Potential discontinuation of Q48 and M60 to Marine Air Terminal and QM12 route change

[NY1635]

Where in Queens does the M60 get delayed?

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

As for QM12, That route, I have seen a steady decline of service since it went from LGA to CP. Last December, I was looking at buses on the QM12 and I was like "Who are you?" Back then, the QM12 was the most popular route until QM24 was rerouted to 6th Ave in 2010, and it took massive customers away from the QM12.

The QM24 was almost always the most popular route of the three for the longest (except for like the first few years of operation), and still is. I also don't think many people switched to the QM12 to the QM12, nor for that reason. Its just that demographics change over time. I used to live in a block from a QM12 stop when I lived in Forest Hills, but I never found the route useful for anything since I was only free during weekend hours. This was like 9 years ago, when it still had its midday trips. In 2011, they cut down the route so that the last departure was at 11:00 AM to Midtown, and the first departure was at 1:50 to Queens. They started cutting more and more, and adjusting the rush hour frequency. I had the QM15 on Metropolitan, but that was still very far for more. I moved to Middle Village in August 2011 (not really because they cut the QM12 down, but because of other issues). Express bus options are much closer, and I have quicker access to most areas by local bus too, so it was a win-win for me. Ironically, the times I have used the QM12, was after service was cut down, and after I moved from Forest Hills. 

 

The QM10 has had declining ridership for quite some time. Originally, the area of LeFrak City was predominantly Jewish, like south of the LIE. That's why it probably got a lot more ridership, and had more service back then. Over time though, in the 1980's, the Jews left and in came African-Americans to live there. While they still did use the buses, the introduction of Metrocard Gold decreased ridership, and the recession contributed to even more decline in ridership. Think about it, the QM12 is much faster and frequent in the AM in Rego Park than the QM10 towards Midtown, and the QM12 is more frequent going towards Midtown by stopping at Woodhaven Blvd. Once they split the QM10 into the QM10 and QM40, numbers are going to be lower for both lines (for obvious reason). It'll given them the justification to discontinue QM10/QM40 service altogether, since only the LeFrak City stops will be served by the QM10/QM40, which isn't much of a catchment area as it used to be anymore.

[IAlam]

The Q48 really is fine how it is expect for terminal A it has a decent ridership that the Q19 would not be able to handle. You people need to ride the Q48 at all times of the day and not just the one time you're at the airport and it empty. Also the Q48 is the only eastbound LGA bus so it hard to get rid of if from LGA without a proper alternative. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The Q48 really is fine how it is expect for terminal A it has a decent ridership that the Q19 would not be able to handle. You people need to ride the Q48 at all times of the day and not just the one time you're at the airport and it empty. Also the Q48 is the only eastbound LGA bus so it hard to get rid of if from LGA without a proper alternative.

The Q19 would definently be able to handle Q48 loads, moreso on the weekends. That's not to say loads from Flushing on the Q19 are absymal, but it can handle the extra ridership. For riders to/from terminal A, transferring to the Q47 would be faster over going around LGA. I'm pretty sure that many of the riders going to LGA are employees themselves, and I've seen some get on in Corona. Those people can walk to the Q23, which is more frequent. I doubt most of the riders from Flushing are heading to/from LGA.

 

You could have the Q19 serve terminal A only as an alternative, but it'll inconvenience more people than it will help.

[IAlam]

The Q19 would definently be able to handle Q48 loads, moreso on the weekends. That's not to say loads from Flushing on the Q19 are absymal, but it can handle the extra ridership. For riders to/from terminal A, transferring to the Q47 would be faster over going around LGA. I'm pretty sure that many of the riders going to LGA are employees themselves, and I've seen some get on in Corona. Those people can walk to the Q23, which is more frequent. I doubt most of the riders from Flushing are heading to/from LGA.

 

You could have the Q19 serve terminal A only as an alternative, but it'll inconvenience more people than it will help.

 

You really need to ride the Q48 before you start talking again 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

You really need to ride the Q48 before you start talking again 

 

Except I have taken the Q48 from Flushing to LGA before, and multiple times.

 

The weekday Q48 has 2,805 weekday riders. To put it in perspective, that's less riders than the Q67 (@ 2,846).

 

The Q67 has periods where evening headways are 60 minutes, midday headways are every 30 minutes, and rush hour headways is 10-12 minutes in the peak direction, 15 in the reverse peak. It runs from 3 AM to 11:10 PM. The Q67 has 107 trips in total, for an average of 26.6 riders (approximately). Those evening trips after a certain hour don't carry many people, but is kept for coverage.

 

The Q48 at it least frequent headway is 30 minutes, and runs from 4:30 AM to 1:21 AM. That's a far greater span than the Q67 already. However, span alone is not a good indicator of how well a route does over another. Headways are every 15 minutes during the AM rush, 20 minutes during middays and shoulder periods, 30 at all other times when it runs. There's 130 trips on the Q48 in total, for an average of 21.6 riders (approximately). 

 

Now lets take the Q19, with 3,305 weekday riders, and its span from about 6 AM to 9 PM. It has 20 minute headways for the most part of the day, except during the early evening, when it runs every 30 minutes, and during the rush, when it runs every 10-12 minutes for about a period of less than an hour, and in only one direction. With 91 trips, that equals to 36.3 riders per bus. Of all the three, the Q19 is the closest to having a fully seated load on average. The Q67 is on coverage headways or above the coverage headway during the majority of the day, but the Q48 is only on coverage headways during the late evening, not even the enitre evening period, and it has the least riders per bus of all the three! Nevermind that the Q19 doesn't even run past 9 PM, it's ridiculous!

 

Now on the weekends, the Q48 has 4,213 riders. The amount of trips is 212 for both days in total. That gives you a whopping 19.87 riders per bus, which is not even 50% of seats on average. The Q19 on the weekends with its 2,996 riders and 104 total trips has 28.81 riders per trip. That's even more than the weekday count for the Q67 and Q48. 

 

Replacing the Q19 with the Q48 south/east of 108 Street would be BENEFICIAL to both groups of riders, since the riders in Corona would have equal or more frequent service, and Q19 riders would have more service (since the plan would also entail increasing the span of service to about midnight or 1 AM, and increasiing the span of the 12 minute headway during the rush). You would lose riders on the Q19 who probably get on at 108 Street (they would probably walk down to the Q66, since it's more direct), but it is offset by the greater amount of riders wishing to get on a Q19 to Flushing, resulting in a net gain in ridership per bus. On weekends, the Q19 could definitely take in the 20 extra riders per bus, since that would mean that there is a full bus, and at or almost at capacity. 

 

You can't scream coverage in the Q48 scenario compared to the Q67 scenario, especially since from the Corona area, you have three bus routes going to Flushing, and another route going to the (Does any other part of Queens even get that many routes towards Flushing, besides routes on a corridor?), and it is the one that performs the poorest. You can place riders from the intermediate area from 108 St to Corona Avenue on the Q66, or have them take Q19's, if they're going to Flushing. The Q23 serves Ditmars for those going to the train. The amount of riders going to LGA is small compared to the rest of those times. There's times where I've been on a Q48 SRO along 108 Street, and then only have like 4 riders within LGA, all going to terminal A or B, and other times where only 50% of the seats were taken (all during the same general time frame, same general day). 

 

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

(If I have to resort to using stats to explain this than we have a problem).

[MysteriousBtrain]

 

Except I have taken the Q48 from Flushing to LGA before, and multiple times.

 

The weekday Q48 has 2,805 weekday riders. To put it in perspective, that's less riders than the Q67 (@ 2,846).

 

The Q67 has periods where evening headways are 60 minutes, midday headways are every 30 minutes, and rush hour headways is 10-12 minutes in the peak direction, 15 in the reverse peak. It runs from 3 AM to 11:10 PM. The Q67 has 107 trips in total, for an average of 26.6 riders (approximately). Those evening trips after a certain hour don't carry many people, but is kept for coverage.

 

The Q48 at it least frequent headway is 30 minutes, and runs from 4:30 AM to 1:21 AM. That's a far greater span than the Q67 already. However, span alone is not a good indicator of how well a route does over another. Headways are every 15 minutes during the AM rush, 20 minutes during middays and shoulder periods, 30 at all other times when it runs. There's 130 trips on the Q48 in total, for an average of 21.6 riders (approximately).

 

Now lets take the Q19, with 3,305 weekday riders, and its span from about 6 AM to 9 PM. It has 20 minute headways for the most part of the day, except during the early evening, when it runs every 30 minutes, and during the rush, when it runs every 10-12 minutes for about a period of less than an hour, and in only one direction. With 91 trips, that equals to 36.3 riders per bus. Of all the three, the Q19 is the closest to having a fully seated load on average. The Q67 is on coverage headways or above the coverage headway during the majority of the day, but the Q48 is only on coverage headways during the late evening, not even the enitre evening period, and it has the least riders per bus of all the three! Nevermind that the Q19 doesn't even run past 9 PM, it's ridiculous!

 

Now on the weekends, the Q48 has 4,213 riders. The amount of trips is 212 for both days in total. That gives you a whopping 19.87 riders per bus, which is not even 50% of seats on average. The Q19 on the weekends with its 2,996 riders and 104 total trips has 28.81 riders per trip. That's even more than the weekday count for the Q67 and Q48.

 

Replacing the Q19 with the Q48 south/east of 108 Street would be BENEFICIAL to both groups of riders, since the riders in Corona would have equal or more frequent service, and Q19 riders would have more service (since the plan would also entail increasing the span of service to about midnight or 1 AM, and increasiing the span of the 12 minute headway during the rush). You would lose riders on the Q19 who probably get on at 108 Street (they would probably walk down to the Q66, since it's more direct), but it is offset by the greater amount of riders wishing to get on a Q19 to Flushing, resulting in a net gain in ridership per bus. On weekends, the Q19 could definitely take in the 20 extra riders per bus, since that would mean that there is a full bus, and at or almost at capacity.

 

You can't scream coverage in the Q48 scenario compared to the Q67 scenario, especially since from the Corona area, you have three bus routes going to Flushing, and another route going to the (Does any other part of Queens even get that many routes towards Flushing, besides routes on a corridor?), and it is the one that performs the poorest. You can place riders from the intermediate area from 108 St to Corona Avenue on the Q66, or have them take Q19's, if they're going to Flushing. The Q23 serves Ditmars for those going to the train. The amount of riders going to LGA is small compared to the rest of those times. There's times where I've been on a Q48 SRO along 108 Street, and then only have like 4 riders within LGA, all going to terminal A or B, and other times where only 50% of the seats were taken (all during the same general time frame, same general day).

 

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

(If I have to resort to using stats to explain this than we have a problem).

Add me to the group of people that support a Q48 merger with the Q18/23.

 

I remember about a week ago, I was using the Q48 from Flushing to the LGA depot to connect to the M60 (I would have got off at Ditmars, but the closest M60 to Manhattan was just leaving Steinway St towards the airport). What I can say on both rides is that only like 4 people total were at terminal A to get said buses. This was in the evening by the way.

The Q48, well it occasionally gets a crowd at Flushing, but before we even hit Northern Blvd, more than half of the bus is gone. By the time I hit the airport, only 6 people in total on the bus.

[IAlam]

 

Except I have taken the Q48 from Flushing to LGA before, and multiple times.

 

The weekday Q48 has 2,805 weekday riders. To put it in perspective, that's less riders than the Q67 (@ 2,846).

 

The Q67 has periods where evening headways are 60 minutes, midday headways are every 30 minutes, and rush hour headways is 10-12 minutes in the peak direction, 15 in the reverse peak. It runs from 3 AM to 11:10 PM. The Q67 has 107 trips in total, for an average of 26.6 riders (approximately). Those evening trips after a certain hour don't carry many people, but is kept for coverage.

 

The Q48 at it least frequent headway is 30 minutes, and runs from 4:30 AM to 1:21 AM. That's a far greater span than the Q67 already. However, span alone is not a good indicator of how well a route does over another. Headways are every 15 minutes during the AM rush, 20 minutes during middays and shoulder periods, 30 at all other times when it runs. There's 130 trips on the Q48 in total, for an average of 21.6 riders (approximately). 

 

Now lets take the Q19, with 3,305 weekday riders, and its span from about 6 AM to 9 PM. It has 20 minute headways for the most part of the day, except during the early evening, when it runs every 30 minutes, and during the rush, when it runs every 10-12 minutes for about a period of less than an hour, and in only one direction. With 91 trips, that equals to 36.3 riders per bus. Of all the three, the Q19 is the closest to having a fully seated load on average. The Q67 is on coverage headways or above the coverage headway during the majority of the day, but the Q48 is only on coverage headways during the late evening, not even the enitre evening period, and it has the least riders per bus of all the three! Nevermind that the Q19 doesn't even run past 9 PM, it's ridiculous!

 

Now on the weekends, the Q48 has 4,213 riders. The amount of trips is 212 for both days in total. That gives you a whopping 19.87 riders per bus, which is not even 50% of seats on average. The Q19 on the weekends with its 2,996 riders and 104 total trips has 28.81 riders per trip. That's even more than the weekday count for the Q67 and Q48. 

 

Replacing the Q19 with the Q48 south/east of 108 Street would be BENEFICIAL to both groups of riders, since the riders in Corona would have equal or more frequent service, and Q19 riders would have more service (since the plan would also entail increasing the span of service to about midnight or 1 AM, and increasiing the span of the 12 minute headway during the rush). You would lose riders on the Q19 who probably get on at 108 Street (they would probably walk down to the Q66, since it's more direct), but it is offset by the greater amount of riders wishing to get on a Q19 to Flushing, resulting in a net gain in ridership per bus. On weekends, the Q19 could definitely take in the 20 extra riders per bus, since that would mean that there is a full bus, and at or almost at capacity. 

 

You can't scream coverage in the Q48 scenario compared to the Q67 scenario, especially since from the Corona area, you have three bus routes going to Flushing, and another route going to the (Does any other part of Queens even get that many routes towards Flushing, besides routes on a corridor?), and it is the one that performs the poorest. You can place riders from the intermediate area from 108 St to Corona Avenue on the Q66, or have them take Q19's, if they're going to Flushing. The Q23 serves Ditmars for those going to the train. The amount of riders going to LGA is small compared to the rest of those times. There's times where I've been on a Q48 SRO along 108 Street, and then only have like 4 riders within LGA, all going to terminal A or B, and other times where only 50% of the seats were taken (all during the same general time frame, same general day). 

 

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

(If I have to resort to using stats to explain this than we have a problem).

you can can't compare routes like the Q67 and Q48 because how the their respective neighborhood is different The Q48 only has one subway connection the so the further away you go from the train the less people there will be on the bus. The Q67 hit a train station in both directions so of course the ridership would be higher because it wouldn't matter which direction you go if you need to get to a train station. You need to compare routes that operate in a similar fashion although a route like the Q43. Although wouldn't be great for comparison for obvious reasons it has a similar pattern to the Q48, both duplicates a subway line before going off in their own direction. 

[bobtehpanda]

you can can't compare routes like the Q67 and Q48 because how the their respective neighborhood is different The Q48 only has one subway connection the so the further away you go from the train the less people there will be on the bus. The Q67 hit a train station in both directions so of course the ridership would be higher because it wouldn't matter which direction you go if you need to get to a train station. You need to compare routes that operate in a similar fashion although a route like the Q43. Although wouldn't be great for comparison for obvious reasons it has a similar pattern to the Q48, both duplicates a subway line before going off in their own direction. 

 

There will always be issues with bus statistics because each one prioritizes certain metrics over others.

 

The only ones that tend to be consistent are ridership per mile (measures how much ridership is getting off and on as opposed to staying on the whole way) and cost per service hour (some routes are more expensive to operate but don't operate very long). Focusing on pure ridership is a sure way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[B35 via Church]

The Q48 really is fine how it is expect for terminal A it has a decent ridership that the Q19 would not be able to handle. You people need to ride the Q48 at all times of the day and not just the one time you're at the airport and it empty. Also the Q48 is the only eastbound LGA bus so it hard to get rid of if from LGA without a proper alternative. 

You really need to ride the Q48 before you start talking again 

...except this isn't some "one time at the airport" nonsense.

 

The Q48 has had this problem of poor, inconsistent ridership in/out of the airport under current headways for decades.... This isn't simply an issue with usage in/out of the Marine Air Terminal specifically.... When you have to rely on buses being tied up elsewhere on the route for there to be noticeable loads in/out of the airport on high headways, there is a problem....

 

Hard to get rid of from LGA without a proper alternative? Again, you speak as if LGA is the saving grace of the route, when it clearly is not.... It isn't even close how much of the ridership from Flushing is not comprised of riders seeking LGA, and the LGA bound Q48 isn't a route that sees a lot of boarding activity north of Northern... So where are these miraculous loads of riders seeking LGA coming from on the route??? Please don't say that riders from the west are taking the to 111th for LGA like that, because that would be a bold-faced lie....

 

The Q19 could handle the amount of riders the Q48 currently transports between Flushing & residential Corona/E. Elmhurst.... The Q19 doesn't carry heavy like that either (it's more or less on par with the Q48, in terms of overall ridership), so where would this big problem be that the Q19 can't handle most of its shocking, astounding, astronomical ~3k riders/weekday?  

 

Fact of the matter is, the Q19 has more going for it now than the Q48 does (I'd argue ever really did, since Flushing-LGA usage was never all that heavy)... Worse, the Q48 has no room for growth ridership-wise (which is the real issue), while the Q19 has had it ever since it got extended to Flushing.... Even worse than that, There isn't a single place you could extend the Q48 where it would make anywhere near as much of a difference than the sending of the Q19 to Flushing....

 

Feel free to cue the crickets at this point.

 

See here man.... You may want to keep the route as is for whatever your reasons, but to act like it's that preposterous to try to phase out the route in the manner that has been presented, is hilarious.... Furthermore, instead of grasping for straws about how little we use the route, how about illustrating how the Q48 is used in your own right (which I've done more than enough times on this site, and I don't even live in your neck of the woods, sir)... Break it down for us.... And don't come with that *you would know how heavy it is if you used the route more* crap...

 

Damn the innuendos, we've defended our position at length... Now defend yours, Mr. before someone starts talking again....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

you can can't compare routes like the Q67 and Q48 because how the their respective neighborhood is different The Q48 only has one subway connection the so the further away you go from the train the less people there will be on the bus. The Q67 hit a train station in both directions so of course the ridership would be higher because it wouldn't matter which direction you go if you need to get to a train station. You need to compare routes that operate in a similar fashion although a route like the Q43. Although wouldn't be great for comparison for obvious reasons it has a similar pattern to the Q48, both duplicates a subway line before going off in their own direction.

Why can't I compare them? At points, the Q67 does intersect with the Q39, which also goes to LIC, and other routes which do go to the . The thing is, all those routes have their own distinct portions of riders and ridership bases. In Corona, you got too much service to Flushing on all three routes. You don't need the Q19 and Q66 taking a similar path to Flushing. In East Elmhurst, you have people taking the Q23 over the Q48, and the Q33, which are more frequent and direct to the subway. Not many people from East Elmhurst are going to Flushing, and if they are, they can use the Q23 or Q72 to the , or walk down to the Q19 or Q66. Some parts of Astoria Blvd are not that far from 23 Avenue anyway, and travel time is comparable to the Q48.

 

The general belief is that the more subway stops a bus route serves, the more ridership it gets. The Q67 serves 4 subway stops, but it isn't only a feeder. Without a doubt, if it didn't serve industrial Maspeth, it wouldn't have the same ridership levels, and would probably be on coverage headways for a good majority of the day, and it definently would not have the same span as it does. The Q48 isn't only a feeder route either. It's suppose to connect to Flushing, and connect riders to LGA, in which the latter really lacks. Another thing, what if I told you that the same Q67 that serves 4 subway stations has significantly less ridership than the Q48 on weekends (both total and per mile) and has a higher cost per rider.

[B35 via Church]

Replacing the Q19 with the Q48 south/east of 108 Street would be BENEFICIAL to both groups of riders, since the riders in Corona would have equal or more frequent service, and Q19 riders would have more service (since the plan would also entail increasing the span of service to about midnight or 1 AM, and increasiing the span of the 12 minute headway during the rush). You would lose riders on the Q19 who probably get on at 108 Street (they would probably walk down to the Q66, since it's more direct), but it is offset by the greater amount of riders wishing to get on a Q19 to Flushing, resulting in a net gain in ridership per bus. On weekends, the Q19 could definitely take in the 20 extra riders per bus, since that would mean that there is a full bus, and at or almost at capacity. 

 

You can't scream coverage in the Q48 scenario compared to the Q67 scenario, especially since from the Corona area, you have three bus routes going to Flushing, and another route going to the (Does any other part of Queens even get that many routes towards Flushing, besides routes on a corridor?), and it is the one that performs the poorest. You can place riders from the intermediate area from 108 St to Corona Avenue on the Q66, or have them take Q19's, if they're going to Flushing. The Q23 serves Ditmars for those going to the train. The amount of riders going to LGA is small compared to the rest of those times. There's times where I've been on a Q48 SRO along 108 Street, and then only have like 4 riders within LGA, all going to terminal A or B, and other times where only 50% of the seats were taken (all during the same general time frame, same general day). 

 

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

(If I have to resort to using stats to explain this than we have a problem).

Why can't I compare them? At points, the Q67 does intersect with the Q39, which also goes to LIC, and other routes which do go to the . The thing is, all those routes have their own distinct portions of riders and ridership bases. In Corona, you got too much service to Flushing on all three routes. You don't need the Q19 and Q66 taking a similar path to Flushing. In East Elmhurst, you have people taking the Q23 over the Q48, and the Q33, which are more frequent and direct to the subway. Not many people from East Elmhurst are going to Flushing, and if they are, they can use the Q23 or Q72 to the , or walk down to the Q19 or Q66. Some parts of Astoria Blvd are not that far from 23 Avenue anyway, and travel time is comparable to the Q48.

 

The general belief is that the more subway stops a bus route serves, the more ridership it gets. The Q67 serves 4 subway stops, but it isn't only a feeder. Without a doubt, if it didn't serve industrial Maspeth, it wouldn't have the same ridership levels, and would probably be on coverage headways for a good majority of the day, and it definently would not have the same span as it does. The Q48 isn't only a feeder route either. It's suppose to connect to Flushing, and connect riders to LGA, in which the latter really lacks. Another thing, what if I told you that the same Q67 that serves 4 subway stations has significantly less ridership than the Q48 on weekends.

I don't know why you injected the Q67 into the conversation either to be honest... You didn't need it.

The lack of overall ridership of the Q48 speaks for itself; it's like shooting at fish in a barrel....

 

Anyway, the most profound point you made (which I didn't even bring up) is the increase in service that Corona would inherit by having the Q19 run up 108th from Roosevelt to Astoria (blvd)..... I would go as far as to say, you could justify increasing Q19 service by 1 BPH... The biggest smoking gun for the Q19 (having been extended) to Flushing (and this I have said on here before) is the fact that it offers a quick ride to the train...

 

Corona (residents) are the heaviest demographic on the Q48.... East Elmhurst residents use the route less than the usage the Q48 does get in/out of the airport.... A large chunk of that ridership on the Flushing bound Q48 in E. Elmhurst are of service workers.... This is one reason why Q48 ridership dies north of Northern, and especially north of Astoria Blvd (which is E. Elmhurst).....

 

This idea that the Q48 is this vital route for getting to LGA is undeniably comical.....

 

Add me to the group of people that support a Q48 merger with the Q18/23.

 

I remember about a week ago, I was using the Q48 from Flushing to the LGA depot to connect to the M60 (I would have got off at Ditmars, but the closest M60 to Manhattan was just leaving Steinway St towards the airport). What I can say on both rides is that only like 4 people total were at terminal A to get said buses. This was in the evening by the way.

The Q48, well it occasionally gets a crowd at Flushing, but before we even hit Northern Blvd, more than half of the bus is gone. By the time I hit the airport, only 6 people in total on the bus.

Nah, to be fair, that line for the Q48 @ Flushing is serious.... That much is constant (not occasional)....

 

Everything else though, you're spot on... How is it that several people are coming to the same conclusion about how far LGA bound riders are(n't) traveling on the route, but Mr iAlam here wants to act like the route is fine & getting all this usage in/out of LGA....

 

you can can't compare routes like the Q67 and Q48 because how the their respective neighborhood is different The Q48 only has one subway connection the so the further away you go from the train the less people there will be on the bus. The Q67 hit a train station in both directions so of course the ridership would be higher because it wouldn't matter which direction you go if you need to get to a train station. You need to compare routes that operate in a similar fashion although a route like the Q43. Although wouldn't be great for comparison for obvious reasons it has a similar pattern to the Q48, both duplicates a subway line before going off in their own direction. 

I agree with you about his bringing up of the Q67, but regardless, the fact that you even bring up the Q43 in any discussion about the Q48 is a joke in & of itself.... So what that they duplicate a subway line before diverting off in another direction... What point exactly are you even making with that, as it relates to the usage of the Q48..... That would be like someone making minimum wage comparing themselves to Warren Buffett on the strength of....

 

....ii... iitt's still money... rrii.. riight???

 

The Q43 isn't comparable to the Q48 because of the reasons you stated... The Q43 vitally connects multiple larger communities (in terms of land mass) that are much further out from the subway, to the subway - Whereas the Q48 connects two smaller communities to the subway - one of which (East Elmhurst) aren't even utilizing the bus for that purpose....

 

The further away you go from the train, the less people there will be on the bus? I can shoot off a number of routes that debunk that claim, but be there as it may..... So which is it, is the Q48 is doing fine (except for Terminal A), or is its usage being hampered because LGA is the furthest point on the route that's away from the subway...

 

Make up your mind...

[Threxx]

Honestly... the only way I can see someone defending a route that has been proven to be wasteful so adamantly is if they use that route themselves.

Sorry to break it to you mate, but a two seat ride isn't going to kill you. Your commute would change to being a matter of the Q19 > Q23 if you're going to LGA. 

The money saved from the Q48 being cut could easily be put into other routes that need it elsewhere (whatever's left after the necessary expansions to Q19 service, if anything).

[B35 via Church]

Honestly... the only way I can see someone defending a route that has been proven to be wasteful so adamantly is if they use that route themselves.

I came to that conclusion when he made that snarky remark to BM5...

 

And if that's the case, he's still doing a poor job of defending it.

[IAlam]

My main issue of getting rid of the Q48 or replacing it or whatever the hell you want to do, is that the Q48 even with its low ridership from the airport is the ONLY LGA bus that goes east from the airport. Anyone going to LGA through Flushing can only take the Q48 to the airport. Any other route would require an additional fare. Although the Q19 could handle the Q48 riders with, it would leave riders in the north stranded. Furthermore, going via Roosevelt is slow and could easily 15 to 20 min to people's trips to Flushing. The Q66 is out of reach for those who live further west. I've seen people from as far as Astoria Blvd go all the way to Flushing. Adding such a long detour makes the route un attractive for people going to Flushing and would probably contribute to declining bus ridership.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

My main issue of getting rid of the Q48 or replacing it or whatever the hell you want to do, is that the Q48 even with its low ridership from the airport is the ONLY LGA bus that goes east from the airport. Anyone going to LGA through Flushing can only take the Q48 to the airport. Any other route would require an additional fare. Although the Q19 could handle the Q48 riders with, it would leave riders in the north stranded. Furthermore, going via Roosevelt is slow and could easily 15 to 20 min to people's trips to Flushing. The Q66 is out of reach for those who live further west. I've seen people from as far as Astoria Blvd go all the way to Flushing. Adding such a long detour makes the route un attractive for people going to Flushing and would probably contribute to declining bus ridership.

I don't see why you have to talk so aggressive to us. I've seen some unfeasible, or worse, insane proposals for certain routes I take, but I've never went all out on anyone.

 

Leave riders in the north stranded? There's so many bus routes there, both in East Elmhurst and LGA.

 

You're making this a bigger problem than it really is. Contribute to declining bus ridership? That's essentially a slippery slope argument. While there will be losses for people from Corona who directly take the Q19 to Flushing (they'll probably start making their way to the Q66), the Q66 is unreliable itself, despite its frequency. Many riders on Astoria Blvd are still going to take the Q19, because it is the more reliable of the two (although it can have its moments too). Furthermore, the Q19 as it is takes 7 minutes to get to Flushing. It will take 17 minutes to get to Flushing via the Q48 routing (both are rush hour times, so the change will be less during other periods).

 

Public transit is set to set the majority of customers' needs in the most efficient way possible. We can't giving special privileges to certain neighborhoods just because they want something. It's different if people use it, but if not many use a service, then it should be restructured. Unfortunately though, this is the case in some areas of the city.

[checkmatechamp13]

(If I have to resort to using stats to explain this than we have a problem).

 

Nah, let's be real, you love to break out (oversimplified) stats wherever possible. The problem is something you don't quite seem to grasp and well, well....bobtehpanda beat me to it (and I'll add that ridership per bus is just as bad as pure ridership because once again, it doesn't account for length and turnover, let alone the concentration of riders during a particular timespan)

 

There will always be issues with bus statistics because each one prioritizes certain metrics over others.

 

The only ones that tend to be consistent are ridership per mile (measures how much ridership is getting off and on as opposed to staying on the whole way) and cost per service hour (some routes are more expensive to operate but don't operate very long). Focusing on pure ridership is a sure way to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

 

you can can't compare routes like the Q67 and Q48 because how the their respective neighborhood is different The Q48 only has one subway connection the so the further away you go from the train the less people there will be on the bus. The Q67 hit a train station in both directions so of course the ridership would be higher because it wouldn't matter which direction you go if you need to get to a train station. You need to compare routes that operate in a similar fashion although a route like the Q43. Although wouldn't be great for comparison for obvious reasons it has a similar pattern to the Q48, both duplicates a subway line before going off in their own direction. 

 

You're assuming that those people using the subway are using it to head to Manhattan (If you work in Maspeth and live in say, Bushwick, it doesn't make much sense to go to LIC to catch the subway. And with industrial workers, I doubt most of them are coming from Manhattan anyway). But  even if that were the case, going through Middle Village is a much more circuitous route to reach Manhattan, compared to going through LIC.

 

And the Q43 is a terrible comparison. You would need to compare it to a relatively short route from a major hub, that sees moderate ridership to its central section, and low ridership to its opposite terminal. Look no further than another Flushing-based route: The Q26, and look at how little service it gets. 

 

The Q19 could handle the amount of riders the Q48 currently transports between Flushing & residential Corona/E. Elmhurst.... The Q19 doesn't carry heavy like that either (it's more or less on par with the Q48, in terms of overall ridership), so where would this big problem be that the Q19 can't handle most of its shocking, astounding, astronomical ~3k riders/weekday?

 

The thing about being able to "handle" ridership is that it's simply a matter of adding more buses. I mean, routes like the B46, M15, Bx12, etc are apparently able to "handle" around 50,000 riders per weekday. Until it gets to the point where the road network itself can't handle anymore buses (i.e. You put down a bus lane, and the buses are getting stuck in their own traffic, at which point you should definitely be considering some kind of rail service, but that's besides the point), a given route can always "handle" more passengers.

 

Yes, cutting the Q48 and running the Q19 down through Corona and Roosevelt Avenue on 20 minute rush hour headways is probably going to result in a lot of flagged riders, but what's the obvious solution here? 

 

The Q48 isn't only a feeder route either. It's suppose to connect to Flushing, and connect riders to LGA, in which the latter really lacks.

 

Connecting to two major hubs is the exact definition of a feeder route. It's just that it's (supposed to) be feeding passengers into two major terminals.

 

Different borough, similar concept: The S66 is a St. George feeder and a Port Richmond "feeder". Obviously ridership is much stronger on the St. George end, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was originally designed as a feeder to both terminals. (But similar to the Q48, now that ridership patterns have changed, there are talks of restructuring them)

 

Sorry to break it to you mate, but a two seat ride isn't going to kill you. Your commute would change to being a matter of the Q19 > Q23 if you're going to LGA. 

 

Or Q66-Q23, or -Q23. 

 

He does have a point about the extra fare, which I'll address below.

 

My main issue of getting rid of the Q48 or replacing it or whatever the hell you want to do, is that the Q48 even with its low ridership from the airport is the ONLY LGA bus that goes east from the airport. Anyone going to LGA through Flushing can only take the Q48 to the airport. Any other route would require an additional fare. Although the Q19 could handle the Q48 riders with, it would leave riders in the north stranded. Furthermore, going via Roosevelt is slow and could easily 15 to 20 min to people's trips to Flushing. The Q66 is out of reach for those who live further west. I've seen people from as far as Astoria Blvd go all the way to Flushing. Adding such a long detour makes the route unattractive for people going to Flushing and would probably contribute to declining bus ridership.

 

The extra fare could be dealt with by programming an extra transfer into the farebox. I personally think there should just be a universal 2 transfer system programmed into the MetroCard, to allow people to choose the quickest way, even if it involves an extra transfer.

 

In any case, there's literally only one stop along Ditmars (with a small catchment area that could easily be covered by adding a stop at Astoria & 31st that isn't covered by the Q23, and one eastbound stop along 23rd Avenue (and depending on how you route the Q23, you could cover that stop), so there's nobody being "stranded".

 

I don't see why you have to talk so aggressive to us. I've seen some unfeasible, or worse, insane proposals for certain routes I take, but I've never went all out on anyone.

 

Leave riders in the north stranded? There's so many bus routes there, both in East Elmhurst and LGA.

 

You're making this a bigger problem than it really is. Contribute to declining bus ridership? That's essentially a slippery slope argument. While there will be losses for people from Corona who directly take the Q19 to Flushing (they'll probably start making their way to the Q66), the Q66 is unreliable itself, despite its frequency. Many riders on Astoria Blvd are still going to take the Q19, because it is the more reliable of the two (although it can have its moments too). Furthermore, the Q19 as it is takes 7 minutes to get to Flushing. It will take 17 minutes to get to Flushing via the Q48 routing (both are rush hour times, so the change will be less during other periods).

 

Public transit is set to set the majority of customers' needs in the most efficient way possible. We can't giving special privileges to certain neighborhoods just because they want something. It's different if people use it, but if not many use a service, then it should be restructured. Unfortunately though, this is the case in some areas of the city.

 

Nah, this isn't going all out. I've definitely seen worse on these forums.

 

And you're using the wrong argument over here, acting like the Q19 doesn't see a significant amount of riders on its own who would have to spend the additional time going through Roosevelt Avenue. Yeah, he does have a point in that you're adding a decent chunk of time for a decent amount of riders. But that's partially balanced out by the increased frequencies that would be applied to the route. You take the 3 BPH from the Q19 and the 4 BPH from the Q48, subtract out the fact that you'd have stricter loading guidelines due to the higher frequency (in other words, more frequent routes are allowed to be more crowded on a per-bus basis), and you easily have a good 5-6 BPH heading out to the Astoria Blvd corridor (likely all the way to the Astoria Houses, which can definitely be justified seeing that it's supposed to serve as the local for the M60 +SBS+)

[B35 via Church]

My main issue of getting rid of the Q48 or replacing it or whatever the hell you want to do, is that the Q48 even with its low ridership from the airport is the ONLY LGA bus that goes east from the airport. Anyone going to LGA through Flushing can only take the Q48 to the airport. Any other route would require an additional fare. Although the Q19 could handle the Q48 riders with, it would leave riders in the north stranded. Furthermore, going via Roosevelt is slow and could easily 15 to 20 min to people's trips to Flushing. The Q66 is out of reach for those who live further west. I've seen people from as far as Astoria Blvd go all the way to Flushing. Adding such a long detour makes the route un attractive for people going to Flushing and would probably contribute to declining bus ridership.

Now you don't know what's being suggested... Feign stupid if you'd like, it isn't helping your case....

 

Alright, so you state that as being your main issue - Now substantiate it with something, jesus christ...

 

Where are these riders from eastern Queens that are taking Q48's to the airport? Where are these riders that are coming off other bus routes from the east that the Q48 in-particular is so vital for them getting to the airport? When you have riders taking the subway well west for the purpose of xferring to other bus routes to get to the airport, that very action is directly stating that the Q48 is useless for the purpose!

 

Earlier out of you, it was the Q48 has decent ridership that the Q19 would not be able to handle.... Now it's "Although the Q19 could handle the Q48 riders with, it would leave riders in the north stranded."... Which that last part is false, because the Q23 exists up there in East Elmhurst, and those patrons are using Q23's to get to Corona Plaza for the than they are taking Q48's to get to 111th.....

 

Yeah, Roosevelt av is slow (thought you didn't know what was being suggested), nobody said or implicated it was anything otherwise... Funny how Roosevelt is slow when it comes to rerouting the Q19, but with the Q48, no mention of it whatsoever.... Guess the Q48 just breezes along it huh....

 

The Q66 is out of reach for those who live further north  .....

You should stick to formulating better arguments of keeping the Q48 around, than trying to anticipate comments from your detractors..... 

 

Yes, the Q19 sees ridership towards Flushing from the far western end of the route.... Which proves my point about the Q19 has more going for it than the Q48 does, or ever did.... Let me tell you something, you person you - The fact that the route even goes to Flushing is a blessing for those patrons; it's no accident that ridership was more or less half of what it was, the very year before the extension when it used to end at 102nd - Now that was being left quote-unquote stranded... That's why the Q19 saw significantly less than 2000 riders a damn day, because it didn't bring those that lived around it much of anywhere.... So I'm not exactly buying this bit about current Q19 riders feeling some type of way if it were to be diverted via Roosevelt.... I get the sense that they're simply happy that their route goes to Flushing; that route was a VERY mediocre route (even worse than the Q48) before the fact.... And again, the vast majority of Q48 riders (from around Northern Blvd & points south) would benefit from it.... Instead, you want to harp on the part of the Q48 that sees significantly less usage (b/w Astoria blvd & the airport proper) as a sticking point to keeping it around....

 

Lastly, You wanna know something else that facilitates declining bus ridership? Antiquated bus routes.

The Q48 is one of 'em.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1) Nah, let's be real, you love to break out (oversimplified) stats wherever possible. The problem is something you don't quite seem to grasp and well, well....bobtehpanda beat me to it (and I'll add that ridership per bus is just as bad as pure ridership because once again, it doesn't account for length and turnover, let alone the concentration of riders during a particular timespan)

 

2)Connecting to two major hubs is the exact definition of a feeder route. It's just that it's (supposed to) be feeding passengers into two major terminals.

 

Different borough, similar concept: The S66 is a St. George feeder and a Port Richmond "feeder". Obviously ridership is much stronger on the St. George end, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was originally designed as a feeder to both terminals. (But similar to the Q48, now that ridership patterns have changed, there are talks of restructuring them)

 

 

3)Nah, this isn't going all out. I've definitely seen worse on these forums.

 

And you're using the wrong argument over here, acting like the Q19 doesn't see a significant amount of riders on its own who would have to spend the additional time going through Roosevelt Avenue. Yeah, he does have a point in that you're adding a decent chunk of time for a decent amount of riders. But that's partially balanced out by the increased frequencies that would be applied to the route. You take the 3 BPH from the Q19 and the 4 BPH from the Q48, subtract out the fact that you'd have stricter loading guidelines due to the higher frequency (in other words, more frequent routes are allowed to be more crowded on a per-bus basis), and you easily have a good 5-6 BPH heading out to the Astoria Blvd corridor (likely all the way to the Astoria Houses, which can definitely be justified seeing that it's supposed to serve as the local for the M60 +SBS+)

1) The thing is, multiple people have already mentioned how lacking the Q48 really is. Also, I tend to go more into stats with the economical aspects or when there are proposed service changes or whatnot. I've never really needed stats to explain how poorly a route does. In any case, you do have a point with what was mentioned about the inaccuracies of measuring cost, but I'd like to point out that the Q19, Q67 and Q48 have similar travel times from one terminal to another with a difference of about 3 or 4 minutes the most. So therefore, you wouldn't need cph. However it doesn't account passengers per mile, which is probably the most accurate measure.

 

2) I should've been more specific, but what I was trying to say that the sole (main) purpose of the Q48 is not that of a subway feeder route, and that only serving one subway stop means there will be less ridership. However, I went back to the Q67 example that with it serving 4 stops, it still has a lot less ridership than the Q48 on weekends.

 

3) I definitely agree that 10 minutes is a significant amount of time, no doubt about it. For the service headway, I would agree with having the bus operate every 10 minutes during the rush, possibly 15 during middays and early evening, and 20/30 (one of them, IDK which would be more appropriate) in the late evening. This would also help with more riders hopefully using the Q19 instead of the Q102/Q103 out of Astoria Houses, and more riders along Astoria Blvd using it instead of the sardine can that is the M60, in addition to helping out corona riders, which in many cases, like you mentioned, balance out travel time.

[B35 via Church]

I don't see why you have to talk so aggressive to us. I've seen some unfeasible, or worse, insane proposals for certain routes I take, but I've never went all out on anyone.

 

Leave riders in the north stranded? There's so many bus routes there, both in East Elmhurst and LGA.

 

You're making this a bigger problem than it really is. Contribute to declining bus ridership? That's essentially a slippery slope argument. While there will be losses for people from Corona who directly take the Q19 to Flushing (they'll probably start making their way to the Q66), the Q66 is unreliable itself, despite its frequency. Many riders on Astoria Blvd are still going to take the Q19, because it is the more reliable of the two (although it can have its moments too). Furthermore, the Q19 as it is takes 7 minutes to get to Flushing. It will take 17 minutes to get to Flushing via the Q48 routing (both are rush hour times, so the change will be less during other periods).

 

Public transit is set to set the majority of customers' needs in the most efficient way possible. We can't giving special privileges to certain neighborhoods just because they want something. It's different if people use it, but if not many use a service, then it should be restructured. Unfortunately though, this is the case in some areas of the city.

That aggression is likely aimed at me, and I couldn't care less b/c I can throw it right back at ole boy & STILL effectively express my points of view; I've never had a problem with that.... That aggression out of me towards him stemmed from him being snarky at you (and the fact that I also hold the same position about the Q19/48)... Basically, you linking one of my posts set this guy up for the tongue lashing he's getting now....

 

Anyway, that bit about declining bus ridership was about Astoria riders that are riding far distances to get to Flushing.... It's an argument against diverting the Q19 (which I honestly don't think is genuine, since we've already established what the main riderbase/heaviest usage by far of the Q48 [which is the route he's defending] is, but w/e)...

 

The moments that the Q19 has, stems from the layover time it has (on either end of the route), I find.... The route doesn't have much of any chokepoints, which is good, but at the same time, it doesn't transport a lot of people (relative to the average utilized route in NYC anyway) in its own right either (remember, the route used to only carry a little over 1k riders/day... Then when it got extended to Flushing, it eventually doubled in about 2 years time.... IDK how many additional riders it gained w/ the extension to the Astoria PJ's though)..... The point is, this diversion we're speaking of here would help the route grow even more....

 

As for the Q48, I can't think of that smoking gun that would help that route... Can you (honest question)?

I should've been more specific, but what I was trying to say that the sole (main) purpose of the Q48 is not that of a subway feeder route......

It isn't... And that's something else that annoyed me about the dude's post.

He tried to speak that into existence & it didn't work.

 

Connecting to two major hubs is the exact definition of a feeder route. It's just that it's (supposed to) be feeding passengers into two major terminals.

A feeder route is simply one whose purpose is to connect a community (or several) to one major hub/major transfer point... Feeders tend to be the resultants of modes in a hub & spoke model that... well, doesn't serve a major terminal on the opposite end....

 

Basically, it doesn't have to necessarily connect two major terminals (like the Q17, for example)...

[MysteriousBtrain]

Also, I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned this, but there is another airport that riders in eastern Queens and long island can get to if LGA isn't that accessible.

 

It's called JFK airport.

[Threxx]

Also, I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned this, but there is another airport that riders in eastern Queens and long island can get to if LGA isn't that accessible.

 

It's called JFK airport.

JFK is generally for international departures and LGA is generally for domestic departures, and you can't exactly tell your carrier to move the flight to JFK just because it's a bit difficult to get to LGA.

 

If you're really concerned about making your flight wouldn't you just take a cab at that point? That isn't the issue here, accessibility to LGA wouldn't really be affected by the proposal being made since you'd still have the same number of routes running in and out of there.

[B35 via Church]

Also, I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned this, but there is another airport that riders in eastern Queens and long island can get to if LGA isn't that accessible.

 

It's called JFK airport.

As Threxx pointed out, it's not that simple.... Choosing JFK over LGA isn't like choosing shake shack over five guys...

 

I'd like to know how many eastern Queens (specifically NE Queens) residents are driving or taking cabs to JFK, compared to LGA.....

 

I also want to point out that there's this underlying assumption that those that are taking public buses to airports are all, or a very high %-age, are airport passengers, when that couldn't be further from the truth.... Case in point, the Q3 & the B15 (which sees significant usage in/out of JFK) seldom sees riders blocking up aisles w/ luggages & things of that nature.... The B15 in-particular is airport employee central (lol)..... The M60, Q10, & the Q70 seems to have the most of em (compared to all the other routes that serve JFK or LGA), but it is still minuscule if you notice airport ridership on our buses in general....

 

If I was to "rank" them (with the route being the most prone w/ pax toting luggages), I'd go:

M60

Q10

Q70

Q48

Q72

Q3

B15

Q47 (which by far has the least airport ridership, period... Which says enough about MAT)

 

What's funny is, I see more folks w/ luggages on the Q37 than I do every route from the Q48 down....

---

 

Something else that would be interesting to find out is (aside from the Q70, which would be rather unfair), what percentage of each route's overall ridership are of those traveling to/from the respective airports they serve....

[checkmatechamp13]

1) The thing is, multiple people have already mentioned how lacking the Q48 really is. Also, I tend to go more into stats with the economical aspects or when there are proposed service changes or whatnot. I've never really needed stats to explain how poorly a route does. In any case, you do have a point with what was mentioned about the inaccuracies of measuring cost, but I'd like to point out that the Q19, Q67 and Q48 have similar travel times from one terminal to another with a difference of about 3 or 4 minutes the most. So therefore, you wouldn't need cph. However it doesn't account passengers per mile, which is probably the most accurate measure.

 

2) I should've been more specific, but what I was trying to say that the sole (main) purpose of the Q48 is not that of a subway feeder route, and that only serving one subway stop means there will be less ridership. However, I went back to the Q67 example that with it serving 4 stops, it still has a lot less ridership than the Q48 on weekends.

 

3) I definitely agree that 10 minutes is a significant amount of time, no doubt about it. For the service headway, I would agree with having the bus operate every 10 minutes during the rush, possibly 15 during middays and early evening, and 20/30 (one of them, IDK which would be more appropriate) in the late evening. This would also help with more riders hopefully using the Q19 instead of the Q102/Q103 out of Astoria Houses, and more riders along Astoria Blvd using it instead of the sardine can that is the M60, in addition to helping out corona riders, which in many cases, like you mentioned, balance out travel time.

 

1. To be 100% honest, you're doing a pretty poor job of expressing how poorly the Q48 supposedly performs. I mean, 21.6 riders per bus on a relatively short route, averaged throughout the entire span of the day. What's the threshold for poor performance? I'll tell you right off the bat that in terms of cost per passenger, the Q48 performs a lot better than a good chunk of the ferry feeder routes out on Staten Island (let alone routes like the S55/56). So the Q48 isn't this horribly performing route where it's plainly obvious that it needs to be eliminated.

 

The numbers you posted essentially tell me nothing. Saying that the Q48 carries fewer passengers per bus (and now that you clarified that the running time is similar for all 3 routes) only tells me that out of the three, the Q48 either has less turnover compared to the other two routes, or that the Q48 runs a little bit too frequently relative to its ridership, or that ridership is spread out time-wise (remember how early the Q19 ends service. It's not getting those low loads at midnight or 1AM)

 

Now it's likely a combination of all 3. The Q48 ridership is more concentrated than the Q19 ridership (which means that the frequencies need to be a bit higher to accommodate the peak loads). Based off your stats (combined with a few trips I've taken on these routes), it seems that the Q19 leaves Flushing with a moderate load of people heading towards East Elmhurst, and a smaller amount heading towards Astoria, but then it picks up some people heading towards the Astoria Blvd/31st Street subway station and Astoria Houses. The Q48 leaves Flushing with a heavier load of people heading towards Corona, but empties out significantly within Corona.

 

But none of that implies that the Q48 is this horribly performing route. You would need to get the on/off data for the portion north of Astoria Blvd, and then on top of that, say that of the low ridership heading towards the airport itself, not all of those passengers are even heading to Flushing (in other words, a Q23 extension could easily accommodate them). But it likely wouldn't be of the tone "look at how ridiculously low these numbers are", but more "yeah, it's fairly low, and these resources could be better used elsewhere".

 

2. Well, just look at any of the Flushing- or Jamaica-based routes heading east for some heavy ridership routes that only serve one subway station. Too many to list lol.

 

3. I assume you mean the Q18/102, since the Q103 goes to an entirely different subway line (and for that matter could use the extra ridership).

 

A feeder route is simply one whose purpose is to connect a community (or several) to one major hub/major transfer point... Feeders tend to be the resultants of modes in a hub & spoke model that... well, doesn't serve a major terminal on the opposite end....

 

Basically, it doesn't have to necessarily connect two major terminals (like the Q17, for example)...

 

My mistake with the wording. I should've said "Connecting to two major hubs is the exact definition of a double feeder route" (you get a lot of people going to the two different endpoints, but very few riding it end-to-end).

 

Also, I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned this, but there is another airport that riders in eastern Queens and long island can get to if LGA isn't that accessible.

 

It's called JFK airport.

 

Nobody mentioned it because it's irrelevant.

 

In general, the primary ridership base of any airport-bound route tend to be airport employees, not airport travelers, and you can't just get people to switch jobs like that.

 

In any case, for the vast majority of airport-bound passengers coming from NE Queens (whether they're employees or travelers), JFK Airport is significantly harder to get to, compared to LGA, even with the extra transfer that would result from the Q19/48 merge.

 

Something else that would be interesting to find out is (aside from the Q70, which would be rather unfair), what percentage of each route's overall ridership are of those traveling to/from the respective airports they serve....

 

I think for the M60, they said it was something like 10% of the total ridership are heading to/from the airport. For the rest, you would need the patience to file a FOIL request with the on/off data for those routes.

[B35 via Church]

My mistake with the wording. I should've said "Connecting to two major hubs is the exact definition of a double feeder route"

(you get a lot of people going to the two different endpoints, but very few riding it end-to-end).

Figured that's what you might have meant.....

 

Nobody mentioned it because it's irrelevant.

Lol....

 

I think for the M60, they said it was something like 10% of the total ridership are heading to/from the airport.

For the rest, you would need the patience to file a FOIL request with the on/off data for those routes.

Damn... all things (riderbases) considered on the M60, 10% still seems rather low....

 

IDK, if I take last year's weekday ridership stat (~17k) & take 10% of that, that's 1770 riders a day in/out of LGA.... Still high (as that's more ridership than the Q42, M21, S66, etc. gets in a day [and the other routes in the 1k-2k range that I don't recall off-top]), but it still feels like it's more than that going in/out of LGA.....