Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Harry

MTA officials 'didn't do their homework' before rejecting Queens bus line, locals say

Recommended Posts

Eastern Queens community leaders say Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials "didn't do their homework" before rejecting a plan that would restore service along a defunct bus route.

 

Civic leaders and elected officials met with the MTA last week to review a grass-roots proposal to fill the void left when the Q79 bus line was axed last year.

 

But agency officials quickly dismissed the proposal to extend the Q36 route that terminates on Jamaica Ave. near the Queens-Nassau County border. The Q36N would run north along Little Neck Parkway and eventually connect with the Q30 line.

 

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2011/08/16/2011-08-16_feeling_forgotten_by_mta_on_buses.html#ixzz1VC9Ug3jx

post-1-13328858263_thumb.jpg

post-1-13328858263_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is utter nonsense. They should be looking to restore service where possible, especially if there are no reasonable alternatives. How can you make the argument that the service cuts were painful and sliced into the heart of some communities and then turn around and shoot down every proposal to find a way to give folks service who have next to no reasonable alternatives? :mad: :tdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is utter nonsense. They should be looking to restore service where possible, especially if there are no reasonable alternatives. How can you make the argument that the service cuts were painful and sliced into the heart of some communities and then turn around and shoot down every proposal to find a way to give folks service who have next to no reasonable alternatives? :mad: :tdown:

 

 

Agreed. Folks out there on Little Neck Pwy have no other north-south transit alternatives(not counting the Manhattan express routes)so it was dumb for the (MTA) to totally can the former (Q79).

 

Since it doubtful the (Q79)is coming back extending the (Q30)on alternative trips to Little Neck LIRR and the (Q36) to Glen Oaks are the likely possiblities.

In end i think some form of local bus service will return to Little Neck Pwy. but probably an extension of an east-west Queens routes such as either the (Q30) (Q46) or the (Q36).

 

MTA is also very sensative to media backlash and since this has been in the Daily News for last few months, I think they will 'cave-in' a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the (MTA) cares about are ridership numbers. That bus was a really useful bus for getting to out of the way places (at least in my eyes), but it never had strong ridership levels. I loved getting a nearly empty bus every time I used it, but the writing was on the wall for that route the minute the economy tanked.

 

They aren't going to put anything else on that route unless they were sure there would be a sustained increase in ridership numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is utter nonsense. They should be looking to restore service where possible, especially if there are no reasonable alternatives. How can you make the argument that the service cuts were painful and sliced into the heart of some communities and then turn around and shoot down every proposal to find a way to give folks service who have next to no reasonable alternatives? :mad: :tdown:

 

Damage control.

 

Only the MTA can strip a community of a service & acts like it cares for that community's loss at the same time.....

 

It's like breakin up w/ a woman for your own selfish reason, while still sendin her flowers & I love you cards (some guys actually do this)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does the (MTA) do their homework? The (Q79) should just be restored instead of extending already long routes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damage control.

 

Only the MTA can strip a community of a service & acts like it cares for that community's loss at the same time.....

 

It's like breakin up w/ a woman for your own selfish reason, while still sendin her flowers & I love you cards (some guys actually do this)....

 

lol... Lunacy at its finest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When does the (MTA) do their homework? The (Q79) should just be restored instead of extending already long routes

 

I agree. The (Q79) should be restored with similar headways before June 2010. Only change is that weekday evenings appx. 7pm-last bus (10pm) and all day Saturdays should be 1-hour headways.

 

However the (MTA) will more likely go the other direction and extend a route like the (Q30) or (Q36)instead stating that the old (Q79)ridership is too low to run on it's own route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When does the (MTA) do their homework? The (Q79) should just be restored instead of extending already long routes

 

Well, the advantage of that is that it would give them access to the major hubs, rather than being a little community shuttle.

 

My plan would be to pretty much split up the old Q79 into a few different portions. Select trips of the Q12, Q30, and Q36 would be extended down Little Neck Parkway to the Glen Oaks complex, which would connect all of the bus routes in the area and give the people along Little Neck Parkway access to the major hubs (Flushing and Jamaica) in Eastern Queens.

 

I agree. The (Q79) should be restored with similar headways before June 2010. Only change is that weekday evenings appx. 7pm-last bus (10pm) and all day Saturdays should be 1-hour headways.

 

However the (MTA) will more likely go the other direction and extend a route like the (Q30) or (Q36)instead stating that the old (Q79)ridership is too low to run on it's own route.

 

The problem is that the same problem of low ridership exists (and they can't extend it to the Floral Park LIRR station because of NIMBYs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the advantage of that is that it would give them access to the major hubs, rather than being a little community shuttle.

 

My plan would be to pretty much split up the old Q79 into a few different portions. Select trips of the Q12, Q30, and Q36 would be extended down Little Neck Parkway to the Glen Oaks complex, which would connect all of the bus routes in the area and give the people along Little Neck Parkway access to the major hubs (Flushing and Jamaica) in Eastern Queens.

 

 

 

 

The (Q12) is not a great idea as it's always 'busy' as the Local for crushloaded and heavy Northern Blvd route. Maybe the (Q30) and (Q36) which is not as busy makes much more sense to extend to Glen Oaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the advantage of that is that it would give them access to the major hubs, rather than being a little community shuttle.

 

My plan would be to pretty much split up the old Q79 into a few different portions. Select trips of the Q12, Q30, and Q36 would be extended down Little Neck Parkway to the Glen Oaks complex, which would connect all of the bus routes in the area and give the people along Little Neck Parkway access to the major hubs (Flushing and Jamaica) in Eastern Queens.

 

The problem is that the same problem of low ridership exists (and they can't extend it to the Floral Park LIRR station because of NIMBYs)

 

Immediate problem I have w/ that....

 

way too much service.... they would then have the Q12, 30, 36, and the 46..... forget about makin Glen oaks a transfer point.... you'd have just as hard a time with that, as you would bringing back the 79 & sending it down tulip to LIRR floral park.....

 

 

 

The (Q12) is not a great idea as it's always 'busy' as the Local for crushloaded and heavy Northern Blvd route. Maybe the (Q30) and (Q36) which is not as busy makes much more sense to extend to Glen Oaks.

 

Well, traveling NB, Q79 riders did one of 2 things past the HHE.... and that is disembark @ northern blvd, or disembark at the RR station....

Middays, buses would empty out at northern blvd....

 

case you didn't know, you do have some Q12's that layover right in front of that bank on little neck pkwy/northern (on the little neck pkwy side).... there's nothin stoppin Q12's from continuing on down to HHE... it would eliminate a turnaround scenario that's less than ideal (for lack of a better term).... I would have done this, even when the Q79 was around....

 

Sending Q12's south of HHE, I do not agree with, though.....

 

Furthermore, you can't say that extending the Q12 isn't a great idea for that reason you gave... when you were one of the main ones pushing that idea of sending Q12's to LIRR Great neck to help out the N20/21 (which would have made Q12's MORE busy).... That's not fair.....

 

anyway, sending the 36 up to Glen oaks, those buses wouldn't garner much ridership.... those folks up there are content w/ their 46....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you do homework when you're never in the classroom :mad:

 

Nice comment. I like it.

 

This whole cost neutral thing is total nonsense. It is just something the MTA made up when it comes to bus routes. When they restored 4 track Manhattan Bridge service ten years ago after a 14 year absence, I think it cost an additional $10 million a year. No one said anything about a new service plan having to be cost neutral then. It's certainly not written into any official operating procedure.

 

When the MTA proposed diverting a route in southern Queens last month, they just put in a blanket statement that new ridership would pay for the additional $300,000 cost without offering one shread of proof why this should be so. I've been dealing with their hypocrisy and double talk for so long now (almost 40 years), I am so sick of it, that I don't even have the interest anymore to even look at a Queens bus route to find out for myself if what the community is proposing makes sense or if I could come up with something better.

 

Any responsible planner knows that any change doesn't bring new riders overnight and that it takes at least 6 months for a clientele to develop and that needs to be considered when considering any improvement. No business expects to make a profit or break even on its first day. It usually takes three years in negative terriitory before it turns to profit. Only the MTA expects to break even on Day 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, traveling NB, Q79 riders did one of 2 things past the HHE.... and that is disembark @ northern blvd, or disembark at the RR station....

Middays, buses would empty out at northern blvd....

 

case you didn't know, you do have some Q12's that layover right in front of that bank on little neck pkwy/northern (on the little neck pkwy side).... there's nothin stoppin Q12's from continuing on down to HHE... it would eliminate a turnaround scenario that's less than ideal (for lack of a better term).... I would have done this, even when the Q79 was around....

 

Sending Q12's south of HHE, I do not agree with, though.....

 

Furthermore, you can't say that extending the Q12 isn't a great idea for that reason you gave... when you were one of the main ones pushing that idea of sending Q12's to LIRR Great neck to help out the N20/21 (which would have made Q12's MORE busy).... That's not fair.....

 

anyway, sending the 36 up to Glen oaks, those buses wouldn't garner much ridership.... those folks up there are content w/ their 46....

 

Well, I'm not too familiar with that area, but I thought that there would be an issue with turning the Q12 buses around at the HHE, so I figured it could go a bit further to Glen Oaks.

 

And I only suggested the Q36 to provide service between Jamaica Avenue and Union Turnpike (the distance is about a mile)

 

Nice comment. I like it.

 

This whole cost neutral thing is total nonsense. It is just something the MTA made up when it comes to bus routes. When they restored 4 track Manhattan Bridge service ten years ago after a 14 year absence, I think it cost an additional $10 million a year. No one said anything about a new service plan having to be cost neutral then. It's certainly not written into any official operating procedure.

 

When the MTA proposed diverting a route in southern Queens last month, they just put in a blanket statement that new ridership would pay for the additional $300,000 cost without offering one shread of proof why this should be so. I've been dealing with their hypocrisy and double talk for so long now (almost 40 years), I am so sick of it, that I don't even have the interest anymore to even look at a Queens bus route to find out for myself if what the community is proposing makes sense or if I could come up with something better.

 

Any responsible planner knows that any change doesn't bring new riders overnight and that it takes at least 6 months for a clientele to develop and that needs to be considered when considering any improvement. No business expects to make a profit or break even on its first day. It usually takes three years in negative terriitory before it turns to profit. Only the MTA expects to break even on Day 1.

 

100% correct. Though I'd just like to point out that back in 2004, they weren't dealing with the cost-neutral constraints. Back in 2007, Staten Island got an S55 extension and the new S89 bus route, and neither of them were cost neutral.

 

Q101 via Steinway's comment reminded me: The S89 started out with about 300 riders per day, and not it has close to 900. While I'm sure some of that ridership was riders that switched from the S44/S94, S59, and S79 (and therefore no new revenue was generated), I'm sure some of those riders were new to the system and were therefore new sources of revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Folks out there on Little Neck Pwy have no other north-south transit alternatives(not counting the Manhattan express routes)so it was dumb for the (MTA) to totally can the former (Q79).

 

Since it doubtful the (Q79)is coming back extending the (Q30)on alternative trips to Little Neck LIRR and the (Q36) to Glen Oaks are the likely possiblities.

In end i think some form of local bus service will return to Little Neck Pwy. but probably an extension of an east-west Queens routes such as either the (Q30) (Q46) or the (Q36).

 

MTA is also very sensative to media backlash and since this has been in the Daily News for last few months, I think they will 'cave-in' a little.

 

I actually think they can come up with a better proposal as the Q36 extension made no sense that would have made the line backtrack and be unreliable Q36 dips south on 212 pl and street having it send up on little neck makes no sense. Q12 whould have been better but I don't think q79 will ever carry as a local the travel patterns of ppl there is regional so Q79 will do better as a regional rte that can link BX with queens but must be done strategicly and proper done wrong and the line will fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice comment. I like it.

 

This whole cost neutral thing is total nonsense. It is just something the MTA made up when it comes to bus routes. When they restored 4 track Manhattan Bridge service ten years ago after a 14 year absence, I think it cost an additional $10 million a year. No one said anything about a new service plan having to be cost neutral then. It's certainly not written into any official operating procedure.

 

When the MTA proposed diverting a route in southern Queens last month, they just put in a blanket statement that new ridership would pay for the additional $300,000 cost without offering one shread of proof why this should be so. I've been dealing with their hypocrisy and double talk for so long now (almost 40 years), I am so sick of it, that I don't even have the interest anymore to even look at a Queens bus route to find out for myself if what the community is proposing makes sense or if I could come up with something better.

 

Any responsible planner knows that any change doesn't bring new riders overnight and that it takes at least 6 months for a clientele to develop and that needs to be considered when considering any improvement. No business expects to make a profit or break even on its first day. It usually takes three years in negative terriitory before it turns to profit. Only the MTA expects to break even on Day 1.

 

when qm1 first start it carry 1,000 rider on first day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the (MTA) cares about are ridership numbers. That bus was a really useful bus for getting to out of the way places (at least in my eyes), but it never had strong ridership levels. I loved getting a nearly empty bus every time I used it, but the writing was on the wall for that route the minute the economy tanked.

 

They aren't going to put anything else on that route unless they were sure there would be a sustained increase in ridership numbers.

so true The reason why I suggested extension to BX via bayside was that would turn it into a regional feeder filling in a gap the Q44 doesn't fill.

 

Nice comment. I like it.

 

This whole cost neutral thing is total nonsense. It is just something the MTA made up when it comes to bus routes. When they restored 4 track Manhattan Bridge service ten years ago after a 14 year absence, I think it cost an additional $10 million a year. No one said anything about a new service plan having to be cost neutral then. It's certainly not written into any official operating procedure.

 

When the MTA proposed diverting a route in southern Queens last month, they just put in a blanket statement that new ridership would pay for the additional $300,000 cost without offering one shread of proof why this should be so. I've been dealing with their hypocrisy and double talk for so long now (almost 40 years), I am so sick of it, that I don't even have the interest anymore to even look at a Queens bus route to find out for myself if what the community is proposing makes sense or if I could come up with something better.

 

Any responsible planner knows that any change doesn't bring new riders overnight and that it takes at least 6 months for a clientele to develop and that needs to be considered when considering any improvement. No business expects to make a profit or break even on its first day. It usually takes three years in negative terriitory before it turns to profit. Only the MTA expects to break even on Day 1.

 

did you ever do work for NJT?? or just MTA I admit I am not very good at routing structure for MTA like systems except simple small changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually think they can come up with a better proposal as the Q36 extension made no sense that would have made the line backtrack and be unreliable Q36 dips south on 212 pl and street having it send up on little neck makes no sense. Q12 whould have been better but I don't think q79 will ever carry as a local the travel patterns of ppl there is regional so Q79 will do better as a regional rte that can link BX with queens but must be done strategicly and proper done wrong and the line will fail.

 

 

Trainmaster and his einstein suggestions again lol. Almost nobody from Douglaston, Floral Park and Litte Neck is traveling to/from the Bronx. If they are they taking crosstown routes like the (Q36) (Q43) (Q46) (Q30) and (Q12) to either Jamaica or Flushing for the (Q44) or (QBX1);or driving.

 

So no need to have the (Q79) if ever returns to run over the Throgs Neck bridge. And by the way Transitmaster have you been on the (Q79) route or other nearby routes like the (Q12) (Q46) (Q30) or (Q36)? I have some of them before you were born 22 years ago in 1989.:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually think they can come up with a better proposal as the Q36 extension made no sense that would have made the line backtrack and be unreliable Q36 dips south on 212 pl and street having it send up on little neck makes no sense. Q12 whould have been better but I don't think q79 will ever carry as a local the travel patterns of ppl there is regional so Q79 will do better as a regional rte that can link BX with queens but must be done strategicly and proper done wrong and the line will fail.

 

Either the Q79 be brought back in full, or with an extension to LIRR floral park, or not at all.....

 

What in all the hell makes you think anyone from any part of the bronx is seeking service to little neck & glen oaks......

 

Stop pushing your "regional" BS on the city forums.

 

 

Well, I'm not too familiar with that area, but I thought that there would be an issue with turning the Q12 buses around at the HHE, so I figured it could go a bit further to Glen Oaks.

 

And I only suggested the Q36 to provide service between Jamaica Avenue and Union Turnpike (the distance is about a mile)

 

Yeah, well I'm tellin you what simply wont fly in a particular neighborhood..... putting 4 local routes in glen oaks would be like putting 4 local routes in somewhere like annadale or something.....

 

 

when qm1 first start it carry 1,000 rider on first day

That just means there was a very high demand for it.....

 

Those 1000 riders have to be sustained, then built upon, over the course of a year... 2 years.... 3 years, etc.... riderbases have to be built, they don't just appear out of the sky....

 

You're not disproving his point by mentioning that 1 day statistic......

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice comment. I like it.

 

This whole cost neutral thing is total nonsense. It is just something the MTA made up when it comes to bus routes. When they restored 4 track Manhattan Bridge service ten years ago after a 14 year absence, I think it cost an additional $10 million a year. No one said anything about a new service plan having to be cost neutral then. It's certainly not written into any official operating procedure.

 

When the MTA proposed diverting a route in southern Queens last month, they just put in a blanket statement that new ridership would pay for the additional $300,000 cost without offering one shread of proof why this should be so. I've been dealing with their hypocrisy and double talk for so long now (almost 40 years), I am so sick of it, that I don't even have the interest anymore to even look at a Queens bus route to find out for myself if what the community is proposing makes sense or if I could come up with something better.

 

Any responsible planner knows that any change doesn't bring new riders overnight and that it takes at least 6 months for a clientele to develop and that needs to be considered when considering any improvement. No business expects to make a profit or break even on its first day. It usually takes three years in negative terriitory before it turns to profit. Only the MTA expects to break even on Day 1.

Of course bro, rome wadn't built in a day.....

 

....and this cost neutrality thing.... lmfao....

It makes rejecting w/e proposals directed their way easier, b/c they know it'll cost money to study & implement them - something they care not to engage in & deal with.... It's an indirect way of sayin "We don't wanna make changes to improve on the city's bus system".....

 

the logic they're using in all this, is no different than trading for equal value... except, people's commutes (and options of em) aren't on the damn trading block.... there is such a thing called "the greater good", which doesn't register w/ the MTA.... they got it backwards - riders have to consider other (and less) options when it comes to commuting, while the MTA saves money in the process....

 

three cheers for PUBLIC transportation !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

100% correct. Though I'd just like to point out that back in 2004, they weren't dealing with the cost-neutral constraints. Back in 2007, Staten Island got an S55 extension and the new S89 bus route, and neither of them were cost neutral.

 

 

 

As I've said numerous times, their logic is never consistent. They are constantly contradicting themselves. While they may not have applied cost neutrality to Staten Island in 2007, doesn't mean they weren't claiming it in other boroughs. Back in 2003, they rejected one of my proposals for an additional operating cost of $25,000 and no other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trainmaster and his einstein suggestions again lol. Almost nobody from Douglaston, Floral Park and Litte Neck is traveling to/from the Bronx. If they are they taking crosstown routes like the (Q36) (Q43) (Q46) (Q30) and (Q12) to either Jamaica or Flushing for the (Q44) or (QBX1);or driving.

 

So no need to have the (Q79) if ever returns to run over the Throgs Neck bridge. And by the way Transitmaster have you been on the (Q79) route or other nearby routes like the (Q12) (Q46) (Q30) or (Q36)? I have some of them before you were born 22 years ago in 1989.:eek:

I used Q79 before yes. My suggestions are not targeting existing riders they are going after new ones and geared towards taking cars off the road in a manner similar to express buses but in a unique way.

 

I understand that regionalization is the only way to save Q79 cause it doesn't have a ridership base so my suggestion is to create one from scratch while manipulating the N rtes that link with Q79 the regionalization may increase ridership on some N rtes and itself due to its timed connection ability.

 

O and transfering to Q44 and Q50 is too slow. I am going after several markets at once. Plus I am suggesting things to reduce driving so it actually has nothing to do with current routes. The crosstown rtes ur forgetting how slow they are. I am creating a faster alternative that directly competes with several driving patterns. I wouldn't be making this suggestion if I didn't know the driving patterns of that area plus look at the N buses that link with Q79 then you will see it. I am creating fast routes from the regions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either the Q79 be brought back in full, or with an extension to LIRR floral park, or not at all.....

 

What in all the hell makes you think anyone from any part of the bronx is seeking service to little neck & glen oaks......

 

Stop pushing your "regional" BS on the city forums.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, well I'm tellin you what simply wont fly in a particular neighborhood..... putting 4 local routes in glen oaks would be like putting 4 local routes in somewhere like annadale or something.....

 

 

 

That just means there was a very high demand for it.....

 

Those 1000 riders have to be sustained, then built upon, over the course of a year... 2 years.... 3 years, etc.... riderbases have to be built, they don't just appear out of the sky....

 

You're not disproving his point by mentioning that 1 day statistic......

dude ur forgetting that Q79 has low ridership brining it back will accomplish nothing. Extending it to floral park is a no-go the ppl blocked it. Anything else???

extending it to elmont via plainfield ave and ending at hempstead makes sense cause it links several corridors in a grid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that's not gonna work either, because Long Island is NIMBYville. For the love of god, stop turning simple routes into regional routes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.