checkmatechamp13 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2013 http://mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/130311_1030_Transit&Bus_bk1.pdf http://www.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/130311_1030_Transit&Bus_bk2.pdf They're going to have a hearing for a new Q70 route from Woodside to LGA via Jackson Heights. (Pages 4-11 of the second link). Pages 12-17 have the schedule changes. (A longer span on the Q10LTD, and then a few minor adjustments to the Q10 LCL, Q23, Q53, and Q111) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted March 8, 2013 Share #2 Posted March 8, 2013 hold on am i seeing this right they are deleting the q33 from lga? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted March 8, 2013 Share #3 Posted March 8, 2013 hold on am i seeing this right they are deleting the q33 from lga? ...in favor of the new Q70 route, which I assume will be LTD or SBS, making it dedicated to the airport, and the Q33 would just be a feeder. Reading it, I'm still skeptical about using the BQE as the main route, and I also wonder how much usage this Q70 will actually get... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted March 8, 2013 Share #4 Posted March 8, 2013 Yeah. The ridership on a route like this would be minimal, that is, besides for people from LGA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted March 8, 2013 Share #5 Posted March 8, 2013 I totally disagree with the Q23 decision, and Im not being biased. The Q23 at every 8 minutes has No space on the bus. At every ten minutes, it will make things worse. If this is an attempt for riders to start using the express buses (for some reason, all express bus routes along the Q23 route went down in the past few years or haven't progressed as much as others) or something, because making the 23 less frequent during the rush is a really stupid idea. Just like the Q38, with no space on its 14 minute headways (and it still gets no boost in frequency during rush hours, which pisses me off). I think Q38 riders, dispute the huge boom in ridership this year, a huge percentage of the old riders went to the QM24/QM25 because they couldn't take it anymore. It's also like the MTA is bastardizing those routes on purpose. The QM10 has 43,000 less riders last year than in 2007 (I said 43,000) due to the termination of off peak service and making the damn headway every 30 minutes. That was a horrible mistake that cost the MTA a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted March 8, 2013 Share #6 Posted March 8, 2013 Yeah. The ridership on a route like this would be minimal, that is, besides for people from LGA. You will be surprised don't forget people transferring from the subway they are also included. It will take a ton of people off the Q33. I totally disagree with the Q23 decision, and Im not being biased. The Q23 at every 8 minutes has No space on the bus. At every ten minutes, it will make things worse. If this is an attempt for riders to start using the express buses (for some reason, all express bus routes along the Q23 route went down in the past few years or haven't progressed as much as others) or something, because making the 23 less frequent during the rush is a really stupid idea. Just like the Q38, with no space on its 14 minute headways (and it still gets no boost in frequency during rush hours, which pisses me off). I think Q38 riders, dispute the huge boom in ridership this year, a huge percentage of the old riders went to the QM24/QM25 because they couldn't take it anymore. It's also like the MTA is bastardizing those routes on purpose. The QM10 has 43,000 less riders last year than in 2007 (I said 43,000) due to the termination of off peak service and making the damn headway every 30 minutes. That was a horrible mistake that cost the MTA a lot. True they would have gotten away with bastardizing the QM18/3 or bxm4 as nobody would actually care and it won't cost MTA much money. However they have felt the burn from bastardizing well patronized routes that actually get ridership. Why didn't they just get rid of the weakest routes instead of bastardizing well patronized routes? Q23 which stops on the QM24/25 get the most ridership on eliot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousNYLover Posted March 8, 2013 Share #7 Posted March 8, 2013 It's part of LaGuardia Airport Analyse Project, where Q70 is express version of Q33 but as in result of Q70, Q33 will only goes to pre-Triboro Q72 terminal at 94th St. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted March 9, 2013 Share #8 Posted March 9, 2013 You will be surprised don't forget people transferring from the subway they are also included. It will take a ton of people off the Q33. True they would have gotten away with bastardizing the QM18/3 or bxm4 as nobody would actually care and it won't cost MTA much money. However they have felt the burn from bastardizing well patronized routes that actually get ridership. Why didn't they just get rid of the weakest routes instead of bastardizing well patronized routes? Q23 which stops on the QM24/25 get the most ridership on eliot? From my stands, 80 street and 69 streets are the two highest express bus stops in terms of ridership, followed by 83 rd Place and 77 street. Those folks use their express bus on Eliot. 74 street would be in third place. The other stops well aren't as high in ridership along Eliot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 9, 2013 Share #9 Posted March 9, 2013 I'm not sure about this Q70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikecat54 Posted March 9, 2013 Share #10 Posted March 9, 2013 i cant bring up the agenda mAps...at all... steve fdny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 9, 2013 Share #11 Posted March 9, 2013 Yeah. The ridership on a route like this would be minimal, that is, besides for people from LGA. You clearly don't know the neighborhood good enough to even say that. That area is BUSY! Also, this Q70 is a Limited route and it would make connections with a bunch of routes. This is a pretty smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 9, 2013 Share #12 Posted March 9, 2013 You clearly don't know the neighborhood good enough to even say that. That area is BUSY! Also, this Q70 is a Limited route and it would make connections with a bunch of routes. This is a pretty smart move. I don't think so. Wouldn't it just cost the same as extending the Q33? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 9, 2013 Share #13 Posted March 9, 2013 I don't think so. Wouldn't it just cost the same as extending the Q33? Not entirely, the portion that is cut from the Q33 pretty much pays for this and then some to a certain degree. The interlining would also save on costs. There's no point in extending the 33 when the 47 is pretty much one subway stop away from Woodside. It's illogical. Plus, the Q33 is already slow enough with a number of short turns. Making this route would take a lot of pressure off of the Q33. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 9, 2013 Share #14 Posted March 9, 2013 Not entirely, the portion that is cut from the Q33 pretty much pays for this and then some to a certain degree. The interlining would also save on costs. There's no point in extending the 33 when the 47 is pretty much one subway stop away from Woodside. It's illogical. Plus, the Q33 is already slow enough with a number of short turns. Making this route would take a lot of pressure off of the Q33. I'm still not convinced about this Q70. Isn't LGA short on buses as it is? If this route were to be approved BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 9, 2013 Share #15 Posted March 9, 2013 I'm still not convinced about this Q70. Isn't LGA short on buses as it is? If this route were to be approved BTW They'll always get buses, that's a non-issue. Besides, it won't take too many buses to cover the line as it is even with the interlining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 9, 2013 Share #16 Posted March 9, 2013 Not entirely, the portion that is cut from the Q33 pretty much pays for this and then some to a certain degree. The interlining would also save on costs. There's no point in extending the 33 when the 47 is pretty much one subway stop away from Woodside. It's illogical. Plus, the Q33 is already slow enough with a number of short turns. Making this route would take a lot of pressure off of the Q33. The only short turn it has is 94 St Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T J Trainman Posted March 9, 2013 Share #17 Posted March 9, 2013 4032-4039 will most likely get luggage racks installed. LGA is beyond short as it is right now.... This Q-70 will do very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 9, 2013 Share #18 Posted March 9, 2013 The only short turn it has is 94 St By a "number" of short turns, I mean the number of trips it makes on that short turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted March 9, 2013 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2013 I'm already liking this Q70 proposal. Hopefully this should remove much the Q33's delays and have it run smoother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 9, 2013 Share #20 Posted March 9, 2013 Anyone liking the Q10 getting expanded hours of LTD service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted March 9, 2013 Share #21 Posted March 9, 2013 For some reason, the links aren't working for me. Besides the proposed Q70 and others, are there any major changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 9, 2013 Share #22 Posted March 9, 2013 The Q70 may very well fail, not because it's a bad idea, but because the ramp from the westbound GCP to the southbound BQE is only one lane wide, and is already jammed during daylight hours due to the enormous amount of taxis. I would not be surprised if a Q70 on surface streets would be faster than the proposed Q70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 9, 2013 Share #23 Posted March 9, 2013 I don't understand why they'd have this "Q70" ending over there w/ the Q53.... If the logic is to try to take riders off the 53, that's not gonna work b/c hardly anyone takes the 53 out of 61st to get to 74th (in other words, those 53's are gonna be crowded leaving woodside regardless)..... If the logic is to try to get ppl. coming off the LIRR, I don't see that working out for the better either - as those that would typically take the LIRR (somewhere) would be more prone to taking cabs (in this case, to an airport), over taking the RR to a bus..... Just end this "Q70" @ moore terminal in the same bay as the Q33 & be done with it.... The Q33 ending on ditmars would still get good ridership; that I wouldn't worry about... However, those riders can say bye-bye to the current level of service the 33 currently gets (to have these 70's running)..... All they're doing w/ this 70 is separating the airport riders that would normally take the 33, from taking the 33..... In other words, the 70 will take the airport riders to/from the subway, etc. & the 33 will handle all the residential riders it normally gets... (instead of today's 33 - which gets crushloaded with [all the airport riders it gets] + [all the residential riders it gets]) All in all, I don't think the plan is the best idea in the world, but I do understand it.... I didn't read the whole pdf, but I wonder how often they'd have 70's running (that I'm more interested in, over the cutting back of the 33 to be honest.... It kinda-sorta would give a gauge as to how many ppl. use the 33 for the airport, as opposed to those using it to get to points short of it).... Hell... besides, ppl. can then shut up about combining Q32's & Q33's ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted March 9, 2013 Author Share #24 Posted March 9, 2013 If anybody can't open PDFs, somebody posted it up on Subchat. See here. I don't understand why they'd have this "Q70" ending over there w/ the Q53.... If the logic is to try to take riders off the 53, that's not gonna work b/c hardly anyone takes the 53 out of 61st to get to 74th (in other words, those 53's are gonna be crowded leaving woodside regardless)..... If the logic is to try to get ppl. coming off the LIRR, I don't see that working out for the better either - as those that would typically take the LIRR (somewhere) would be more prone to taking cabs (in this case, to an airport), over taking the RR to a bus..... Just end this "Q70" @ moore terminal in the same bay as the Q33 & be done with it.... The Q33 ending on ditmars would still get good ridership; that I wouldn't worry about... However, those riders can say bye-bye to the current level of service the 33 currently gets (to have these 70's running)..... All they're doing w/ this 70 is separating the airport riders that would normally take the 33, from taking the 33..... In other words, the 70 will take the airport riders to/from the subway, etc. & the 33 will handle all the residential riders it normally gets... (instead of today's 33 - which gets crushloaded with [all the airport riders it gets] + [all the residential riders it gets]) All in all, I don't think the plan is the best idea in the world, but I do understand it.... I didn't read the whole pdf, but I wonder how often they'd have 70's running (that I'm more interested in, over the cutting back of the 33 to be honest.... It kinda-sorta would give a gauge as to how many ppl. use the 33 for the airport, as opposed to those using it to get to points short of it).... Hell... besides, ppl. can then shut up about combining Q32's & Q33's ! I don't feel like looking back at the PDF, but it said about 20% of the Q33 riders are bound for the airport (the vast majority coming from the subway). It said about 1,900 riders on the weekdays (out of a total of 9,800 riders) are bound for the airport, which is about 20%. The purpose for going to Woodside is for the LIRR riders, not anything to do with taking riders off the Q53. I think you could get a decent amount of demand from that station, considering that it's served by basically all the LIRR branches that go to Penn. Even if it's only a small percentage of the riders, it's a large amount of riders, so a small percentage should be a decent amount. (I mean, if nothing else, you could argue connectivity, because otherwise, you either have to go to Woodside and take the Q53 to Jackson Heights, or go to Jamaica and take the to Jackson Heights, whereas this way, you pass through Jackson Heights, but at least you avoid a transfer). Plus, you have the express, which could bring in some riders somehow. (Plus, the Q18 stops there, bringing riders from the Astoria area, however small that number may be) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted March 9, 2013 Share #25 Posted March 9, 2013 Anyone liking the Q10 getting expanded hours of LTD service? Liking ARE YOU KIDDING I'M LOVING IT!!!!!!!!!! I don't understand why they'd have this "Q70" ending over there w/ the Q53.... If the logic is to try to take riders off the 53, that's not gonna work b/c hardly anyone takes the 53 out of 61st to get to 74th (in other words, those 53's are gonna be crowded leaving woodside regardless)..... If the logic is to try to get ppl. coming off the LIRR, I don't see that working out for the better either - as those that would typically take the LIRR (somewhere) would be more prone to taking cabs (in this case, to an airport), over taking the RR to a bus..... Just end this "Q70" @ moore terminal in the same bay as the Q33 & be done with it.... The Q33 ending on ditmars would still get good ridership; that I wouldn't worry about... However, those riders can say bye-bye to the current level of service the 33 currently gets (to have these 70's running)..... All they're doing w/ this 70 is separating the airport riders that would normally take the 33, from taking the 33..... In other words, the 70 will take the airport riders to/from the subway, etc. & the 33 will handle all the residential riders it normally gets... (instead of today's 33 - which gets crushloaded with [all the airport riders it gets] + [all the residential riders it gets]) All in all, I don't think the plan is the best idea in the world, but I do understand it.... I didn't read the whole pdf, but I wonder how often they'd have 70's running (that I'm more interested in, over the cutting back of the 33 to be honest.... It kinda-sorta would give a gauge as to how many ppl. use the 33 for the airport, as opposed to those using it to get to points short of it).... Hell... besides, ppl. can then shut up about combining Q32's & Q33's ! Checkmate explained it. yeah Q32 merged will only give the MTA a reason to cut back on service along the Q32 portion so it will be detrimental to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.