Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Bay Ridge Express]

8 hours ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

Because the AIRTRAIN construction is underway at LGA, you can say that the days are numbered on the Q48.

Sorry but I have to disagree. The Q48 is the airport bus from Flushing. As @bobtehpandasaid, no one is going to want to get off the bus and take the AirTrain at Mets to have their own ride be less convenient for themselves and make it a two-seat ride.

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Citi Field is in the middle of nowhere. Extending a bunch of buses to the middle of nowhere is not going to make it somewhere. 

You can drive from Flushing to LGA in less than five minutes even with traffic. Why the hell would anyone take the bus to the AirTrain for that trip?

Don't forget that Mets-Willets Point is very ill-equipped to handle what could potentially be massive crowds of commuters heading to and from the airport, especially taking into account that the is already one of the most congested subway lines in the system during rush hours.

In my honest opinion, the LaGuardia Link Q70 SBS already does a good job shuttling you to and from the airport, so there's really no need to waste money on a useless, overpriced AirTrain route that will hardly save travel time. If it does materialize it will become a white elephant at best...

Edited March 30, 2019 by lara8710

[Lex]

34 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Sorry but I have to disagree. The Q48 is the airport bus from Flushing. As @bobtehpandasaid, no one is going to want to get off the bus and take the AirTrain at Mets to have their own ride be less convenient for themselves and make it a two-seat ride.

That's not even getting into it being more expensive than the Q48...

[B35 via Church]

Oh good lord, not this decongest Flushing & shift a crapton of bus routes to Mets-Willets point again....

 

[Lex]

14 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Oh good lord, not this decongest Flushing & shift a crapton of bus routes to Mets-Willets point again....

 

Honestly, I can't see any plan that sees some notable reduction in bus traffic in Flushing working out. (To make matters worse, all of those proposals ignore the impact from cars, which make up the bulk of street traffic.)

[LGA Link N Train]

32 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Oh good lord, not this decongest Flushing & shift a crapton of bus routes to Mets-Willets point again....

If we have any shot at Decongesting Flushing (even to the slightest bit), it’s to move a portion of the routes to Murray Hill with a Northern  extension to 149th Street. Sadly, this is easier said than done.

[Coney Island Av]

Nice proposals. I haven't done something like this in a while.

A few suggestions for your Queens Bus Redesign @LaGuardia Link N Tra:

-Have a few Q25 short-turns near the Q34's north terminal to make up for its loss/discontinuation. Other than that, I agree the Q34 is redundant given that 98% of it is shared with the Q25. 

-Have a few Q22 trips serve the tip end of the Rockaways, Breezy Point. While very low density, it currently has no direct access to subway or bus transportation. I would run peak Q22 service there on 15-20 minute headways, while every other Q22 terminates at Beach 169 St. 

-Don't eliminate the Q102. I would instead have it restructured/retain its routings in Roosevelt Island, and I would truncate it to Queensboro Plaza (as its northern terminal). 

-Have all Q36 trips terminate in Floral Park instead of deviating to Little Neck. Bring back the Q79 (which was discontinued in 2010 due to cuts) to cover its portion between the latter and Floral Park. It would make the Q36 more shorter and frequent, instead of having two, north, spread out terminals. 

-I see you propose consolidating the Q32/Q33 into one route. However, if this is viable (depending on ridership), one alternative I'd suggest is actually CUTTING the Q33 entirely, and having increased service on the Q47 and Q49 to replace it. I feel it's a little redundant because it was cut back from LGA and the aforementioned routes already have good coverage in East Elmhurst. Q32 service would obviously remain unaltered. 

-I wouldn't extend the Q39 to Roosevelt Island to replace the Q102, due to it being sort of a long route between LIC and Middle Village. 

-I would consolidate the Q11/Q21 into one route given that they're very similar to each other. However, if one of them should be eliminated, I would do the opposite and eliminate the Q11 instead of the Q21. Why? Because the Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach portion of the Q11 has much lower density than Howard Beach, served by the Q21/Q41. I would eliminate the Q11, and have an extended Q112 replace it in its aforementioned section. 

-I would send the Q100 instead of the Q101 to serve Hunters Point because the former is a more faster, limited-stop route, while the latter is local and a bit infrequent. I agree with cutting the Q101 from Manhattan, but I would have it terminate at Queensboro Plaza. 

-I would also create a new route (the Q51), running from Rockaway Blvd on the  to Linden Blvd/235 St where the Q4/X64 terminate. This route would run via Liberty Av, Lefferts Blvd, and finally Linden. This is because the western part of Linden doesn't really have any local bus coverage (only express with the QM21/X63). 

-I like the Q88Z plan, but something like this should be studied for other long, high-ridership routes in Queens (like the Q27, Q60, etc.) 

Finally, one thing you haven't covered in your redesign is Queens express routes, or the QMs. There are several issues with them, like infrequency, and trips often not showing up. But other than that, these are my suggestions for the QMs. 

-Eliminate the QM10 and QM40. Those routes get low ridership and the QM11 can replace it. While the QM11 is a Downtown-only route, the  are more faster than the formers to the city and commuters could instead take the QM11 or the . 

-If ridership along the Union Turnpike corridor warrants this, I would create a Downtown supplement to the QM6 (the QM9). The QM1/31 and QM5/35 already have this (the QM7 and the QM8 respectively). 

-Discontinue the QM21 and replace with increased X63 service. It's mainly redundant when the X63 is very close by and BP Depot barely has any express buses to work with. 

 

 

[B35 via Church]

47 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If we have any shot at Decongesting Flushing (even to the slightest bit), it’s to move a portion of the routes to Murray Hill with a Northern  extension to 149th Street. Sadly, this is easier said than done.

So.... We don't have any shot.

Fine by me

44 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Have a few Q22 trips serve the tip end of the Rockaways, Breezy Point. While very low density, it currently has no direct access to subway or bus transportation. I would run peak Q22 service there on 15-20 minute headways, while every other Q22 terminates at Beach 169 St.  

Breezy Point residents want it that way.

I say give them what they want - (pseudo) seclusion from the rest of the city!

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If we have any shot at Decongesting Flushing (even to the slightest bit), it’s to move a portion of the routes to Murray Hill with a Northern  extension to 149th Street. 

How? Given layout of Main Street station, an eastward extension is physically impossible. 

[checkmatechamp13]

@Coney Island Av The Q33 is a more direct shot to the train compared to the Q47/49. Considering the 33 sees decent ridership I don't see anything to be gained by discontinuing it and reinvesting the resources into the 47/49.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

28 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@Coney Island Av The Q33 is a more direct shot to the train compared to the Q47/49. Considering the 33 sees decent ridership I don't see anything to be gained by discontinuing it and reinvesting the resources into the 47/49.

Exactly, and more than that, it would be a huge disservice. After the Q49, the Q33 sees more usage. The Q33 is absolutely NOT redundant, it's headways throughout the day are justified. One also need to consider those not riding to the subway. The Q47 is too far from central Jackson Heights, and the Q49 misses more parts of commercial Jackson Heights than it serves. Not only that, but East Elmhurst gets shafted too, because their subway connection is with the QBL is either now at 63rd Drive, via the Q72 out of all buses (and places), or via the Q49 (which requires quite a walk from certain areas the Q33 serves).

Edited March 31, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[B35 via Church]

The problem I always had w/ the Q32/33 combination back in the day, was the fact that people were looking at the 2 endpoints & going *oh, a Penn Station to LGA route, that would really catch on*..... It was ignorant of everything that transpired between those 2 major destinations, individually, along both routes.....

Now that the Q33 no longer serves LGA, I'll say this - Being perfectly honest, I never did like how the Q32 abruptly ends on Northern.... I don't have an issue with the Q33 necessarily (the thing still holds its own), but I suppose I could do without its stint along 23rd av.... To sum it up, the only way I'd support any type of Q32/Q33 combination here in 2019, is if it ended w/ the Q60 on the Manhattan end.....

In saying that, I still believe there should be an interborough bus route running b/w Queens & Midtown (doesn't necessarily have to be Penn Station).... However, at this point, I would a] choose a different corridor on the Queens end for it (be it 21st st, or some portion of Northern) and b] have it run on another one-way pairing of corridors other than 5th/Madison (as mentioned about a week or so ago in this thread) in Manhattan..... I would not consider a Q66 extension to Columbus Circle (that SBS plan or w/e), nor do I think a Queens - Midtown route has to run as far east as Flushing....

Now, some quotes:

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@Coney Island Av The Q33 is a more direct shot to the train compared to the Q47/49. Considering the 33 sees decent ridership I don't see anything to be gained by discontinuing it and reinvesting the resources into the 47/49.

9 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Exactly, and more than that, it would be a huge disservice. After the Q49, the Q33 sees more usage. The Q33 is absolutely NOT redundant, it's headways throughout the day are justified. One also need to consider those not riding to the subway. The Q47 is too far from central Jackson Heights, and the Q49 misses more parts of commercial Jackson Heights than it serves. Not only that, but East Elmhurst gets shafted too, because their subway connection is with the QBL is either now at 63rd Drive, via the Q72 out of all buses (and places), or via the Q49 (which requires quite a walk from certain areas the Q33 serves).

I actually chuckled at that part of his critique (along with giving Breezies direct access to the Q22).... How would an alternative of combining the Q32/33 be cutting the Q33 & adding more service on the Q47 & Q49???? You get rid of the Q33 & the use of ubers & so forth will significantly increase, as (more) people up there are NOT going to resort to doing anymore walking then they do now to get to a bus.... It looks tight/compressed on the bus map, but that distance b/w the Q47 & the Q49 isn't exactly something to scoff at.... More service isn't some sort of trade-off with increased distance to get to some mode of transportation & I never really understood why you get as many people that subscribe to that line of thinking....

There are people more proximate to the Q47 that opt to take the Q33... If the Q33 was redundant, that phenomenon would not be going on....

The Q49 is a monster (so to speak) & I've been saying as such when it was the Q19b (when some folks were dead set on extending it to Flushing).... The Q33 was a monster when it went to LGA & now that it doesn't, it provides a relief for the bevy of actual residents in its service area (separate from any airport-goer).... The Q47 was never a monster (before or after the Q45/Q47 combination) & it seems to me that the the old Q45 portion is seeing increases & the old Q47 portion's seeing noticeable decreases in usage....

[LGA Link N Train]

17 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Nice proposals. I haven't done something like this in a while.

A few suggestions for your Queens Bus Redesign @LaGuardia Link N Tra:

-Have a few Q25 short-turns near the Q34's north terminal to make up for its loss/discontinuation. Other than that, I agree the Q34 is redundant given that 98% of it is shared with the Q25. 

Okay, that doesn’t sound bad at all especially considering the fact that I don’t intend to take service away from anyone. I’m guessing that these short turns would Run at a low frequency rate. 

-Have a few Q22 trips serve the tip end of the Rockaways, Breezy Point. While very low density, it currently has no direct access to subway or bus transportation. I would run peak Q22 service there on 15-20 minute headways, while every other Q22 terminates at Beach 169 St. 

While Breezy Point is very Low Density and has no direct transit Access, I think there is a good reason as to why they don’t have any transit options. (I don’t know that exact reason myself, but I’m guessing that it’s either not feasible to bring mass transit there or they just don’t want it)

-Don't eliminate the Q102. I would instead have it restructured/retain its routings in Roosevelt Island, and I would truncate it to Queensboro Plaza (as its northern terminal).

Fair Enough. I just think that the Q102 itself is an indirect route from Astoria to Roosevelt Island, and if I’m not mistaken, has plenty of issues along its route.  

-Have all Q36 trips terminate in Floral Park instead of deviating to Little Neck. Bring back the Q79 (which was discontinued in 2010 due to cuts) to cover its portion between the latter and Floral Park. It would make the Q36 more shorter and frequent, instead of having two, north, spread out terminals. 

I haven’t proposed anything for the Q36 mainly cause I don’t know how it’s utilized. But I’ll look into this suggestion along with the Q79 reactivation idea. 

-I see you propose consolidating the Q32/Q33 into one route. However, if this is viable (depending on ridership), one alternative I'd suggest is actually CUTTING the Q33 entirely, and having increased service on the Q47 and Q49 to replace it. I feel it's a little redundant because it was cut back from LGA and the aforementioned routes already have good coverage in East Elmhurst. Q32 service would obviously remain unaltered. 

Like others said before me. Cutting the Q33 isn’t a good idea whatsoever, and the Q47 and Q49 won’t make good alternatives either. Trust me, I used to pass by that area often (now I only go to Jackson Heights on an occasional basis) and let me tell you that the narrow streets are usually congested. Eliminating the Q33 itself would only make that worse. This, while my Q32 LTD consolidates the Q32 and Q33 Routes, I’m not getting rid of either service. 

-I wouldn't extend the Q39 to Roosevelt Island to replace the Q102, due to it being sort of a long route between LIC and Middle Village. 

Fair enough. I tried to simplify the Q39 in part of its route so that sending it to Roosevelt Island wouldn’t be that big of an issue. Besides, the Q39/104 Roosevelt Island Extension, Q18, Q103,  and  trains are all more direct alternatives in my opinion. 

-I would consolidate the Q11/Q21 into one route given that they're very similar to each other. However, if one of them should be eliminated, I would do the opposite and eliminate the Q11 instead of the Q21. Why? Because the Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach portion of the Q11 has much lower density than Howard Beach, served by the Q21/Q41. I would eliminate the Q11, and have an extended Q112 replace it in its aforementioned section. 

The main reason I decided to eliminate the Q21 instead of the Q11 is because the Q11 has served Woodhaven Blvd longer than the Q21. While I understand that Old Howard Beach and Hamilton Beach are low Density, I chose to have the Q112 take over one of these branches to end any possible confusion that happens along the Q11 route. In addition, the elimination of the Q21 in my proposal is replaced by a Slightly Modified and Increased Q41 Service. But I do see your point as to why you’d get rid of the Q11 though. 

-I would send the Q100 instead of the Q101 to serve Hunters Point because the former is a more faster, limited-stop route, while the latter is local and a bit infrequent. I agree with cutting the Q101 from Manhattan, but I would have it terminate at Queensboro Plaza. 

Having lived and grew up in Queens for most of my Life, I wouldn’t agree with sending the Q100 to Hunters Point. Mainly cause its purpose is to Shuttle people in and out of Rikers. Which doesn’t see that many riders on a Regular Basis. While having the Q101 terminating at Queensboro Plaza is a good idea, I chose to extend it to Hunters Point because of the Potential it has to connecting people to the Shops and other locations along Steinway, which can help increase ridership along its route. 

-I would also create a new route (the Q51), running from Rockaway Blvd on the  to Linden Blvd/235 St where the Q4/X64 terminate. This route would run via Liberty Av, Lefferts Blvd, and finally Linden. This is because the western part of Linden doesn't really have any local bus coverage (only express with the QM21/X63). 

Ok, I’ll look into that. 

-I like the Q88Z plan, but something like this should be studied for other long, high-ridership routes in Queens (like the Q27, Q60, etc.) 

Limited Zone Service is currently being studied for Northeast Queens Routes if im not mistaken. If you look at the Northeast Queens Transportation study, Limited Zone Service is currently being looked at for the Q12, Q27, Q36, Q43, Q46, and Q88.  

Finally, one thing you haven't covered in your redesign is Queens express routes, or the QMs. There are several issues with them, like infrequency, and trips often not showing up. But other than that, these are my suggestions for the QMs. 

I don’t know much about Express buses. So that’s why they’re not listed on my Document, but I’m definitely not omitting them whatsoever. 

-Eliminate the QM10 and QM40. Those routes get low ridership and the QM11 can replace it. While the QM11 is a Downtown-only route, the  are more faster than the formers to the city and commuters could instead take the QM11 or the . 

-If ridership along the Union Turnpike corridor warrants this, I would create a Downtown supplement to the QM6 (the QM9). The QM1/31 and QM5/35 already have this (the QM7 and the QM8 respectively). 

-Discontinue the QM21 and replace with increased X63 service. It's mainly redundant when the X63 is very close by and BP Depot barely has any express buses to work with. 

Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll make sure to study express bus routes so that I can start making proposals for them. 

 

Replies are in bold. 

[Bay Ridge Express]

15 hours ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

I'm with you on this, but the AIRTRAIN to the  at Willets Point is pretty much the Q48 route and if there's talks of eliminating the Q48 because of Low Ridership, there would be a major fight with the neighborhood commuters (Eastern Queens commuters) for a bus to Laguardia Airport. But being realistic, when the AIRTRAIN is completed, the Q48 will be eliminated and a few bus routes will need to extend to Citi Field (since these trips will run light, there will be no need for buses to arrive more frequently than every 20 minutes along each route extension) just for the direct connecton to the AIRTRAIN.

Cost is a factor too as @Lex pointed out, and the Q48 provides local service in Corona that the AirTrain does not. Maybe if the Q48 was made more useful (i.e. an eastward extension so riders can have better coverage) it would provide more of an advantage.

17 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Breezy Point residents want it that way.

I say give them what they want - (pseudo) seclusion from the rest of the city!

Not even worth it... riders will most likely have to transfer to either the Q35 or  anyway and considering how long the commute times are there, it would probably just be better to drive/take a cab (although you're probably just being sarcastic anyway)

Edited March 31, 2019 by Bay Ridge Express

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

10 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Not even worth it... riders will most likely have to transfer to either the Q35 or  anyway and considering how long the commute times are there, it would probably just be better to drive/take a cab.

Indeed they don't really need city buses, I have friends on Breezy point and most of them just drive anyways or get driven. There isn't any local bus or subway advocacy there. Most that want to take transit drive or ride a shuttle bus to the QM16, and that's fine for them in a forthright sense.

Edited March 31, 2019 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[Via Garibaldi 8]

19 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Nice proposals. I haven't done something like this in a while.

A few suggestions for your Queens Bus Redesign @LaGuardia Link N Tra:

-Have a few Q25 short-turns near the Q34's north terminal to make up for its loss/discontinuation. Other than that, I agree the Q34 is redundant given that 98% of it is shared with the Q25. 

-Have a few Q22 trips serve the tip end of the Rockaways, Breezy Point. While very low density, it currently has no direct access to subway or bus transportation. I would run peak Q22 service there on 15-20 minute headways, while every other Q22 terminates at Beach 169 St. 

-Don't eliminate the Q102. I would instead have it restructured/retain its routings in Roosevelt Island, and I would truncate it to Queensboro Plaza (as its northern terminal). 

-Have all Q36 trips terminate in Floral Park instead of deviating to Little Neck. Bring back the Q79 (which was discontinued in 2010 due to cuts) to cover its portion between the latter and Floral Park. It would make the Q36 more shorter and frequent, instead of having two, north, spread out terminals. 

-I see you propose consolidating the Q32/Q33 into one route. However, if this is viable (depending on ridership), one alternative I'd suggest is actually CUTTING the Q33 entirely, and having increased service on the Q47 and Q49 to replace it. I feel it's a little redundant because it was cut back from LGA and the aforementioned routes already have good coverage in East Elmhurst. Q32 service would obviously remain unaltered. 

-I wouldn't extend the Q39 to Roosevelt Island to replace the Q102, due to it being sort of a long route between LIC and Middle Village. 

-I would consolidate the Q11/Q21 into one route given that they're very similar to each other. However, if one of them should be eliminated, I would do the opposite and eliminate the Q11 instead of the Q21. Why? Because the Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach portion of the Q11 has much lower density than Howard Beach, served by the Q21/Q41. I would eliminate the Q11, and have an extended Q112 replace it in its aforementioned section. 

-I would send the Q100 instead of the Q101 to serve Hunters Point because the former is a more faster, limited-stop route, while the latter is local and a bit infrequent. I agree with cutting the Q101 from Manhattan, but I would have it terminate at Queensboro Plaza. 

-I would also create a new route (the Q51), running from Rockaway Blvd on the  to Linden Blvd/235 St where the Q4/X64 terminate. This route would run via Liberty Av, Lefferts Blvd, and finally Linden. This is because the western part of Linden doesn't really have any local bus coverage (only express with the QM21/X63). 

-I like the Q88Z plan, but something like this should be studied for other long, high-ridership routes in Queens (like the Q27, Q60, etc.) 

Finally, one thing you haven't covered in your redesign is Queens express routes, or the QMs. There are several issues with them, like infrequency, and trips often not showing up. But other than that, these are my suggestions for the QMs. 

-Eliminate the QM10 and QM40. Those routes get low ridership and the QM11 can replace it. While the QM11 is a Downtown-only route, the  are more faster than the formers to the city and commuters could instead take the QM11 or the . 

-If ridership along the Union Turnpike corridor warrants this, I would create a Downtown supplement to the QM6 (the QM9). The QM1/31 and QM5/35 already have this (the QM7 and the QM8 respectively). 

-Discontinue the QM21 and replace with increased X63 service. It's mainly redundant when the X63 is very close by and BP Depot barely has any express buses to work with. 

 

 

I’m just going to make a few comments:

-QM21 and the X63 are NOT redundant. The QM21 serves Rochdale Village, a large complex far from the subway. I think you should actually use the routes before you go making incorrect comments. The X63 serves its purpose as well. Leave them as is.

-Breezy Point is a private community. They don’t want buses coming in there, period. The closest bus that goes there is the QM16 and they are happy driving to it over in Riis Park. Breezy Point is a secluded area, and the residents that live there like it just like that. They don’t want outsiders coming in, so that means no bus service. Similar to the North Shore Towers. When the  asked if they wanted bus service coming in there, they opted ONLY for the express bus, NOT local buses. The express bus they see as an amenity. They don’t view the local bus that way because it’s a private co-op complex where most people drive, and if they don’t want to drive, they have shuttle buses to the LIRR in Douglaston or the QM6 express bus.

Speaking of the North Shore Towers, we will meet with them to discuss express bus service. They are more than happy to in fact, but no local buses.

-QM10 and QM40 serve LeFrak City, another large housing complex not near the subway, so no it should stay. A lot of these housing complexes were made with the agreement that they would have express bus service, because they are not near a subway. You would be cutting bus service to an area serving THOUSANDS of people in these large housing complexes. That made them attractive from a transportation standpoint. There are a number of complexes like this:

-BxM6 to Parkchester (a planned community)

-BxM7 to Co-Op City (a planned community)

-QM6 to North Shore Towers (a planned community)

-QM5 to Glen Oaks (ends in Glen Oaks co-op area)

-QM10/QM40 - LeFrak City (a planned community)

-QM21 - Rochdale Village (a large housing complex)

-QM1, QM31, QM7 - Fresh Meadows (large housing complex)

Just about all of these express buses are advertised by the respective housing complexes

This is one reason why David Weprin wrote to the  when we contacted his office about missing QM1, QM5 and QM7 trips that they weren’t providing to Fresh Meadows:

Edited March 31, 2019 by Via Garibaldi 8

[bobtehpanda]

20 hours ago, Lex said:

Honestly, I can't see any plan that sees some notable reduction in bus traffic in Flushing working out. (To make matters worse, all of those proposals ignore the impact from cars, which make up the bulk of street traffic.)

 

20 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If we have any shot at Decongesting Flushing (even to the slightest bit), it’s to move a portion of the routes to Murray Hill with a Northern  extension to 149th Street. Sadly, this is easier said than done.

The other nuclear option would be to either smash Kissena through to Roosevelt and Northern, or somehow connect Union and Kissena as a through road, both of which are options that would cost billions of dollars and would never happen.

Kissena ending at Main right before the LIRR is really the whole problem. If Kissena was a through street in the Flushing street grid then it would just be another Jamaica.

[bobtehpanda]

19 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

How? Given layout of Main Street station, an eastward extension is physically impossible. 

What's another closed subway entrance at the MTA? 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Not even worth it... riders will most likely have to transfer to either the Q35 or  anyway and considering how long the commute times are there, it would probably just be better to drive/take a cab (although you're probably just being sarcastic anyway)

Huh?

* In talking about Breezy Point, Coney Island av said "While very low density, it currently has no direct access to subway or bus transportation"....
* This is where my reply comes in: "Breezy Point residents want it that way..... I say give them what they want - (pseudo) seclusion from the rest of the city!"

There's no sarcasm in any of that.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

What's another closed subway entrance at the MTA? 

It's everything when it's the ADA entrance. 

[Bay Ridge Express]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Huh?

* In talking about Breezy Point, Coney Island av said "While very low density, it currently has no direct access to subway or bus transportation"....
* This is where my reply comes in: "Breezy Point residents want it that way..... I say give them what they want - (pseudo) seclusion from the rest of the city!"

There's no sarcasm in any of that.

I apologize for the misinterpretation (although my point about Breezy Point still stands) [haha]

Edited April 1, 2019 by Bay Ridge Express
pun

[Lex]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Kissena ending at Main right before the LIRR is really the whole problem. If Kissena was a through street in the Flushing street grid then it would just be another Jamaica.

If you ask me, we have a bigger issue with the utter lack of a facility to handle the sheer number of buses terminating in Flushing, and establishing one would require eminent domain and the possible closure of a couple of streets.

Obviously, that wouldn't fly over well with anyone.

[bobtehpanda]

1 minute ago, Lex said:

If you ask me, we have a bigger issue with the utter lack of a facility to handle the sheer number of buses terminating in Flushing, and establishing one would require eminent domain and the possible closure of a couple of streets.

Obviously, that wouldn't fly over well with anyone.

I don't think a dedicated bus terminal would work. Where would you put it?

The two most commonly suggested sites are somewhere in what the city likes to call "Flushing West" or where the old muni garage is. Both sites have major issues, starting with the fact that most buses in Flushing are coming from the south and east. If the buses are coming from the south and east, routing them to a bus terminal north of the LIRR will lead to the same problem as today; that Main St is really the only continuous road from the south to the north. 

[Armandito]

5 minutes ago, Lex said:

If you ask me, we have a bigger issue with the utter lack of a facility to handle the sheer number of buses terminating in Flushing, and establishing one would require eminent domain and the possible closure of a couple of streets.

Obviously, that wouldn't fly over well with anyone.

And Flushing traffic is an absolute nightmare! 😫😫😫😫😫

[Armandito]

10 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't think a dedicated bus terminal would work. Where would you put it?

The two most commonly suggested sites are somewhere in what the city likes to call "Flushing West" or where the old muni garage is. Both sites have major issues, starting with the fact that most buses in Flushing are coming from the south and east. If the buses are coming from the south and east, routing them to a bus terminal north of the LIRR will lead to the same problem as today; that Main St is really the only continuous road from the south to the north. 

Hence the name, "Main" Street.