's advocate argument any further.... I had a hunch you wanted to argue this, just for the sake of advocating express bus service in general..... No not really. My whole point was that regardless to whether it is an express bus or a local bus route, it is only natural for ridership to be low on routes that have very few runs. No one is going to continue to use lines with skeletal service unless they really rely on it, so in order to truly argue that there is no demand on a route, the only way to really know is to increase service where possible. Now what I'm curious about is if the route had more service previously and it was cut back or has it always been like this?? If anyone could shed light on that it would be interesting to analyze. If service has been reduced to just two runs, then I would say axe it, as there is no way that ridership will increase from just two runs, regardless to what area it is in, esp. if other alternatives are nearby, even if that requires driving to them. the riff raff on the I'll give you... but the riff raff on the 29 b/w PBP & city island (during the time the express runs)... what? city island, it's the same general group of people... there is no elitism (regarding [what was] the BxM7b & the Bx29)... there is no exuding of the attitude of "express bus vs the local bus"... those that want to wait for the express when it comes, do so accordingly.... Yeah I understand. I was talking in general though and even there I wouldn't be surprised if a few folks didn't want to mix with the local bus folks. I have certainly heard it while riding with my fellow express bus riders on Staten Island or waiting in line. Some of them have told me outright that they would not put with the subway and the crowds and some have alluded to the idea that they don't want to deal with the local buses. They would rather wait an additional 20 minutes for another express bus than take an express bus that would force them to have to transfer to a local bus. Some of them will actually put up with the transfer for a short distance (5 minutes or so), which is what I'll do when I can tolerate it and I know the bus isn't to be crowded like the S54, but I haven't used the local bus from the express bus now in almost a couple of months on Staten Island. When the weather gets hot people become crazier.... Too crowded and too many hooligans for my tastes on those Staten Island local buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #88 Posted July 25, 2011 Now what I'm curious about is if the route had more service previously and it was cut back or has it always been like this?? If anyone could shed light on that it would be interesting to analyze. If service has been reduced to just two runs, then I would say axe it, as there is no way that ridership will increase from just two runs, regardless to what area it is in, esp. if other alternatives are nearby, even if that requires driving to them. I'm 99% sure it was always 2 runs. I don't have any schedules from the Liberty Lines (or whatever private company used to run it), but for as long as the MTA Bus routes have been on the map, I remember it as 2 runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 25, 2011 Share #89 Posted July 25, 2011 Here's my ideas: 1) The MTA should have the Q7 extended down Rockaway Blvd and Conduit to Green Acres. That would make it so that no one has to trek all the way up to Jamaica Center and back down again and vice versa. Every other Q6 would terminate at either N Boundary Road or Cargo Road. So you want 2 (Q6)'s terminating at different parts of JFK? 2) The Q9, Q10, Q40, Q41 & Q112 shouldn't be changed at all. The Q10 runs parallel to the Q37 and the rest aren't reliable as-is. I'd only change the (Q9) and (Q112) 3) The Q42 would be converted back into a full-time route and have it run through Jamaica Center to Aqueduct via the Q41 route. I would have the Q42 run every 15, 20 or 30 minutes, no overnight service and cut a few runs from the Q41 to not have too much service in Ozone Park. You know the (Q41) and (Q42) can't interline since they're from different companies.What will those Addisleigh Park riders do since the Q42 is gone? 4) A new route should be created running between Cypress Hills or Crescent St on the J/Z to Linden Blvd & 235th Street via Rockaway & the casino loop. I would create a through Linden Blvd route Replies in red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAzumah Posted July 25, 2011 Share #90 Posted July 25, 2011 I'm 99% sure it was always 2 runs. I don't have any schedules from the Liberty Lines (or whatever private company used to run it), but for as long as the MTA Bus routes have been on the map, I remember it as 2 runs. A long time ago, it used to be four trips each way IIRC. My issue is that not all bus services need to be "frequent". I'd prefer that bus services be focused on a particular segment or task. For example, I would split the bottom portion of the X17J (below ETC) and run it every 20 minutes instead of every 3-4 minutes, sending it via the West Shore Expressway. Faster, less frequent services are cheaper to operate than milk runs if the demand is rush hours only. It is my opinion that City Island's population base cannot support more than two runs until they start pushing other BxM8 riders off their bus. When standees start appearing or people get flagged, then you add another trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #91 Posted July 25, 2011 I'm 99% sure it was always 2 runs. I don't have any schedules from the Liberty Lines (or whatever private company used to run it), but for as long as the MTA Bus routes have been on the map, I remember it as 2 runs. Okay, so then they should cut those runs then. They can't cry about it not being visible when they're only providing two runs each way. I know they're thinking about the cost, but you have to look at also from the passenger's perspective. Why would many folks wait in City Island for one bus that only has two runs (one during the 06:00 hour and another at the 07:00 hour) in the morning and two runs that come during the earlier part of the rush hour when they could have access to three other much more frequent express buses nearby in the BXM7A, BXM9 and BXM10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 25, 2011 Share #92 Posted July 25, 2011 1) So you want 2 Q6's terminating at different parts of JFK? 2) I'd only change the Q9 and Q112 3) You know the Q41 and Q42 can't interline since they're from different companies. What will those Addisleigh Park riders do since the Q42 is gone? 4) I would create a through Linden Blvd route - I saw that as, 2 Q6's terminating at the lesser traveled parts of JFK... but our premise is one in the same; I don't get what splitting the Q6 is supposed to accomplish.... - The Q9 to lefferts airtrain, I really do see Brooklyn riders takin advantage of that.... the Q24 to Jamaica flat out sucks, and the 56 to jamaica isn't that much better.... of course there's the , but it's much easier for brooklynites to catch the B15, than it is to catch the ..... the B15 to a Q9... essential for network coverage IMO.... b/c the way the Q9 is now, a large %-tage of riders that disembark at rockaway blvd, either xfer to the Q7 or the Q10... funny thing to see really.... As for the 112, your rendition of placing it in front of (at a better location of) the subway station (rockaway blvd), also works.... - I understand tryna maximize the usage of the Q42, but there's already the option of the Q9, 37, 41, and 112 to choose from, that already serves that general part of Queens, to send to aqueduct (of course they weren't gonna choose the 10; that route's already a "horse")... why extend a whole 'nother route that serves jamaica down to the aqueduct - when the 9, 41, and 112 already does that.... - A linden blvd route would give (what) former Q89 riders local bus service, true.... but it would also mean the elimination of the Q4... hard to choose b/w the two vices.... Curious though... Where would you send/terminate such a route on the western end? Rockaway blvd , Euclid av , (Brooklyn's) Gateway Mall, somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 25, 2011 Share #93 Posted July 25, 2011 - I saw that as, 2 Q6's terminating at the lesser traveled parts of JFK... but our premise is one in the same; I don't get what splitting the Q6 is supposed to accomplish.... - The Q9 to lefferts airtrain, I really do see Brooklyn riders takin advantage of that.... the Q24 to Jamaica flat out sucks, and the 56 to jamaica isn't that much better.... of course there's the , but it's much easier for brooklynites to catch the B15, than it is to catch the ..... the B15 to a Q9... essential for network coverage IMO.... b/c the way the Q9 is now, a large %-tage of riders that disembark at rockaway blvd, either xfer to the Q7 or the Q10... funny thing to see really.... As for the 112, your rendition of placing it in front of (at a better location of) the subway station (rockaway blvd), also works.... - I understand tryna maximize the usage of the Q42, but there's already the option of the Q9, 37, 41, and 112 to choose from, that already serves that general part of Queens, to send to aqueduct (of course they weren't gonna choose the 10; that route's already a "horse")... why extend a whole 'nother route that serves jamaica down to the aqueduct - when the 9, 41, and 112 already does that.... - A linden blvd route would give (what) former Q89 riders local bus service, true.... but it would also mean the elimination of the Q4... hard to choose b/w the two vices.... Curious though... Where would you send/terminate such a route on the western end? Rockaway blvd , Euclid av , (Brooklyn's) Gateway Mall, somewhere else? For the (Q9), I was going to send it down 131 St to the Conduits, eliminating the (Q10) Rockaway branch. I never understood why people want to make 2 branches of the (Q6) going to JFK, unpopular places at that. It's not the (B38). I don't think the (Q4) would be eliminated. Linden Blvd riders still want their access to Jamaica. The western end of this route would be Rockaway Blvd . It's similar to what they did with the (Q27) and (Q83) back in '04. Except, The Q83 would still serve Queens Village LIRR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 25, 2011 Share #94 Posted July 25, 2011 For the (Q9), I was going to send it down 131 St to the Conduits, eliminating the (Q10) Rockaway branch. I never understood why people want to make 2 branches of the (Q6) going to JFK, unpopular places at that. It's not the (B38). I don't think the (Q4) would be eliminated. Linden Blvd riders still want their access to Jamaica. The western end of this route would be Rockaway Blvd . It's similar to what they did with the (Q27) and (Q83) back in '04. Except, The Q83 would still serve Queens Village LIRR The Q9 thing I mentioned was my idea... I understand you want to extend it directly southward... can't go wrong w/ either one.... hmm... so you don't think they'd get rid of the Q4 if they created a linden blvd route... I think they would; the argument would be, since the Q4 & the Q5, etc have the exact end terminal @ Jamaica center, why supply supplemental service along that long a stretch of linden b/w merrick & 235th.... the sacrifice would be to have Q4 riders xfer to any of the merrick routes, if a linden blvd route were to be proposed and/or implemented... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAzumah Posted July 25, 2011 Share #95 Posted July 25, 2011 The Q9 thing I mentioned was my idea... I understand you want to extend it directly southward... can't go wrong w/ either one.... hmm... so you don't think they'd get rid of the Q4 if they created a linden blvd route... I think they would; the argument would be, since the Q4 & the Q5, etc have the exact end terminal @ Jamaica center, why supply supplemental service along that long a stretch of linden b/w merrick & 235th.... the sacrifice would be to have Q4 riders xfer to any of the merrick routes, if a linden blvd route were to be proposed and/or implemented... It might be worthwhile to pull the Q4 off Merrick and send it to Aqueduct. You can provide a two legged transfer if a Merrick Boulevard transfer is made and call it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 25, 2011 Share #96 Posted July 25, 2011 It might be worthwhile to pull the Q4 off Merrick and send it to Aqueduct. You can provide a two legged transfer if a Merrick Boulevard transfer is made and call it a day. killin 2 birds w/ one stone... I like that... Although I don't see SE queens riders goin for it (the extraction of the Q4), but it would make more sense having w/e jamaica riders xferring off w/e route of their choice (6, 9, 40, guy r brewer routes) to a route that would go on serving aqueduct (while addressing a service gap in the process).... than having direct Jamaica-Aqueduct service via the Q41 or the Q112..... I get you.... One (well, the main) reason why I suggested the 112 to aqueduct is to have *some* bus terminate there... I always feel that the chances of catching a bus is greater at a terminal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.