QM16/QM17 To Make Stops on Woodhaven Blvd

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

An express bus route carrying an average of 20 riders per trip does not come close to breaking even.

Then do you know what the actual statistics are in terms of cost (cost per hour)?

 

The 16/17 carry 23/24

[AndrewJC]

Then do you know what the actual statistics are in terms of cost (cost per hour)?

 

The 16/17 carry 23/24

 

The best I've seen is from 2010:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdFpZajNOUnNmRkpTSGl2UjRjS2x4eEE&hl=en#gid=2

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdHd4QkhLRF92cURWNWdSbzNfSjJwWWc&hl=en#gid=1

 

The total weekday cost was $4092 for the QM16 and $4607 for the QM17. With an average fare paid of $4.18, the QM16 would need 979 riders per day and the QM17 would need 1102 riders per day to break even. In fact, they had 336 and 368, respectively.

 

(Those are all 2010 numbers.)

 

Just for comparison's sake, one single A train carries more riders across the East River than the QM16 and QM17 (combined) do over an entire day.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The best I've seen is from 2010:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdFpZajNOUnNmRkpTSGl2UjRjS2x4eEE&hl=en#gid=2

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdHd4QkhLRF92cURWNWdSbzNfSjJwWWc&hl=en#gid=1

 

The total weekday cost was $4092 for the QM16 and $4607 for the QM17. With an average fare paid of $4.18, the QM16 would need 979 riders per day and the QM17 would need 1102 riders per day to break even. In fact, they had 336 and 368, respectively.

 

(Those are all 2010 numbers.)

 

Just for comparison's sake, one single A train carries more riders across the East River than the QM16 and QM17 (combined) do over an entire day.

I think thats a derogatory comaparison, of course it's obvious but compared to one over broad channel, thats different.

[AndrewJC]

I think thats a derogatory comaparison, of course it's obvious but compared to one over broad channel, thats different.

 

Derogatory? Facts can't be derogatory - they're just facts.

 

The QM16 and QM17 don't turn around after Broad Channel - they continue into Manhattan, carrying 704 riders per day. (If they turned around after Broad Channel, they would of course be a lot less costly to operate, but they'd also serve an entirely different function.)

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Derogatory? Facts can't be derogatory - they're just facts.

 

The QM16 and QM17 don't turn around after Broad Channel - they continue into Manhattan, carrying 704 riders per day. (If they turned around after Broad Channel, they would of course be a lot less costly to operate, but they'd also serve an entirely different function.)

I'm saying the comparison is derogatory, not the facts. Your comparing an from Brooklyn with passengers going to different areas, areas more urban then the Rockaways, so that isn't a faithful comparison

[Eric B]

Instead of making existing routes make more stops, why don;t they use some of the other routes in the area?

Like I say, it's ridiculous for the QM24/25 to go all the way out to Rego Park, and then come back West via Eliot. They could split it so that they use the Maurice Ave. exit, and one branch goes on Eliot the reverse way from what it does now, to Rego Park, then pick up these additional stops on Woodhaven, and then the existing route would pick up Fresh Pond directly, and then continue to Woodhaven and perhaps pick up some of the stops past Myrtle. This would replace the passengers lost to the Eliot Ave, branch. 

You also have lines that stop short in the area, like the QM12, tat could be extended and used to do this as well.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Instead of making existing routes make more stops, why don;t they use some of the other routes in the area?

Like I say, it's ridiculous for the QM24/25 to go all the way out to Rego Park, and then come back West via Eliot. They could split it so that they use the Maurice Ave. exit, and one branch goes on Eliot the reverse way from what it does now, to Rego Park, then pick up these additional stops on Woodhaven, and then the existing route would pick up Fresh Pond directly, and then continue to Woodhaven and perhaps pick up some of the stops past Myrtle. This would replace the passengers lost to the Eliot Ave, branch. 

You also have lines that stop short in the area, like the QM12, tat could be extended and used to do this as well.

Nah, that would mean an overall cut for both services, besides, it doesnt take that much to get into the city (1 hour and 5 minutes end to end isnt so bad, but no one really does that commute from end to end.

[Eric B]

Overall cut? How?

Not sure which lines I mentioned you're even referring to; but a 24/25 that gets off at Maurice and then picks up Fresh Pond, to Myrtle, and then extended to Woodhaven (or, one that goes down Eliot to Woodhaven) would be like an alternate route for the current routes that stay on the LIE to Woodhaven, and will now make more stops. Getting off of the LIE earlier and avoiding Rego Park might make them avoid a lot of traffic congestion.

So then more people might ride to the end, because the route wouldn't be as long.

(The few times I've taken the QM24, it was slow and really not worth it, because it feels like you're zigzagging all over Queens. Just like the local routes that connect Ridgewood to northern Queens!)

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Overall cut? How?

Not sure which lines I mentioned you're even referring to; but a 24/25 that gets off at Maurice and then picks up Fresh Pond, to Myrtle, and then extended to Woodhaven (or, one that goes down Eliot to Woodhaven) would be like an alternate route for the current routes that stay on the LIE to Woodhaven, and will now make more stops. Getting off of the LIE earlier and avoiding Rego Park might make them avoid a lot of traffic congestion.

So then more people might ride to the end, because the route wouldn't be as long.

(The few times I've taken the QM24, it was slow and really not worth it, because it feels like you're zigzagging all over Queens. Just like the local routes that connect Ridgewood to northern Queens!)

I live right there on the Eliot Avenue Corridor, and buses dont even full up until 80 street, so its best to leave it in the one route it is.

[Eric B]

But if the route was extended to pick up these local stops on Woodhaven, then there would be more riders.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

But if the route was extended to pick up these local stops on Woodhaven, then there would be more riders.

The fresh pond Road section would barely make it have good ridership. There would be severe cutbacks, as that's the weakest portion

 

It's better to have one good and kind winding route route instead of two regular low ridership routes (this case is the perfect example).

 

That, and the QM24 to Spring Creek are two proposals I have been heavily disagreeing with.

[Eric B]

Wouldn't the Woodhaven portion provide the ridership? That would be the end of the line, and Fresh Pond would be the inner portion before it gets on the highway. 

The two routes can be thought of as alternate routings for the other routes that travel all the way down Woodhaven, and are having these intermediate stops added. If those stops are important enough for them to be added to these formerly through routes, then they would probably generate enough ridership so the lines wouldn't be empty.

(Never heard of sending the route to Spring Creek).

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Wouldn't the Woodhaven portion provide the ridership? That would be the end of the line, and Fresh Pond would be the inner portion before it gets on the highway.

The two routes can be thought of as alternate routings for the other routes that travel all the way down Woodhaven, and are having these intermediate stops added. If those stops are important enough for them to be added to these formerly through routes, then they would probably generate enough ridership so the lines wouldn't be empty.

(Never heard of sending the route to Spring Creek).

I understand your motive, but the current QM24 is as good as its gonna get. If the route was split in half you would see buses on both sections running on half of their headways, which isn't a good thing. As a QM24 rider now and then, I wouldn't do that or modify the QM24 at all. The QM24 is pretty fast anyways, so no need to make it faster.

[Eric B]

But what about the extensions to those Woodhaven stops? I keep saying that's where extra riders would come from (and thus no need to increase the headway).

 

Also, the trip seemed incredibly long to me, and not worth skipping the train (and even the train to a bus). Just like the Q39, 67 and 58, and the 18 to 58 combo, or anything else heading this way, it has to be incredibly long and winding (And they always end up adding more kinks to it, like the 39 and 55), and it discouraged us from traveling anywhere by bus.

So that can be keeping more riders from using it. (I'm really surprised they haven't just cut the whole thing).

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

But what about the extensions to those Woodhaven stops? I keep saying that's where extra riders would come from (and thus no need to increase the headway).

 

Also, the trip seemed incredibly long to me, and not worth skipping the train (and even the train to a bus). Just like the Q39, 67 and 58, and the 18 to 58 combo, or anything else heading this way, it has to be incredibly long and winding (And they always end up adding more kinks to it, like the 39 and 55), and it discouraged us from traveling anywhere by bus.

So that can be keeping more riders from using it. (I'm really surprised they haven't just cut the whole thing).

Because its pretty fast. It gets there faster because buses there aren't so frequent. The Q55 to the is a schlepp. A Woodhaven Extention isn't warranted, everyone will pile the QM15s. The QM24 performs well, why cut the entire thing.

[Eric B]

The Woodhaven extension was so that these other routes wouldn't have to begin making those extra stops inbetween. I don't see why everyone would pile on the QM15. These other routes would be bypassing part of the LIE, and might be faster, if the LIE is backed up.

 

It would also be faster for the Myrtle section if it got on at Maurice, instead of going so far in the opposite direction to Rego Park. I didn't want to leave the Eliot section out (which is where most of the riders are), but would be not be able to cover both sections in a direct fashion that way.

 

I'm not saying they should cut the whole thing, but seeing how few riders stay on after about 8th St. (As you pointed out), I'm surprised they keep at least that section going. They did extend it a bit further out on Myrtle, trying to gain more riders, so at that point, I got the idea of extending it even further to help out in the busier Woodhaven corridor to gain even more riders, and having something else pick up Eliot.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1.The Woodhaven extension was so that these other routes wouldn't have to begin making those extra stops inbetween. I don't see why everyone would pile on the QM15. These other routes would be bypassing part of the LIE, and might be faster, if the LIE is backed up.

 

2.It would also be faster for the Myrtle section if it got on at Maurice, instead of going so far in the opposite direction to Rego Park. I didn't want to leave the Eliot section out (which is where most of the riders are), but would be not be able to cover both sections in a direct fashion that way.

 

3.I'm not saying they should cut the whole thing, but seeing how few riders stay on after about 8th St. (As you pointed out), I'm surprised they keep at least that section going. They did extend it a bit further out on Myrtle, trying to gain more riders, so at that point, I got the idea of extending it even further to help out in the busier Woodhaven corridor to gain even more riders, and having something else pick up Eliot.

1. But those other buses just use the LIE service Road if things are backed up.

2/3. Yes, there are more riders that take the 24/25 on Eliot. The major stops on Eliot is Fresh Pond Road (at that point only 7-8 riders are on the bus) which then, starts to fill up, 74 street, 77 Place, 80 street, which at that point the bus has 20 riders or so, and 85 street, which at that point, it has a high amount of ridership going into the city (22-25). Those outskirts trips (first few and the 9:43 Am bus to Midtown) however don't get the same amount of ridership, but they fill up on Eliot as the other trips do.

 

The QM24 would still end up faster than the current Q39/Q67/Q55/Q38/Q58 to Subway, and more convinient.

 

Also Myrtle Avenue has the third Avenue Portion and the Downtown Portion, which will not be split in two because if they did, those two would be discontinued.

 

The 6 Avenue Bus fills up more than the 3rd Avenue and Downtown Buses.

 

If you keep current headways, the proposal would be cost more then it currently is.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Sorry for bringing this thread up again, but it happened again that QM16/QM17 signs were posted on Woodhaven Blvd. This is at Alderton Street

 

Woodhaven Blvd/ Alderton Street Stop by BM5 via Woodhaven, on Flickr

 

Does anyone know if this is something that's actually gonna happen, or is this just another DOT f**k-up. Seeing how they never had notices on the buses about the expansion of Saturday service on the QM15 and time schedule changes (which started last summer), something like that could be happening again. However, then again, I remember them accidentally adding a QM24/QM25 signs to a stop where it wasn't, and drivers spent a while picking up there, until it was taken down (now all buses bypass that stop).

[Cait Sith]

Might be another DOT screwup. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.