Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[IAlam]

Like I said, we already force Q58 passengers to walk a further distance than that. If you ride those buses going north most of the passengers get off anyways, because that last portion past Sanford often takes ten minutes due to traffic. I would be willing to bet that not many people are going from the 17/27 to the 13/16/28.

 

Buses can continue turning around the way they do now, they just don't take passengers along for the ride.

You're out of your mind if you think the Q58 stop is further than the Sanford ave stop, and it buses are still going to the same place to turn around, why not take the passengers? How does the route benefit by not taking passengers along the same route. Flushing already has a problem with the bus routes being scattered from each other and too far from the station. This just makes things worse than they already are.

[bobtehpanda]

You're out of your mind if you think the Q58 stop is further than the Sanford ave stop, and it buses are still going to the same place to turn around, why not take the passengers? How does the route benefit by not taking passengers along the same route. Flushing already has a problem with the bus routes being scattered from each other and too far from the station. This just makes things worse than they already are.

 

I used to be a regular rider of the Q27, and I would walk that distance on a regular distance simply because that additional stop could easily take an additional ten to fifteen minutes. It's a four minute walk - it's not that dramatic. People already walk further than this distance for subway transfers and bus transfers as it is.

 

The point in truncating at Sanford is that buses are no longer required to travel all that way. I said that they could turn around the way that they do now, but they might not have to; if there are traffic delays due to severe congestion at Main and Roosevelt, or at Main and Kissena, now that southbound buses start at the library they can just head around congestion using alternate routes like 40 Rd. The current situation also sucks; the first ten minutes of a Q17/27 rider's ride out of Flushing is easily taken up by the segment before the library, but if you try bypassing that by walking to the library stop, you will get passed up by multiple buses.

[checkmatechamp13]

Question: Didn't you have a plan that involved terminating the Q17/27 around the Municipal Parking lot via Sanford & Union (basically, avoiding the merge of Kissena & Main)?

 

I do agree with the logic of your current proposal, BTW. 

[bobtehpanda]

Question: Didn't you have a plan that involved terminating the Q17/27 around the Municipal Parking lot via Sanford & Union (basically, avoiding the merge of Kissena & Main)?

 

I do agree with the logic of your current proposal, BTW. 

 

I did, but the plan isn't great, since for all we know an operating pattern including left turns (Kissena to Sanford, Union to Sanford) could end up just as bad or worse. Also, after having been in the area, the Muni lot superblock probably could not handle more bus volume.

[Mtatransit]

Anyone knows where we could dig a portal to build a underground bus terminal with free transfers to the subway like TTC? Alway impressed with the amount of underground bus terminals there. Flushing and Jamaica seems like the perfect place to do it. Just the question where... It would definitely not be downtown Flushing, maybe at Mets Willet and Sanford/Union?

Edited June 8, 2017 by Mtatransit

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Anyone knows where we could dig a portal to build a underground bus terminal with free transfers to the subway like TTC? Alway impressed with the amount of underground bus terminals there. Flushing and Jamaica seems like the perfect place to do it. Just the question where... It would definitely not be downtown Flushing, maybe at Mets Willet and Sanford/Union?

 

It could have been in Flushing at the former Municipal Parking Field #1, if the Community Board and politicians hadn't caved to the merchants to stop it.

 

The Main Street station rehab design back in the mid-1990s included a plan to keep excavating further under Roosevelt Avenue, then turn north under the Lippmann Plaza walkway to an underground bus terminal below the municipal parking lot. The merchants opposed it because they wanted subway and bus passengers to become pedestrians on the street and keep walking past stores instead of going directly between modes, and both the the Community Board and the politicians (especially then-City Council member Julia Harrison) dutifully obeyed.

[IAlam]

Currently there is a sidewalk extension project going on at Flushing, from the way it looks, it seem there will only be one travel lane and one parking lane. (for boarding buses) Chances are a car ban on Main street is likely in the near future. I've already seen cars being shooed off Main St S/B by the NYPD at 37th. If a car ban does occur on Main St, that can pretty much eliminate most of the current traffic problems that buses experience. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Currently there is a sidewalk extension project going on at Flushing, from the way it looks, it seem there will only be one travel lane and one parking lane. (for boarding buses) Chances are a car ban on Main street is likely in the near future. I've already seen cars being shooed off Main St S/B by the NYPD at 37th. If a car ban does occur on Main St, that can pretty much eliminate most of the current traffic problems that buses experience. 

 

That would not be politically tenable. Remember that the merchants in Flushing want bus passengers to walk by their stores, but they don't want bus stops (because they take parking away from customers) and definitely wouldn't want bus lanes.

[Mtatransit]

There is already a car ban on Main after 37th Av and before 41 Av for the sidewalk project aleast southbound, as of right now it should be temporary

It could have been in Flushing at the former Municipal Parking Field #1, if the Community Board and politicians hadn't caved to the merchants to stop it.

 

The Main Street station rehab design back in the mid-1990s included a plan to keep excavating further under Roosevelt Avenue, then turn north under the Lippmann Plaza walkway to an underground bus terminal below the municipal parking lot. The merchants opposed it because they wanted subway and bus passengers to become pedestrians on the street and keep walking past stores instead of going directly between modes, and both the the Community Board and the politicians (especially then-City Council member Julia Harrison) dutifully obeyed.

Wow what a waste... It could've allowed better reliability and save Eastern Queens Rider a transfer... Wow, should've just built a underground mall for people to stop at while building the bus terminal...

[IAlam]

That would not be politically tenable. Remember that the merchants in Flushing want bus passengers to walk by their stores, but they don't want bus stops (because they take parking away from customers) and definitely wouldn't want bus lanes.

What parking? LMAO There is next to no parking near commercial stores, and it's nothing new the Q44SBS didn't change much either. They all go to residential streets to park. Take it from someone whose lived in Flushing their entire life. 

[bobtehpanda]

That would not be politically tenable. Remember that the merchants in Flushing want bus passengers to walk by their stores, but they don't want bus stops (because they take parking away from customers) and definitely wouldn't want bus lanes.

 

It is indeed happening, and supported by the local BID.

 

There hasn't been parking on Main or Kissena from Sanford/Kissena to the library in ages. Unless you count the terrible double parkers and the delivery vans who have a deal with the city on parking tickets.

[chenvinny54]

Not remotely defending the airport usage of either of those other 2 routes....

 

- I've always thought the Q47 should end over there @ Ditmars/82nd; the problem is the turnaround....

- I wouldn't bother kicking the Q72 out, and it has nothing to do with its airport usage... Before sometime in the mid 2000's when it used to end at Ditmars/94th, buses used to turn around inside the airport anyway.... So I don't really blame them for eventually running buses inside there to actually serve the terminals......

 

Aside from that, the difference between the Q48 & the Q47/Q72 is that there would be no reason to try to phase out those routes because of its poor airport usage.... Again, the reach of the Q48 is much too narrow - and extending it eastward (or combining it with some route in Flushing wouldn't help matters).....

Then how about we will have Q47, and Q72 serve east Elmhurst, and eliminate Q48?

Q47 will have its turnaround from Ditmars Blvd/90 St, right on 90 St, and then terminate at 23 Av, in front of Vaughn College.

Q72 will serve the same area, and terminate around Ditmars Blvd/100 Street after the roundabout. That is turned from 94 Street, and having this new headway to avoid airport due to low ridership you said.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B35 via Church]

Then how about we will have Q47, and Q72 serve east Elmhurst, and eliminate Q48?

Q47 will have its turnaround from Ditmars Blvd/90 St, right on 90 St, and then terminate at 23 Av, in front of Vaughn College.

Q72 will serve the same area, and terminate around Ditmars Blvd/100 Street after the roundabout. That is turned from 94 Street, and having this new headway to avoid airport due to low ridership you said.

The Q72 I'd just keep in the airport...

 

As for the Q47, don't know what new headway you're referring to, but I don't have too much of a problem with your route suggestion....

[chenvinny54]

The Q72 I'd just keep in the airport...

 

As for the Q47, don't know what new headway you're referring to, but I don't have too much of a problem with your route suggestion....

The "new headway" I was referring to, is the new route I suggested to you.

As for Q72, you're right, but we are not sure about the ridership though to/from the airport.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B35 via Church]

The "new headway" I was referring to, is the new route I suggested to you.

As for Q72, you're right, but we are not sure about the ridership though to/from the airport.

That's not what a headway is..... Headways refer to the frequency of service (in minutes).

 

As for LGA usage I'd say, Q47 usage < Q48 usage < Q72 usage < Q70 usage < M60 usage.....

Q47 usage is easily worse than Q48 usage, so I have no problem w/ taking the Q47 out of the airport..... Q72 OTOH isn't great by any stretch, but it isn't near as bad as Q47 & Q48 usage....

[Gotham Bus Co.]

What parking? LMAO There is next to no parking near commercial stores, and it's nothing new the Q44SBS didn't change much either. They all go to residential streets to park. Take it from someone whose lived in Flushing their entire life. 

 

 

It is indeed happening, and supported by the local BID.

 

There hasn't been parking on Main or Kissena from Sanford/Kissena to the library in ages. Unless you count the terrible double parkers and the delivery vans who have a deal with the city on parking tickets.

 

That's just it. The merchants want parking instead of bus stops (which is why they vigorously oppose all attempts at enforcement).

[NewFlyer 230]

That's not what a headway is..... Headways refer to the frequency of service (in minutes).

 

As for LGA usage I'd say, Q47 usage < Q48 usage < Q72 usage < Q70 usage < M60 usage.....

Q47 usage is easily worse than Q48 usage, so I have no problem w/ taking the Q47 out of the airport..... Q72 OTOH isn't great by any stretch, but it isn't near as bad as Q47 & Q48 usage....

And if the Q23 were to go into LGA (which I don't recommend due to how slow that route can be) how would you see it perform as far as usage goes?

[B35 via Church]

And if the Q23 were to go into LGA (which I don't recommend due to how slow that route can be) how would you see it perform as far as usage goes?

Better than the Q47, not much better than the Q48, but slightly worse than the Q72.... Not in the same stratosphere as Q70 or M60 levels....

[Mtatransit]

The Q47 I have no problem going in the airport, (it only goes to Marine Term A) which has no traffic and a perfect place to end the bus, much better than the place where 69 ends, which is weirdly in a place of no significant importance. Q48 get really low usage in the Central Terminal of the airport so I'm alright with it ending at 23/Ditmars but we shouldn't touch it at this point. The Q23 I feel parallels the Q72. At this time I think everything is fine the way it is

Edited June 15, 2017 by Mtatransit

[chenvinny54]

That's not what a headway is..... Headways refer to the frequency of service (in minutes).

 

As for LGA usage I'd say, Q47 usage < Q48 usage < Q72 usage < Q70 usage < M60 usage.....

Q47 usage is easily worse than Q48 usage, so I have no problem w/ taking the Q47 out of the airport..... Q72 OTOH isn't great by any stretch, but it isn't near as bad as Q47 & Q48 usage....

Guys (to NOT only B35 via Church), I have a better suggestion, the Q23-SBS, and is going to kill Q47 and 48 for their low ridership.

 

Q23-SBS will operate from Glendale - Atlas Mall to replace Q47, and operate through Flushing via College Point Blvd, with stop for Skymall, and Roosevelt Av, to supersede Q48 to LGA, serving only Terminals B-D-C, and going out and terminate at Ditmars Blvd/102 St. To Flushing from Glendale - Atlas Mall, right on 80 St right on Metropolitan Av, left on 71 Av, go straight up, then 108 St, right on Horace Harding Exp to College PT Blvd. Then to LGA, via Roosevelt Av WB, just serve Mets - Willets PT Station plus LIRR, and 111 St station, right on 108 St, straight up to Ditmars Blvd, then entering LGA @ 94 St.

Existing local Q23 will remain in service.

 

Q72 will be taking over Marine Terminal A to supersede Q47 from/to 35 Av/73 St. Then, inbound to Rego Park, via 35 Av EB, right on Junction Blvd, and its regular route. Outbound: its regular route, left on 35 Av, right on 74 St, and via existing Q47 route.

 

Q18 will move to 69 St via Woodside Av, to replace the South part of Q47 from/to 69 St/53 Av.

Edited June 18, 2017 by chenvinny54

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Guys (to NOT only B35 via Church), I have a better suggestion, the Q23-SBS, and is going to kill Q47 and 48 for their low ridership.

 

Q23-SBS will operate from Glendale - Atlas Mall to replace Q47, and operate through Flushing via College Point Blvd, with stop for Skymall, and Roosevelt Av, to supersede Q48 to LGA, serving only Terminals B-D-C, and going out and terminate at Ditmars Blvd/102 St. To Flushing from Glendale - Atlas Mall, right on 80 St right on Metropolitan Av, left on 71 Av, go straight up, then 108 St, right on Horace Harding Exp to College PT Blvd. Then to LGA, via Roosevelt Av WB, just serve Mets - Willets PT Station plus LIRR, and 111 St station, right on 108 St, straight up to Ditmars Blvd, then entering LGA @ 94 St.

Existing local Q23 will remain in service.

 

Q72 will be taking over Marine Terminal A to supersede Q47 from/to 35 Av/73 St. Then, inbound to Rego Park, via 35 Av EB, right on Junction Blvd, and its regular route. Outbound: its regular route, left on 35 Av, right on 74 St, and via existing Q47 route.

 

Q18 will move to 69 St via Woodside Av, to replace the South part of Q47 from/to 69 St/53 Av.

That "Q23 SBS" is not even like the regular route for the most part, so it may as well be a different route. I still don't agree with this plan for a few reasons:

 

1. What exactly is the SBS replacing at Atlas Park Mall from the Q47?  You can't just claim that it's replacing the Q47, especially since the route has no correlation with the Q47 besides stopping at Atlas Park Mall.

 

2. Why is the Q47 being eliminated? The Q47 isn't necessarily a low-ridership route (it brings more than 8K riders on a standard weekday, which is 1K less than the Q48 and Q72 combined). 

 

3. I would rather cut the Q72 out of LGA than send it to Terminal A. The Q47 should remain serving it, especially since the savings brought by terminating buses outside Terminal A would be negligible. Perhaps some buses during the rush hour, and the last few buses of the day can terminate at 80 Street & Astoria Boulevard, but that's about it. 

 

4. Some of the roads the SBS takes will cause the bus to not save any time over corresponding local service

 

5. I disagree with any southward extension of the Q18 from Grand Avenue. I don't support an extension replacing part of the Q67, and I don't support this either. Many riders on the Q47 coming from Glendale & Middle Village are going to Roosevelt Avenue for subway service. I, like many other riders, would not want to have a longer bus ride to the subway, only to have the as an option. If you want more options, you have to stay until Northern Boulevard, where you only have the or . I would not want to have a longer bus ride to a more unreliable and less frequent subway service, especially on the weekends. Either that or take it to the , which would be indirect for many trips.

 

I feel that ridership on the portion would seriously dwindle south of Grand Avenue (all you would see on a consistent basis are local riders, only taking the bus within the neighborhood). You would push more people to use the east-west routes (Q38, Q58, Q59) and the Q29. Not really a good idea (each for their own reasons). Not only that, but the Q18 has reliability problems, worse than the Q47. Yesterday, I saw 3 Q18s making the turn from Hamilton Place onto Grand Avenue (back to back to back). With buses running every 20 minutes, you can imagine how long those delays are. The Q47's delays are due to (but not limited to) the current long-term detour buses are taking. 

[chenvinny54]

That "Q23 SBS" is not even like the regular route for the most part, so it may as well be a different route. I still don't agree with this plan for a few reasons:

 

1. What exactly is the SBS replacing at Atlas Park Mall from the Q47? You can't just claim that it's replacing the Q47, especially since the route has no correlation with the Q47 besides stopping at Atlas Park Mall.

 

2. Why is the Q47 being eliminated? The Q47 isn't necessarily a low-ridership route (it brings more than 8K riders on a standard weekday, which is 1K less than the Q48 and Q72 combined).

 

3. I would rather cut the Q72 out of LGA than send it to Terminal A. The Q47 should remain serving it, especially since the savings brought by terminating buses outside Terminal A would be negligible. Perhaps some buses during the rush hour, and the last few buses of the day can terminate at 80 Street & Astoria Boulevard, but that's about it.

 

4. Some of the roads the SBS takes will cause the bus to not save any time over corresponding local service

 

5. I disagree with any southward extension of the Q18 from Grand Avenue. I don't support an extension replacing part of the Q67, and I don't support this either. Many riders on the Q47 coming from Glendale & Middle Village are going to Roosevelt Avenue for subway service. I, like many other riders, would not want to have a longer bus ride to the subway, only to have the as an option. If you want more options, you have to stay until Northern Boulevard, where you only have the or . I would not want to have a longer bus ride to a more unreliable and less frequent subway service, especially on the weekends. Either that or take it to the , which would be indirect for many trips.

 

I feel that ridership on the portion would seriously dwindle south of Grand Avenue (all you would see on a consistent basis are local riders, only taking the bus within the neighborhood). You would push more people to use the east-west routes (Q38, Q58, Q59) and the Q29. Not really a good idea (each for their own reasons). Not only that, but the Q18 has reliability problems, worse than the Q47. Yesterday, I saw 3 Q18s making the turn from Hamilton Place onto Grand Avenue (back to back to back). With buses running every 20 minutes, you can imagine how long those delays are. The Q47's delays are due to (but not limited to) the current long-term detour buses are taking.

You're right; also I looked at google maps, there's plenty of road closures happened at LGA, causing to comply to your #3 suggestion about Q72. We wish that road obstruction should be reopened ASAP.

Also, why the Q47 had to be moved to Grand Av from Calamus Av? That can oversaturate Q58 and Q59.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That "Q23 SBS" is not even like the regular route for the most part, so it may as well be a different route. I still don't agree with this plan for a few reasons:

 

1. What exactly is the SBS replacing at Atlas Park Mall from the Q47? You can't just claim that it's replacing the Q47, especially since the route has no correlation with the Q47 besides stopping at Atlas Park Mall.

 

2. Why is the Q47 being eliminated? The Q47 isn't necessarily a low-ridership route (it brings more than 8K riders on a standard weekday, which is 1K less than the Q48 and Q72 combined).

 

3. I would rather cut the Q72 out of LGA than send it to Terminal A. The Q47 should remain serving it, especially since the savings brought by terminating buses outside Terminal A would be negligible. Perhaps some buses during the rush hour, and the last few buses of the day can terminate at 80 Street & Astoria Boulevard, but that's about it.

 

4. Some of the roads the SBS takes will cause the bus to not save any time over corresponding local service

 

5. I disagree with any southward extension of the Q18 from Grand Avenue. I don't support an extension replacing part of the Q67, and I don't support this either. Many riders on the Q47 coming from Glendale & Middle Village are going to Roosevelt Avenue for subway service. I, like many other riders, would not want to have a longer bus ride to the subway, only to have the as an option. If you want more options, you have to stay until Northern Boulevard, where you only have the or . I would not want to have a longer bus ride to a more unreliable and less frequent subway service, especially on the weekends. Either that or take it to the , which would be indirect for many trips.

 

I feel that ridership on the portion would seriously dwindle south of Grand Avenue (all you would see on a consistent basis are local riders, only taking the bus within the neighborhood). You would push more people to use the east-west routes (Q38, Q58, Q59) and the Q29. Not really a good idea (each for their own reasons). Not only that, but the Q18 has reliability problems, worse than the Q47. Yesterday, I saw 3 Q18s making the turn from Hamilton Place onto Grand Avenue (back to back to back). With buses running every 20 minutes, you can imagine how long those delays are. The Q47's delays are due to (but not limited to) the current long-term detour buses are taking.

You're right; also I looked at google maps, there's plenty of road closures happened at LGA, causing to comply to your #3 suggestion about Q72. We wish that road obstruction should be reopened ASAP.

Also, why the Q47 had to be moved to Grand Av from Calamus Av? That can oversaturate Q58 and Q59.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B35 via Church]

Guys (to NOT only B35 via Church), I have a better suggestion, the Q23-SBS, and is going to kill Q47 and 48 for their low ridership.

 

Q23-SBS will operate from Glendale - Atlas Mall to replace Q47, and operate through Flushing via College Point Blvd, with stop for Skymall, and Roosevelt Av, to supersede Q48 to LGA, serving only Terminals B-D-C, and going out and terminate at Ditmars Blvd/102 St. To Flushing from Glendale - Atlas Mall, right on 80 St right on Metropolitan Av, left on 71 Av, go straight up, then 108 St, right on Horace Harding Exp to College PT Blvd. Then to LGA, via Roosevelt Av WB, just serve Mets - Willets PT Station plus LIRR, and 111 St station, right on 108 St, straight up to Ditmars Blvd, then entering LGA @ 94 St.

Existing local Q23 will remain in service.

 

Q72 will be taking over Marine Terminal A to supersede Q47 from/to 35 Av/73 St. Then, inbound to Rego Park, via 35 Av EB, right on Junction Blvd, and its regular route. Outbound: its regular route, left on 35 Av, right on 74 St, and via existing Q47 route.

 

Q18 will move to 69 St via Woodside Av, to replace the South part of Q47 from/to 69 St/53 Av.

False equivalency....

 

Since the Q48 sees poor usage inside the airport & the Q47 sees even worse usage inside the airport, then both of those routes should be phased out? What you're completely failing to consider with this whole thing, is how well for itself the Q47 does outside of the airport - Which cannot be said about the Q48, being that it only serves Corona & East Elmhurst (outside of Flushing) - 1/2 of which it does virtually nothing for (East Elmhurst).....

 

The MTA actually got it right when they merged the defunct Q45 with the old Q47 to form today's Q47....

 

Trying to phase out the Q47, in part, with a Q23 SBS variant that meanders all over the place is counter-productive on multiple fronts.....

Never mind leaving Junction b/w 23rd - 35th avs with squat.... Don't know if you know Morse code, but I'll translate it for ya:

 

There are too many holes in this plan & the ship is sinking fast, captain...

 

You were better off leaving the Q47 to end in the vicinity of Vaughn College.....

 

 

That "Q23 SBS" is not even like the regular route for the most part, so it may as well be a different route. I still don't agree with this plan for a few reasons:

 

1. What exactly is the SBS replacing at Atlas Park Mall from the Q47?  You can't just claim that it's replacing the Q47, especially since the route has no correlation with the Q47 besides stopping at Atlas Park Mall.

 

2. Why is the Q47 being eliminated? The Q47 isn't necessarily a low-ridership route (it brings more than 8K riders on a standard weekday, which is 1K less than the Q48 and Q72 combined). 

 

3. I would rather cut the Q72 out of LGA than send it to Terminal A. The Q47 should remain serving it, especially since the savings brought by terminating buses outside Terminal A would be negligible. Perhaps some buses during the rush hour, and the last few buses of the day can terminate at 80 Street & Astoria Boulevard, but that's about it. 

 

4. Some of the roads the SBS takes will cause the bus to not save any time over corresponding local service

 

5. I disagree with any southward extension of the Q18 from Grand Avenue. I don't support an extension replacing part of the Q67, and I don't support this either. Many riders on the Q47 coming from Glendale & Middle Village are going to Roosevelt Avenue for subway service. I, like many other riders, would not want to have a longer bus ride to the subway, only to have the as an option. If you want more options, you have to stay until Northern Boulevard, where you only have the or . I would not want to have a longer bus ride to a more unreliable and less frequent subway service, especially on the weekends. Either that or take it to the , which would be indirect for many trips.

 

I feel that ridership on the portion would seriously dwindle south of Grand Avenue (all you would see on a consistent basis are local riders, only taking the bus within the neighborhood). You would push more people to use the east-west routes (Q38, Q58, Q59) and the Q29. Not really a good idea (each for their own reasons). Not only that, but the Q18 has reliability problems, worse than the Q47. Yesterday, I saw 3 Q18s making the turn from Hamilton Place onto Grand Avenue (back to back to back). With buses running every 20 minutes, you can imagine how long those delays are. The Q47's delays are due to (but not limited to) the current long-term detour buses are taking. 

 

* The Q47 inside the airport is lacking, The Q48 inside the airport is lacking....

Quick, let me think up a way to kill two birds with one stone.....*

 

...is exactly how I envisaged his methodology behind this whole thing.... He needs to go back to the drawing board or something, because it's too impulsively composed for me to bother breaking it down the way you did (all of which I concur with, btw).... There is literally no point of shifting the Q72 to Marine Air - when the current serving of that (airport) terminal with the Q47 is the reason the Q47 has the abysmal usage inside the airport that it does (as in, it serves no other airport terminal - unlike the Q48).... By that logic, he may as well kill off the very Q72 he's creating

[chenvinny54]

False equivalency....

 

Since the Q48 sees poor usage inside the airport & the Q47 sees even worse usage inside the airport, then both of those routes should be phased out? What you're completely failing to consider with this whole thing, is how well for itself the Q47 does outside of the airport - Which cannot be said about the Q48, being that it only serves Corona & East Elmhurst (outside of Flushing) - 1/2 of which it does virtually nothing for (East Elmhurst).....

 

The MTA actually got it right when they merged the defunct Q45 with the old Q47 to form today's Q47....

 

Trying to phase out the Q47, in part, with a Q23 SBS variant that meanders all over the place is counter-productive on multiple fronts.....

Never mind leaving Junction b/w 23rd - 35th avs with squat.... Don't know if you know Morse code, but I'll translate it for ya:

 

There are too many holes in this plan & the ship is sinking fast, captain...

 

You were better off leaving the Q47 to end in the vicinity of Vaughn College.....

 

 

 

* The Q47 inside the airport is lacking, The Q48 inside the airport is lacking....

Quick, let me think up a way to kill two birds with one stone.....*

 

...is exactly how I envisaged his methodology behind this whole thing.... He needs to go back to the drawing board or something, because it's too impulsively composed for me to bother breaking it down the way you did (all of which I concur with, btw).... There is literally no point of shifting the Q72 to Marine Air - when the current serving of that (airport) terminal with the Q47 is the reason the Q47 has the abysmal usage inside the airport that it does (as in, it serves no other airport terminal - unlike the Q48).... By that logic, he may as well kill off the very Q72 he's creating

Okay, you're right that I was right in rather terminating Q47 at Vaughn College.

Q48, there are more people between Corona and Flushing, through Roosevelt Av, serving just one Station (Mets - Willets Point) + LIRR, and a Station (111 St), besides Flushing - Main Street.

But then, about my Q23-SBS, i should've be better off letting it go straight via 108 St to airport, little faster than phasing off Q48 to Flushing, and keep its inbound terminus same as local Q23, but opposite from that (across Union Tpke), so that inbound heads straight down via 71 Av, and right turn at Union Turnpike to terminate, and let outbound reverse (OB: head west via Union Tpke, right on Woodhaven Blvd, no stops made, and right on Metropolitan Av, also no stops made) exactly the route local Q23 to 71 Av/Metro. Av.

The Q48, (I won't simply throw this route away again just because it's usage is poor in airport) lets see if it is appropriate to go to Jackson Heights w/o following the subway line and let it head South. Since there are lots of people in Corona too, call this proposed route a crosstown, and 103 St and 111 St stations are not ADA accessible. Tell me if you think that's still too indirect.

Existing Q72 will be remained, but due to traffic in LGA, short turning may be happening.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 18, 2017 by chenvinny54

[chenvinny54]

About Q23-SBS, what I mean is that, from Metropolitan Av, it will go straight up via 71 Av and 108 St, in both directions, no turns made unless at Ditmars Blvd, and (Inbound) at Union Tpke via 108 St and 71 Av.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 18, 2017 by chenvinny54