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

[checkmatechamp13]

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.....

 

Here's the source (page 2)

 

I'm trying to break it down a little better (since they don't break it down by direction, and the M60 is a loop route through the airport).

 

So all the M60 buses together, doing all their round-trips picked up around 17,000 riders. Out of those, 1,700 riders were picked up at the airport....which means that around 1,700 riders were dropped off at the airport who were picked up at one of the other segments (Morningside Heights, 125th, or Astoria/East Elmhurst). So it's really 3,400 riders heading to/from the airport, or 20% (at least, if I'm thinking straight lol)

 

I'm assuming when they tabulate their ridership stats, those the number of people boarding buses in both directions. So (oversimplifying, since some people only take the bus in one direction, and some use a route multiple times to get between multiple jobs or whatever), a route with 17,000 riders really has around 8,500 people using it twice a day.

 

So to put it in context of this discussion, if the M60 only carried airport passengers, it would get slightly more riders compared to the Q48 in its totality, and a similar amount of riders to it's Queens local counterpart....the Q19. (To give you an idea, the B2, B37, and Bx29 are all in the mid-2000s, and the Q101 and S93 are in the low-to-mid 3000s in terms of average riders per weekday)

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

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).

 

1)I'm not saying the Q48 performs horribly, not at all. However what is ridiculous is trying to justify maintaining the route when service could be adjusted to account for any overcrowding, or rather light trips. With a combo of the two routes, there's bound to be adjustments on the Q19 in terms of headway, especially when there is evidence that the resources used could be better utilized.

 

3) Forgot about the Q18 for a minute, but you can include the Q103 too, since for several people, you can take either line. It gives them better service, which in some cases, wouldn't have to worry for taking a particular bus.

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)?

 

Well he hasn't replied back, so I believe he got the message loud and clear.

 

As for the Q48, it's a lost cause trying to send it anywhere where ridership can grow. There's nothing really around it that could serve as a trip generator (Citifield is only a seasonal thing, and even then, you don't get many people taking the bus there).

[IAlam]

Well he hasn't replied back, so I believe he got the message loud and clear.

^Hold up I was out last night, I have things to do so I'm not on the forums all day.

 

Also this is the internet so I'm not surprised that people are harsh towards one another.

 

Although I would support a universal 2 transfer system as an alternative, if someone was at Astoria and 108th st going to Flushing they would probably take the Q19 over the Q48 because the Q19 is like an express to Flushing, if the Q19 was now diverted via 108th st, then people would probably rather walk to northern and take the Q66. The Q48 isn't fast on Roosevelt, never have I said that B35, that why I said it would add commute time. Furthermore since people who live close enough to take the Q66 over the Q19 would take the Q66, it makes it more possible for Q19 to handle Q48 riders, but I could definitely see buses going over loading guidelines on the Flushing side and way below loading guidelines on the Astoria side.

 

Okay I understand the not many people are going to LGA from the east, but keep in Mind that Flushing is mainly a transfer point and not a destination. So unless a two transfer system is implemented, you are essential forcing people to pay two fares to get to the airport when they really shouldn't have to. In a city where many people can't afford cars or to take cabs, they rely on the buses and trains. Please don't give me that "since they are so poor they shouldn't be flying" you don't know why people have to go where they go, they may have no choice but to spend the money to fly. (Usually family related issues, marriage, death, etc...) 

 

BM5 just cause I stress a point in red it doesn't mean i'm lashing out on you, I was only highlighting my key point, or what I believe it the most important reason why you just can't get rid of Q48 because ridership is low at the Airport. Next time I'll pick a less intimidating color to stress my points if it makes you feel better, like cyan .

[B35 via Church]

Here's the source (page 2)

 

I'm trying to break it down a little better (since they don't break it down by direction, and the M60 is a loop route through the airport).

 

So all the M60 buses together, doing all their round-trips picked up around 17,000 riders. Out of those, 1,700 riders were picked up at the airport....which means that around 1,700 riders were dropped off at the airport who were picked up at one of the other segments (Morningside Heights, 125th, or Astoria/East Elmhurst). So it's really 3,400 riders heading to/from the airport, or 20% (at least, if I'm thinking straight lol)

 

I'm assuming when they tabulate their ridership stats, those the number of people boarding buses in both directions. So (oversimplifying, since some people only take the bus in one direction, and some use a route multiple times to get between multiple jobs or whatever), a route with 17,000 riders really has around 8,500 people using it twice a day.

 

So to put it in context of this discussion, if the M60 only carried airport passengers, it would get slightly more riders compared to the Q48 in its totality, and a similar amount of riders to it's Queens local counterpart....the Q19. (To give you an idea, the B2, B37, and Bx29 are all in the mid-2000s, and the Q101 and S93 are in the low-to-mid 3000s in terms of average riders per weekday)

The 17k is more or less representative of a summation of the number of fares paid in both directions on the M60 per day (well plus farebeaters if the b/o hits that infamous F5 button, but let's not get into that)... Looking at the 2 pie charts (11% boardings & 10% dropoffs), that averages out to 10.5 percent of overall M60 activity at LGA (for simplicity's sake, let's round that down to 10%)..... The 3400 number is adding apples & oranges; 1700 dropoffs + 1700 pickups doesn't equal 3400 paying riders.... In other words, if I pay my fare on the M60 at (lets say) Astoria Blvd & and I get off @ Central Term., I don't represent 2 people....

 

In the above paragraph, I say representative because it's really not a concrete/exact figure.... They say average bus ridership, basically because their rider calculation methods aren't 100% automated (yet)... I say yet because the MTA is supposedly considering an APC (automated passenger counting) system for calculating ridership, and doing away with relying on manual counts (boardings & dropoffs) and using our coveted AFC (automated fare control) system (the metrocard) as a means of collecting ridership data.... Manual counts are always an estimate of daily (365 day/year) bus ridership - especially when the counts are done on a select number of trips, and on top of that, the counts are done on a quarterly basis..... It's why we (on here) get up in arms whenever someone judges how poorly a route performs based on one random trip....

 

Just for shits & giggles, lets figure out the breakdown of M60 ridership (using the 17k figure & the 2 pie charts):

(In my dealings w/ the route, I tend to agree with the boarding percentages btw)

 

(per day)

boardings/dropoffs south of 125th: 3570/2890

boardings/dropoffs along 125th: 8330/8670

boardings/dropoffs in Queens outside LGA: 3230/3740

boardings/dropoffs in Queens inside LGA: 1870/1700

----

 

So yeah, assuming the ideal situation of every M60 rider using it to & fro', it's 8500 paying riders a day each way....

What it is not, is a summation of the number of pickups & dropoffs (34k paying riders a day)...

 

You would NEVER hear the end of it if the MTA recorded over 120,000 pax boarding on the B46 & the Bx12 on the weekends (saturdays+sundays).

[B35 via Church]

As for the Q48, it's a lost cause trying to send it anywhere where ridership can grow. There's nothing really around it that could serve as a trip generator (Citifield is only a seasonal thing, and even then, you don't get many people taking the bus there).

What I was asking was, is there anywhere you can send it to where ridership can grow.....

I believe that answer to be no (without being too duplicative to another service, that is)....

 

The MTA seriously needs to cut the cord with these antiquated routes & stop being so hyper-focused with Select Bus servicing everything.....

 

Although I would support a universal 2 transfer system as an alternative, if someone was at Astoria and 108th st going to Flushing they would probably take the Q19 over the Q48 because the Q19 is like an express to Flushing, if the Q19 was now diverted via 108th st, then people would probably rather walk to northern and take the Q66. The Q48 isn't fast on Roosevelt, never have I said that B35, that why I said it would add commute time. Furthermore since people who live close enough to take the Q66 over the Q19 would take the Q66, it makes it more possible for Q19 to handle Q48 riders, but I could definitely see buses going over loading guidelines on the Flushing side and way below loading guidelines on the Astoria side.

 

 

Okay I understand the not many people are going to LGA from the east, but keep in Mind that Flushing is mainly a transfer point and not a destination. So unless a two transfer system is implemented, you are essential forcing people to pay two fares to get to the airport when they really shouldn't have to. In a city where many people can't afford cars or to take cabs, they rely on the buses and trains. Please don't give me that "since they are so poor they shouldn't be flying" you don't know why people have to go where they go, they may have no choice but to spend the money to fly. (Usually family related issues, marriage, death, etc...)

I never said you said the Q48 is fast on Roosevelt.... I sarcastically posed that comment the way I did, because I find it to be nothing short of opportunistic that you brought up how slow Roosevelt av is when it pertained to the Q19 diversion - but about the Q48? Nada....

 

Of course Flushing is a major transfer point, however this isn't an excuse as to why the Q48 should remain going to the airport.... That's that  ole, what looks good on paper routine.... You say you understand not many are going to LGA from the east, but at the same time, pointing out that a 2 fare zone would be created.... The route grossly under-performs for that specific purpose (transporting riders from Flushing, to LGA & vice versa).... I'm not implicating creating a 2 fare zone isn't an issue - But at the same time, when I put that on a balance scale with how many riders the Q48 transports to/from the airport, I'm sorry, but the lack of riders on the Q48 at the airport (especially heading to Flushing) outweighs the creation of a 2 fare zone....

 

You are making an argument for the vast minority - on the surface, yes it sucks, but public transportation does not exist for the minority.... If that were the case, routes like the Q89 would not have gotten cut due to low ridership.... Again, Flushing - LGA looks good on paper, but if so many folks are emanating from points west of Flushing to get to LGA (either via the to the Q70, or via the to the M60), and the Q48 practically dies @ Northern from Flushing (and esp. at Astoria) on top of that, then it is nothing short of wasteful to keeping the 48 running to the airport..... Those are all things that work against the Q48, and the fact that eastern Queens aren't patronizing the thing to the airport does not help.....

 

The Q19 suggestion is a suggestion to sparing the part of the Q48 that does bring in a decent chunk ridership..... I'm not saying or implicating it's the end all, be all - but I have to admit, it makes sense to try to phase out the Q48 that way.... The bottom line is, have more riders utilize the Q48 to the airport & there would be zero need for this discussion..... I'll even give you (well the MTA) if Flushing - LGA travel brought in same amounts of riders that's currently transported b/w Flushing & Corona, which is being very generous (especially when you look at how much usage the Q72 & the Q70 gets from the airport) - I won't even put it to shame by comparing it w/ M60 LGA usage.....

 

And lastly, what is this garbage about since people are so poor, they shouldn't be flying? I would never make such an f***** asinine statement like that.... But regardless, don't try to change the subject to being about what class of people should be flying or not.... The MTA doesn't restrict who pays the fare on these buses (regardless of whether they're going to an airport or not), or else there'll be discrimination lawsuits all over the place... This is strictly about the MTA operated Q48 bus route & whether it can be effectively phased out or not....

[IAlam]

What I was asking was, is there anywhere you can send it to where ridership can grow.....

I believe that answer to be no (without being too duplicative to another service, that is)....

 

The MTA seriously needs to cut the cord with these antiquated routes & stop being so hyper-focused with Select Bus servicing everything.....

 

I never said you said the Q48 is fast on Roosevelt.... I sarcastically posed that comment the way I did, because I find it to be nothing short of opportunistic that you brought up how slow Roosevelt av is when it pertained to the Q19 diversion - but about the Q48? Nada....

 

Of course Flushing is a major transfer point, however this isn't an excuse as to why the Q48 should remain going to the airport.... That's that  ole, what looks good on paper routine.... You say you understand not many are going to LGA from the east, but at the same time, pointing out that a 2 fare zone would be created.... The route grossly under-performs for that specific purpose (transporting riders from Flushing, to LGA & vice versa).... I'm not implicating creating a 2 fare zone isn't an issue - But at the same time, when I put that on a balance scale with how many riders the Q48 transports to/from the airport, I'm sorry, but the lack of riders on the Q48 at the airport (especially heading to Flushing) outweighs the creation of a 2 fare zone....

 

You are making an argument for the vast minority - on the surface, yes it sucks, but public transportation does not exist for the minority.... If that were the case, routes like the Q89 would not have gotten cut due to low ridership.... Again, Flushing - LGA looks good on paper, but if so many folks are emanating from points west of Flushing to get to LGA (either via the to the Q70, or via the to the M60), and the Q48 practically dies @ Northern from Flushing (and esp. at Astoria) on top of that, then it is nothing short of wasteful to keeping the 48 running to the airport..... Those are all things that work against the Q48, and the fact that eastern Queens aren't patronizing the thing to the airport does not help.....

 

The Q19 suggestion is a suggestion to sparing the part of the Q48 that does bring in a decent chunk ridership..... I'm not saying or implicating it's the end all, be all - but I have to admit, it makes sense to try to phase out the Q48 that way.... The bottom line is, have more riders utilize the Q48 to the airport & there would be zero need for this discussion..... I'll even give you (well the MTA) if Flushing - LGA travel brought in same amounts of riders that's currently transported b/w Flushing & Corona, which is being very generous (especially when you look at how much usage the Q72 & the Q70 gets from the airport) - I won't even put it to shame by comparing it w/ M60 LGA usage.....

 

And lastly, what is this garbage about since people are so poor, they shouldn't be flying? I would never make such an f***** asinine statement like that.... But regardless, don't try to change the subject to being about what class of people should be flying or not.... The MTA doesn't restrict who pays the fare on these buses (regardless of whether they're going to an airport or not), or else there'll be discrimination lawsuits all over the place... This is strictly about the MTA operated Q48 bus route & whether it can be effectively phased out or not....

The Q48 was never meant to be a fast route. The confusion is that, it would harm Q19 riders who have a quick route to Flushing now, if they had to go on the Q48 route. 

 

If its phased out you want, it probably not going to happen until the LGA airtrain is complete and the MTA implements it's new fare payment system which is supposed to allow for new transfer opportunities. For the mean time I can see short runs being a possibility but not a complete suspension of service to the airport. 

 

That's for everyone reading the article there's always one idiot. 

[B35 via Church]

The Q48 was never meant to be a fast route. The confusion is that, it would harm Q19 riders who have a quick route to Flushing now, if they had to go on the Q48 route. 

 

If its phased out you want, it probably not going to happen until the LGA airtrain is complete and the MTA implements it's new fare payment system which is supposed to allow for new transfer opportunities. For the mean time I can see short runs being a possibility but not a complete suspension of service to the airport. 

 

That's for everyone reading the article there's always one idiot. 

- The fact that the Q48 isn't a fast route doesn't factor into why the route sees so few airport riders.... I got your point about the Q19 being slowed along Roosevelt, and like I told BM5, I don't believe your concern for the Q19 in that aspect to be genuine.... Instead, a sticking point to leaving the Q48 alone & nothing more.....

 

- To be perfectly honest, as long as this antiquated route perishes & is replaced by a more modernized route that better reflects current ridership needs for the communities it passes through, I have no qualms.... It doesn't necessarily have to involve the Q19 either.... It can be contingent on the creation of another mode for as long as it likes (the MTA seldom ever makes good on its promises in a prompt fashion anyway)...

 

....and forget about short turns shuttles b/w Flushing & Corona or anything like that - especially if the MTA goes through with Cuomo's proposal! The message that will be put out there is that riders could take the or the Q66, which won't affect too many riders (is the jargon the MTA likes to spew).....

 

- Don't know what article you're talking about....

[checkmatechamp13]

Okay I understand the not many people are going to LGA from the east, but keep in Mind that Flushing is mainly a transfer point and not a destination. So unless a two transfer system is implemented, you are essential forcing people to pay two fares to get to the airport when they really shouldn't have to. In a city where many people can't afford cars or to take cabs, they rely on the buses and trains. Please don't give me that "since they are so poor they shouldn't be flying" you don't know why people have to go where they go, they may have no choice but to spend the money to fly. (Usually family related issues, marriage, death, etc...) 

 

Flushing is a big enough destination in and of itself. There's lots of stores, and a decent amount of apartment buildings in the area. (Heck, the Q48 even runs alongside the Bland Houses just before its terminal). So not everybody on the Q48 is using it to transfer.

 

The 17k is more or less representative of a summation of the number of fares paid in both directions on the M60 per day (well plus farebeaters if the b/o hits that infamous F5 button, but let's not get into that)... Looking at the 2 pie charts (11% boardings & 10% dropoffs), that averages out to 10.5 percent of overall M60 activity at LGA (for simplicity's sake, let's round that down to 10%)..... The 3400 number is adding apples & oranges; 1700 dropoffs + 1700 pickups doesn't equal 3400 paying riders.... In other words, if I pay my fare on the M60 at (lets say) Astoria Blvd & and I get off @ Central Term., I don't represent 2 people....

 

In the above paragraph, I say representative because it's really not a concrete/exact figure.... They say average bus ridership, basically because their rider calculation methods aren't 100% automated (yet)... I say yet because the MTA is supposedly considering an APC (automated passenger counting) system for calculating ridership, and doing away with relying on manual counts (boardings & dropoffs) and using our coveted AFC (automated fare control) system (the metrocard) as a means of collecting ridership data.... Manual counts are always an estimate of daily (365 day/year) bus ridership - especially when the counts are done on a select number of trips, and on top of that, the counts are done on a quarterly basis..... It's why we (on here) get up in arms whenever someone judges how poorly a route performs based on one random trip....

 

I think we're basically on the same page. You're saying that out of roughly 8,500 passengers in each direction, 1,700 can be attributed to the airport (for the eastbound passengers, 1,700 passengers were dropped off at the airport after having boarded during some other segment, and for the westbound passengers, 1,700 boarded at the airport), and I'm saying out of all 17,000 passengers total, 3,400 can be attributed to the airport (basically, adding 1,700 and 1,700).

 

So in the case of a passenger boarding at 31st Street to go to the airport, they would be counted as one airport-bound passenger. (1/8500 of the total eastbound ridership, and 1/1700 of airport-bound eastbound ridership)

 

The MTA says they're able to use BusTime to estimate boarding and disembarking activity. There's a Powerpoint they put up somewhere that shows them using it to estimate crowds on the Bx4. So say somebody boarded at The Hub at 7AM, and later boarded at Westchester & Southern (westbound) at 4PM. They would link those two together, and assume that one person was traveling between The Hub and Westchester & Southern at those times, and then figure out everybody's trips, and use those to figure out the crowding on any given bus.

 

At the Hackathon, they were able to tell us the time and location of the most crowded timeframe along each route, with this data (so to interpret the data, the busiest half-hour period on the northbound S52 was between 8AM and 8:30AM, after passing Jersey & Crescent (which is a couple of stops before Curtis HS, which makes sense). There were 123 passengers passing through that point during that interval, for an average load of 62 passengers per bus. 

 

But some of those numbers don't make sense (the busiest S44s only had 33 passengers at their most crowded point?), so there's still a lot of work to be done. I guess they don't take into account people paying with coins (not sure how you can guess where they got off, unless they made a transfer), and there's not that many farebeaters to be throwing off the numbers like that (if I had to guess, the actual average load would probably be around 60 or so, and there's no way that almost half of that bus farebeat).

 

So yeah, hopefully they get those APC systems installed, because their BusTime data really needs work.

 

If its phased out you want, it probably not going to happen until the LGA airtrain is complete and the MTA implements it's new fare payment system which is supposed to allow for new transfer opportunities. For the mean time I can see short runs being a possibility but not a complete suspension of service to the airport. 

 

I think the Q48 is too infrequent to really be running short-turns. The route only runs every 15-20 minutes for most of the day, so short-turning half the buses would mean serving LGA on 30-40 minute headways. 

 

....and forget about short turns shuttles b/w Flushing & Corona or anything like that - especially if the MTA goes through with Cuomo's proposal! The message that will be put out there is that riders could take the or the Q66, which won't affect too many riders (is the jargon the MTA likes to spew).....

 

- Don't know what article you're talking about....

 

Not that it makes a difference, but I think PANYNJ would be the one to build and operate the AirTrain (like they do at JFK). Of course, anything the MTA decides to do with the Q48 as a result of that would fall on the MTA's shoulders.

 

And I think he's referring to his post, which is why he highlighted it (in other words, for anybody who jumps in with the classic "if they're too poor, they shouldn't be flying" line, not everybody is traveling for pleasure). But of course, as we covered earlier, most airport-bound passengers on local buses (and even the AirTrain at EWR & JFK to a lesser extent) are employees, not flight passengers, so there's no need for that anyway.

[Q43LTD]

I don't mean to go off topic, but where is this Air Train to LaGuardia supposed to come from? Astoria or Flushing? I mean granted the Air train "sort of" eliminated the Q10A. I don't think Q48 will eliminated if and when it comes to fruition. I mean, there's really nothing you can do for it. Combining it with the Q26 or any route that travels east of Flushing is out of the question. Even short turning it at Corona or East Elmhurst is out of the question.

- The should definitely copyright that phrase. "We're cutting service where not too many people will be affected". Makes one wonder how many people is "not too many"

[IAlam]

- Don't know what article you're talking about....

 

And I think he's referring to his post, which is why he highlighted it (in other words, for anybody who jumps in with the classic "if they're too poor, they shouldn't be flying" line, not everybody is traveling for pleasure). But of course, as we covered earlier, most airport-bound passengers on local buses (and even the AirTrain at EWR & JFK to a lesser extent) are employees, not flight passengers, so there's no need for that anyway.

 

Yeah that way a typo

 

But checkmatechamp13 I've gained respect for you after how you handled everything. A+ keep up the good work. 

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't mean to go off topic, but where is this Air Train to LaGuardia supposed to come from? Astoria or Flushing? I mean granted the Air train "sort of" eliminated the Q10A. I don't think Q48 will eliminated if and when it comes to fruition. I mean, there's really nothing you can do for it. Combining it with the Q26 or any route that travels east of Flushing is out of the question. Even short turning it at Corona or East Elmhurst is out of the question.

- The should definitely copyright that phrase. "We're cutting service where not too many people will be affected". Makes one wonder how many people is "not too many"

 

It's supposed to come from Willets Point if I understand correctly (yes, I was shocked they couldn't even extend it to Flushing). AFAIC, the obvious way to get LGA access is to extend the Astoria Line, but that's for a completely different discussion.

 

Yeah that way a typo

 

But checkmatechamp13 I've gained respect for you after how you handled everything. A+ keep up the good work. 

 

No problem. I mean, you do have to take everything into consideration when making these types of decisions, and it's important to be clear on which statistics should be interpreted in which manner, and try to minimize the overall negative impact. The issue of extra fares, overcrowding, and longer travel times shouldn't just be ignored: It should try to be minimized (in this case, by running the combined route more frequently, and programming in an extra transfer). 

 

On a side note, bringing in some real statistics into this discussion (presumably the same ones the MTA would use in making this decision), page 35 of the NE Queens Bus Study (page 39 of the PDF) shows that 22% of Q48 passengers transfer to/from the subway (presumably at 111th Street). Page 41 (page 45 of the PDF) shows that 40% of Q48 riders don't have to make any transfers at all. (And the remaining 38% transfer to another bus). Page B-21 (page 101 of the PDF) shows the 5 busiest stops on the Q48 (interestingly enough, it seems there's more people using the Q48 to go from Flushing to Terminal B, compared to the reverse trip, presumably because it's more direct)

 

Just for comparison purposes, the Q19 has 34% remaining on a single bus, and 25% transferring to the subway (most of those going to/from the Astoria Line for obvious reasons). See page B-8 (page 88 of the PDF).

 

Of course, take those stats with a grain of salt, since they have 6 eastbound riders boarding the Q48 at Roosevelt & Main (presumably, they got on before the B/O changed the sign or something). Also, not sure why Willets Point is so busy westbound, especially on an average weekday (I don't watch baseball, but I'm pretty sure the Mets don't play every day lol. Maybe they got off the express or work in the industrial part of Willets Point). College Point Blvd I could understand, but why is it not a busy stop heading eastbound?

 

Based purely off those stats, the arguments in favor of keeping the current setup are that Main & Northern is the third-busiest stop on the Q19 (and those riders would basically be forced to rely on the Q66 for westbound service unless they walked to Roosevelt), and that roughly 13% of the Q48's overall ridership is a result of Central Terminal. In other words, it's busier than most of the individual Corona stops, but there's a lot of dead mileage between Astoria Blvd & the airport.

 

However, that doesn't negate the fact that you could justify increasing frequencies for the whole route if it were to be combined, and the fact that there would be savings available to reinvest in the system overall. (Also, in terms of raw numbers, the amount of people who would have to make an extra transfer is relatively low)

[B35 via Church]

I don't mean to go off topic, but where is this Air Train to LaGuardia supposed to come from? Astoria or Flushing? I mean granted the Air train "sort of" eliminated the Q10A. I don't think Q48 will eliminated if and when it comes to fruition. I mean, there's really nothing you can do for it. Combining it with the Q26 or any route that travels east of Flushing is out of the question. Even short turning it at Corona or East Elmhurst is out of the question.

- The should definitely copyright that phrase. "We're cutting service where not too many people will be affected". Makes one wonder how many people is "not too many"

- Neither... It's to run from the area around Citifield....

 

- This is a running joke I have, but it's true.... The Q10/LTD caused the Q10a's demise  

 

I think we're basically on the same page. You're saying that out of roughly 8,500 passengers in each direction, 1,700 can be attributed to the airport (for the eastbound passengers, 1,700 passengers were dropped off at the airport after having boarded during some other segment, and for the westbound passengers, 1,700 boarded at the airport), and I'm saying out of all 17,000 passengers total, 3,400 can be attributed to the airport (basically, adding 1,700 and 1,700).

 

So in the case of a passenger boarding at 31st Street to go to the airport, they would be counted as one airport-bound passenger. (1/8500 of the total eastbound ridership, and 1/1700 of airport-bound eastbound ridership)

I was just about to ask a clarifying question, but that very last statement/paragraph did it for me.... So yeah, we on the same page.

 

....and +1 to the rest of the post.

[bobtehpanda]

Based purely off those stats, the arguments in favor of keeping the current setup are that Main & Northern is the third-busiest stop on the Q19 (and those riders would basically be forced to rely on the Q66 for westbound service unless they walked to Roosevelt), and that roughly 13% of the Q48's overall ridership is a result of Central Terminal. In other words, it's busier than most of the individual Corona stops, but there's a lot of dead mileage between Astoria Blvd & the airport.

 

I would wager that that's because Main Street is such a slow slog, particularly during the peak. It's the same reason why Kissena/Sanford eastbound sees a lot of people getting off buses coming from the south; the trip on Main St is so slow that you would be better off walking the remaining difference to the rest of the transit hub.

[pranavbhat924]

I think that the Q10A would have had little to no ridership especially because it leaves from Kew Gardens and goes directly to JFK. The number of people taking the whole trip is like 15% of everyone else.

[IAlam]

Of course, take those stats with a grain of salt, since they have 6 eastbound riders boarding the Q48 at Roosevelt & Main (presumably, they got on before the B/O changed the sign or something). Also, not sure why Willets Point is so busy westbound, especially on an average weekday (I don't watch baseball, but I'm pretty sure the Mets don't play every day lol. Maybe they got off the express or work in the industrial part of Willets Point). College Point Blvd I could understand, but why is it not a busy stop heading eastbound?

B/O's and T/O's coming from the east take the Q48 to the depo 

[B35 via Church]

Of course, take those stats with a grain of salt, since they have 6 eastbound riders boarding the Q48 at Roosevelt & Main (presumably, they got on before the B/O changed the sign or something). Also, not sure why Willets Point is so busy westbound, especially on an average weekday (I don't watch baseball, but I'm pretty sure the Mets don't play every day lol. Maybe they got off the express or work in the industrial part of Willets Point). College Point Blvd I could understand, but why is it not a busy stop heading eastbound?

Nope, not Iron Triangle workers.... Nor does it have much to do with the Mets....

 

It's Flushing Meadows Corona Park goers; Hispanics & Whites heading up towards Northern Blvd.... Those are not people coming from Flushing & points east....

 

[East New York]

The Q48 was never meant to be a fast route. The confusion is that, it would harm Q19 riders who have a quick route to Flushing now, if they had to go on the Q48 route. 

 

If its phased out you want, it probably not going to happen until the LGA airtrain is complete and the MTA implements it's new fare payment system which is supposed to allow for new transfer opportunities. For the mean time I can see short runs being a possibility but not a complete suspension of service to the airport. 

 

That's for everyone reading the article there's always one idiot. 

 

How exactly is the new fare payment system supposed to allow for "new transfer opportunities?"

 

They aren't considering ending service to the airport. Just the Marine Air Terminal. The M60 is also being re-routed through the airport loop.

[checkmatechamp13]

How exactly is the new fare payment system supposed to allow for "new transfer opportunities?"

 

They aren't considering ending service to the airport. Just the Marine Air Terminal. The M60 is also being re-routed through the airport loop.

 

They could program the new SmartCards to allow unlimited transfers (or universal double transfers or something similar)

[bobtehpanda]

How exactly is the new fare payment system supposed to allow for "new transfer opportunities?"

 

They aren't considering ending service to the airport. Just the Marine Air Terminal. The M60 is also being re-routed through the airport loop.

 

Smartcards are capable of handling more information than magnetic strips. Many places that have smartcards have widespread out-of-system transfers (DC, London, etc.) that under the current Metrocard system can't be implemented effectively.

[DS4Ever]

theres no problem to have the q48 and m60 bypass MAT since by far one can transfer freely to a PA bus shuttle and thus access the Terminal A so its no big deal the bypass the Q47 has to terminate there by law since it is the only terminal of LGA that a bus can stop to rest since Terminals B C and D are passby

[DetSMART45]

They could program the new SmartCards to allow unlimited transfers (or universal double transfers or something similar)

 

 

Smartcards are capable of handling more information than magnetic strips. Many places that have smartcards have widespread out-of-system transfers (DC, London, etc.) that under the current Metrocard system can't be implemented effectively.

So why hasn't the antiquated system of transfers been done away with already?

 

I get how paper transfers can't really be feasible between modes, but MetroCard could handle much more than it does right now.  Transfers (in my estimation) should be an extra 25 cents, and put a three- or four-hour limit on them.  That way, you're taking into effect a much broader range of options between modes (i.e. bus/subway) but you also could include railroads/Express bus (if need be) with a necessary upcharge.  If a customer opts to swap between modes because of transit problems (gee...imagine that) then they have opportunity to do so.  Plenty of places allowed that even BEFORE getting to "smartcard" status.

 

I just don't get how everything's going to come out in the wash so much better if you keep the same system as the basis for whatever "new."

[Gotham Bus Co.]

So why hasn't the antiquated system of transfers been done away with already?

 

I get how paper transfers can't really be feasible between modes, but MetroCard could handle much more than it does right now.  Transfers (in my estimation) should be an extra 25 cents, and put a three- or four-hour limit on them.  That way, you're taking into effect a much broader range of options between modes (i.e. bus/subway) but you also could include railroads/Express bus (if need be) with a necessary upcharge.  If a customer opts to swap between modes because of transit problems (gee...imagine that) then they have opportunity to do so.  Plenty of places allowed that even BEFORE getting to "smartcard" status.

 

I just don't get how everything's going to come out in the wash so much better if you keep the same system as the basis for whatever "new."

 

 

I have always liked the idea of replacing transfers with a time-based pass. With one dip on a local bus or swipe at a turnstile, you get your run of the "base" system for three or four hours (maybe five overnight). 

 

At the same time, I've never liked the idea of charging for transfers. By definition, the network can't possibly offer a one-seat ride for every origin-destination pair; some passengers will always need to transfer and they shouldn't be penalized for that.

[bobtehpanda]

So why hasn't the antiquated system of transfers been done away with already?

 

I get how paper transfers can't really be feasible between modes, but MetroCard could handle much more than it does right now.  Transfers (in my estimation) should be an extra 25 cents, and put a three- or four-hour limit on them.  That way, you're taking into effect a much broader range of options between modes (i.e. bus/subway) but you also could include railroads/Express bus (if need be) with a necessary upcharge.  If a customer opts to swap between modes because of transit problems (gee...imagine that) then they have opportunity to do so.  Plenty of places allowed that even BEFORE getting to "smartcard" status.

 

I just don't get how everything's going to come out in the wash so much better if you keep the same system as the basis for whatever "new."

 

 

I have always liked the idea of replacing transfers with a time-based pass. With one dip on a local bus or swipe at a turnstile, you get your run of the "base" system for three or four hours (maybe five overnight). 

 

At the same time, I've never liked the idea of charging for transfers. By definition, the network can't possibly offer a one-seat ride for every origin-destination pair; some passengers will always need to transfer and they shouldn't be penalized for that.

 

We already have a time-based monthly and a time based weekly. We used to have a day pass and a biweekly pass, but those got scrapped due to lack of demand, or cost, or some other reason.

 

The main problem with a time-based pass is that, well, one, I don't believe it should be more than two hours. How many people are making three-legged trips where there are more than two hours between the first and last swipe? The other issue is that it kind of blows a hole into the budget giving all those free rides away (much like the original Metrocard with a single free transfer has kept the avg price paid for a ride down), and without exit tapping on the subway it becomes very difficult to tell if someone is continuing a trip or making a trip in the reverse direction. If you raise the price to compensate, you just essentially raised the cash fare for a single trip, and given that the poor disproportionately pay the cash fare, you have a very big societal impact as well.

[CPBO]

Of course it is feasible. The terrain is not so hilly in that area of East Elmhurst/Corona, and the Q19 already goes non-stop to Main Street anyways (from 108 Street). Might as well turn that into some more useful mileage, especially since the Q66 also runs that way already.

 

With the Q23, at least on weekdays, not every bus has to serve LGA. Every other bus can serve LGA during weekday periods until about 9:00-9:30 PM.

The q19 goes non-stop to mainstream from 108? That's gotta be like a dream, even if the Bo said I don't stop here. The bus is suppose to make both stops by the junk yards and the one stop on the other side going to LIC. When it came out of college poinr, we made the stops!

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The q19 goes non-stop to mainstream from 108? That's gotta be like a dream, even if the Bo said I don't stop here. The bus is suppose to make both stops by the junk yards and the one stop on the other side going to LIC. When it came out of college poinr, we made the stops!

There's been confusion over if there really is a stop there or not, and depending on the BO, they will or will not stop there. Given how IIRC, there's only signage for the Q66, it confuses people (and BO's). I believe that they are suppose to stop there, though. However, not many people use those stops, so they end up going non-stop until Main Street from 108 Street anyways. There really wouldn't be so much of a problem having people switch to the Q66 if they needed that stop, if the Q19 was rerouted via the Q48 route South & East of 108 Street.