Cait Sith Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1776 Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 56 minutes ago, N6 Limited said: I like Checkmatechamp's idea as well, It would provide crosstown bus connections, a connection to the LIRR and open up easier use of City Ticket/Atlantic Ticket, etc. At the same time, that route would serve one local stop on Merrick ,which was your main issue about the purple routes vs QT18. No it wasn't.... My main issue with the QT18 is that it did not complement or correspond with any of the purple line routes(which I have said about 3 times already). If there was such a route, I'd 100% accept the QT18 as it is because again, that would promote options and connectivity. There should be a local route from Jamaica Center going down Merrick Blvd as well as the QT18, but there isn't, which is my main gripe. The purple routes are also not 24/7, so there should most definitely be a local variant to Jamaica Center because no one is really going to walk from Jamaica Center to Merrick for a bus(which again goes back to the point of unnecessary transfers). It would work in tandem with the QT18 and would provide a legitimate alternative, but with the QT18 being the sole local-ish route on the corridor, that in itself created disjointed service on the blvd. Jamaica Center in that draft would turn into a largely purple line terminal, and not everyone from there is looking for an limited/express(and not everyone is taking dollar vans either), and that in itself is a pretty large service cut from Jamaica Center, while benefiting the few to/from Hillside. The way they are going about Jamaica Center service is basically using the "rob Peter to pay Paul" ideology, and it pretty much defeats the connectivity argument, especially after certain times of the day. From what I understood from Checkmatechamp, the route he proposed would've ran down Merrick to Brinkerhoff(and I think across Brinkerhoff, but it's better than nothing), but me personally, considering that there's ridership data that proves that there's a significant ridership base at the local stops(along with ridership data by line, because there ain't no way that only certain outward segments of those lines garnered that much ridership) between Liberty and Springfield, I'd rather see it go farther southward....to at least Springfield. It would keep services across the blvd pretty streamlined with decent options, almost like how they're envisioning Guy R. Brewer Blvd to be. And the fact that you and him focused solely on the and riders was very telling to be honest, considering that I mentioned / passengers as well in my post. And those riders would also get screwed pretty hard from the aforementioned changes, and they are no small group of riders either. Edited January 16, 2022 by Cait Sith 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1777 Posted January 16, 2022 4 hours ago, N6 Limited said: The QT18 is a cost cutting measure and efficient utilization of resources, which may promote ridership as it connects two disjointed corridors with through trips. The cost savings allow them to create new routes and service plans. They essentially got feedback from riders that they want a faster ride to the subway, and they said "we have all these overlapping routes on Merrick Blvd and Hillside, how can we address this concern?" and the QT18 was born. I'm not saying ridership is so low that it doesn't matter, what I'm saying is that the local stops are flanked by express stops in the southern portion of the route and the northern portion has the Guy R Brewer corridor that's a 5 min walk away with service to Jamaica Center. It's not that I have issues with the local stops, it's that you are acting like they have NO other options to get to Jamaica Center, if they really needed it. Many are just trying to get to Jamaica Ave or the QB Express. As for the n6x, they reinstated one stop at the edge of the county, midway (1 mile) between two existing express stops where the bus would be waiting for a traffic signal anyway, it will not slow down the route, but will speed up travel for commuters in the area who need to go in either direction to work, not just the subway. NYC is different, because many of the traffic signals are timed to about 25 seconds of green, and each stop gets the bus caught at a red signal. Making service faster for riders shouldn't have to come with a corridor ONLY having some skip-stop service run along it.... Nested skip-stop services with no local variant to speak of along a corridor complicates matters... So yeah, it's how they're going about instantiating that particular intricacy of bus travel.... Furthermore, I'm not acting like there's no other options for the current local riders that would have matters exacerbated, my argument the whole time is riders' commutes are intentionally being made worse by increased walking... Taking issue with a systematic thinning out of stops isn't the same argument as specifically arguing that riders having no other options.... I see what the plan entails, so please stop acting like you're the only person here with eyeballs & some deeper understanding of what's been presented with this redesign that those of us that are critical of the redesign doesn't somehow understand.... It appears to me that you have zero interest in the network design aspect of the redesign & you're solely going all in on *as long as the buses are fast(er)* - no matter what... Your disposition when it comes to having local riders engage in an increased amount of walking to (whatever) bus route, is that it's some negligible factor - since the ultimate result is to have (whatever) bus route end up being faster... You can't claim that you have no issues with local stops, yet take issue with people (because it's not just me in this discussion regarding that particular aspect) that's defending maintaining local stops in general.... You can't claim you have no issues with local stops, when you sarcastically state "Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives?"... 5 hours ago, N6 Limited said: I agree, every routing does not have to have a routing change, but improvements should be made where possible. Yes, riders have posed legitimate concerns to the MTA , I know the Jackson Heights area had voiced their concerns, the proposal straightened out routes and because of that they would connect to non-ADA accessible stations. I haven't actually addressed any particular rider's direct critiques, just talking points on this forum on behalf of riders. Sure, improvements should be made where possible... Funny thing about improvements though is that they're subjective... We can go back & forth as to what constitutes an improvement until we're [long in the tooth] & [dead & rotten].... There's really no smoking gun, *right* answer, per se.... Ah, so you think those of us that are critical of this redesign are just defending other riders.... Well that can't be the case when @Cait Sith & @IAlam (Queens residents in their own rights) shared how this redesign would stand to personally, negatively affect them.... Despite the fact that I'm not a Queens resident, I don't think it's a secret that I take buses (moreso than trains) all over the place - and not solely for discretionary travel either.... When I make my assessments of these changes, I'm not only defending current riders, but how these services would affect my use of buses in the borough also.... 6 hours ago, N6 Limited said: That would be interesting, it's clear they're using Remix for the Brooklyn redesign as well, and they're doing those joint blue routes between the two boroughs. Come to think of it, with this Queens draft, they split the limited and local routes into distinct numbers/routes all together. I wonder if they'll do purple routes along Utica Ave or something. With the QT5 maybe they're relying on the bus not having to pull in and out of traffic to maintain time. I don't really feel like speculating what atrocity they'll come up with for the Brooklyn redesign, but since you bring up Utica, yeah, they'll likely can local service & superimpose a purple route & a red route along it... Oh, that's definitely the thought process behind that QT5 - make an (unreasonably) low amount of stops along the corridor to try to have that offset, or kill runtime, since it's a narrow, congested corridor... That sounds nice in a vacuum, but ask any express bus rider what being stuck on a highway feels like... "I didn't pay $7.50 for this shit".... That will be the same feeling when would-be riders on the QT5 are confined to enjoying their "speed" (and I'm not quoting you with that, I'm emphasizing the word there) on the same narrow, slow, sole lane of moving traffic along 101st that the Q8 does.... @Cait Sith can tell you this, the complaint for literally decades is that the Q24 (even moreso than the Q8) has been slow as shit in that area, yet they prioritize their rendition of a super limited on a corridor that has less moving lanes of traffic to work with? That is how I know this wasn't truly a clean slate approach & that they were trying to drum up an enhanced, but different, form of the Q8... The MTA has always underestimated the Q24 anyway, so it's not too surprising to me.... Still though, to have that many stops being skipped along 101st av specifically, because you have 2 generally proximate green routes total above & below it, is devoid of logic... There's no defending that... None.... The corridors of Liberty, 101st, and Atlantic aren't at all interchangeable - and that's what this plan is trying to have accomplished in that part of Queens with that QT5... A whopping total of 2 f***ing stops along 101st is one of the biggest middle fingers the MTA can give residents that live in that part of Queens.... Not only don't most riders in that part of the borough get to directly benefit from this *faster* route (QT5), your surrounding local routes (QT24, QT67) will run less frequent on top of it.... In your attempted defense of the thing, when you said the riders aren't on 101st av, isn't the point at all & it came across as being very insensitive to the plight of those riders... I would personally be livid if I'm on a bus that's only supposed to be making 2 stops along a corridor it spends a good part of the route traveling on, but not traveling nearly significantly faster than the Q8.... Kind of like riders' frustrations with the when it has a tendency to crawl b/w Roosevelt av & 21st st... Or better yet, riders on the & b/w 59th & 125th with all them goddamn timers... It's to the point where I go out of my way to avoid CPW when I'm coming from Upper Manhattan, or the Bronx.... 6 hours ago, N6 Limited said: I don't have an issue with a route that runs along most of Merrick. My issue is that SE queens riders asked for a quicker ride to the subway, they offered a proposal and the only complaints I've heard about the QT18 and the QT42 routing has been on this forum, not at the community meeting. "because the local route doesn't go to Jamaica Center" meanwhile it also serves Jamaica Ave and the QB Express which is where most riders are going, and provides choices to the corridor. Also, of course if all buses on Merrick Blvd go to Jamaica Center, than it's riders are going to go to Jamaica Center to get on the train. Yeah, just when it's local. Anyway, that's just it.... Although I haven't made it a sticking point, in reading your assessments of the redesign, I don't get the sense you're really concerned about SE Queens riders; it has & does come off like it's contrived... You don't speak with the same fervor that you do about the n6 (the actual route, not because it happens to be part of your user handle on here) & NICE riders on NICE bus, that you do about MTA routes.... There was a difference with the way you were expressing yourself when it came to my lack of support for that stop addition on the n6x at UBS & the way you're expressing yourself regarding this redesign (or, defending yourself against those that are critical of the redesign on here).... The fact that you've only heard complaints about those routes on this forum, doesn't mean that there isn't a concern or legitimate critique to be had about them at all; rather odd for you to implicate that.... It also doesn't mean that everybody, or the lion's share, or even much of anyone in SE Queens are exactly in lock-step with what the MTA's proposing for the area either.... I would argue that most riders don't care about the entirety of a bus network - just what some part of it (as in, the current network or a redesigned network) will or won't do for them.... I'm looking at the entire network & coming to a conclusion... The entirety of it... Not just SE Queens, not just areas I frequent more than most, all of it... People can concur or become an opposing interlocutor... It is what it is.... A bus network isn't a good network, just because buses in that bus network are being attempted to be made faster... That is what the MTA wants riders to think - full knowing they can sweep service levels, and/or any other intricacies that factor into operating buses in a bus network right up from under the rug from them.... You appear to think that the MTA is sympathetic to the plight of riders, when they only care about their bottom line.... That is & will be the case, regardless if they maintain the current network, 100% double-down on the redesign in the draft plan, or come out with a finalized, modified version of the draft plan offered..... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1778 Posted January 16, 2022 Really, the way those purple routes are structured in that draft leaves a lot to be desired. The thing that really pains me, however, is that they're specifically designed to have red routes as their locals, as opposed to green routes. As the reds are glorified limited-stop routes that seem to be some weird mix of the greens and blues, the "nonstop" parts of the purple routes effectively have no locals, leading to gaps that typically range from 1/3 to 1/2 mile (average stop spacing is usually within that range). The QT18 is a particularly egregious red route on a red-purple corridor because it's a red route on two red-purple corridors. The QT65 is of little use because it has worse integration with Merrick Boulevard than the Q60 on Sutphin Boulevard or (arguably) the Q89, since that at least had the decency to stay on the corridor from Jamaica to a point where it broke away and never returned (and for longer, to boot!). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1779 Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, Cait Sith said: No it wasn't.... He said it to you & he's doing the same thing with me, talking about I'm acting like local riders have no other options... That comes across as a projection of his unwanting of local stops & I happen to agree with you when you claimed that he's (@N6 Limited) being selfish in this ordeal.... 8 hours ago, Cait Sith said: My main issue with the QT18 is that it did not complement or correspond with any of the purple line routes(which I have said about 3 times already). If there was such a route, I'd 100% accept the QT18 as it is because again, that would promote options and connectivity. There should be a local route from Jamaica Center going down Merrick Blvd as well as the QT18, but there isn't, which is my main gripe. The purple routes are also not 24/7, so there should most definitely be a local variant to Jamaica Center because no one is really going to walk from Jamaica Center to Merrick for a bus(which again goes back to the point of unnecessary transfers). It would work in tandem with the QT18 and would provide a legitimate alternative, but with the QT18 being the sole local-ish route on the corridor, that in itself created disjointed service on the blvd. I don't see what is so hard to understand... A local route should run concurrent with a skip-stop service along a major, high ridership corridor like Merrick Blvd (that isn't to say that every corridor should have a local/skip-stop service setup, before someone tries to bring that up as a counterargument).... The fact that [Merrick connects with Hillside in the street grid] & that [Merrick & Hillside are both high ridership corridors] definitely does not mean that a route should be formulated, considering those two individual factors.... Being hyperfocused with data plotting is what's wrong with the MLB now.... Intangibles matter..... Start bringing up in the subway section that the QB local, or the Lex local, or the Broadway local, etc. should somehow be bastardized or even eliminated & see the lambasting/cooking that would transpire over there... At this point, it's being intellectually dishonest & it's really sounding like qjtransit_______'s SPEEEEEED rhetoric.... There is a reason that the MTA promoted dualistic concepts (pick this facet or that facet, because you aint getting both... an example is the whole frequency vs. coverage bit), instead of trying to formulate a complete network... But all this increased connectivity is supposed to transpire..... I'm going to continue to say that this proposed network is disjointed, because it is... What's going on with Merrick Blvd is only one example of it.... None of the 4 service types correspond with each other in this network, none of them... That is by design because its cheaper to implement.... Edited January 16, 2022 by B35 via Church 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1780 Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lex said: Really, the way those purple routes are structured in that draft leaves a lot to be desired. The thing that really pains me, however, is that they're specifically designed to have red routes as their locals, as opposed to green routes. As the reds are glorified limited-stop routes that seem to be some weird mix of the greens and blues, the "nonstop" parts of the purple routes effectively have no locals, leading to gaps that typically range from 1/3 to 1/2 mile (average stop spacing is usually within that range). The QT18 is a particularly egregious red route on a red-purple corridor because it's a red route on two red-purple corridors. The QT65 is of little use because it has worse integration with Merrick Boulevard than the Q60 on Sutphin Boulevard or (arguably) the Q89, since that at least had the decency to stay on the corridor from Jamaica to a point where it broke away and never returned (and for longer, to boot!). That's the concern/argument here, that this redesigned network is more broken than the current network.... But I'm supposed to believe there's this increase of connectivity, network-wide.... The reds aren't a mix of greens & blues though, they're an often forgotten, sorry ass team that plays in Cincinnati the reds are basically enhanced greens (is what they're trying to portray with them).... The blues are in a world all by themselves (even moreso than the purples); they're not even portrayed to be enhanced reds that happen to run between boroughs (save for the QT52 [which should, according to the concepts presented in this redesign, should be red] & QT70 [which should, according to the concepts presented in this redesign, should be purple])... The blues are what those riders will be singing when they have to rely on them are faux express-ish services that run between Queens & Brooklyn... Someone (not on this forum, that lives in S. Jamaica) pointed this out to me & he has a point.... While he likes the QT46, he abhors the QT7.... I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of what he said is that folks along Linden Blvd (the Queens side of Linden, of course) are not looking to travel to Brooklyn.... The more I look at the blue routes in general, what's being portrayed with them is that the lion's share of riders along those corridors are seeking travel between the two boroughs, instead of riders riding within the respective boroughs... In other words, they're putting too much stock into the fact that they're interborough.... Edited January 16, 2022 by B35 via Church split post... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1781 Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, N6 Limited said: That would be interesting, it's clear they're using Remix for the Brooklyn redesign as well, and they're doing those joint blue routes between the two boroughs. Come to think of it, with this Queens draft, they split the limited and local routes into distinct numbers/routes all together. I wonder if they'll do purple routes along Utica Ave or something. My guess would be it becomes a super-frequent orange route (basically stopping at all the current B46 SBS stops). I mean, nonstop from Eastern Parkway to Avenue H, missing the connections to the B12, B8, and B35? I doubt they would do that. 12 hours ago, N6 Limited said: Oh that's just because they're just trying to make sure most of the borough is within .25 miles of a bus stop. Turn on the layer under the Favorite Stats section. I have an issue with drawing it as a circle (rather than actually mapping out 0.25 miles on the street grid). People can't fly over buildings. But in any case, I get that, but what I'm saying is, regardless of how you measure 0.25 miles, that stop barely expands that portions of the neighborhood within 0.25 miles of a bus stop. 12 hours ago, N6 Limited said: It seems that the QT42 is almost on par with the Q5 on weekdays because alternate trips on the Q5 serve the mall on 15 min headway most of the day. On weekends the QT42 is slightly increased headway from 10 mins to 12, and then after 7pm or so it increases more, especially on Sunday. However, it's proposed to stop running at 10PM. I should've clarified, and referred to those heading to the outer half of the route (east of Springfield Blvd). For Green Acres Mall specifically, yes, the QT42 runs similarly to the present-day Q5, but for areas between Springfield Blvd & Hook Creek Blvd (or Brookville Blvd for westbound passengers), there is less service. (The other thing is, for Green Acres Mall, some passengers currently have the Q85, but that's been shifted to Brewer and cut back to Rosedale, so you can say that Merrick's loss is Brewer's gain in that regard). 12 hours ago, N6 Limited said: I believe they also wanted to give Francis Lewis Blvd a through route and eliminate redundant mileage on Hillside to Jamaica between the Q76 and Q77, Also, Francis Blvd Lewis would provide a quick trip to Flushing. Right, but that has nothing to do with service along 120th Avenue specifically. They could've just as easily taken the Flushing-Cambria Heights route via Francis Lewis Blvd, and ended it at the present-day Q27 terminal, and sent the Jamaica-Cambria Heights route via 120th Avenue to the present-day Q84 terminal. 11 hours ago, Cait Sith said: From what I understood from Checkmatechamp, the route he proposed would've ran down Merrick to Brinkerhoff(and I think across Brinkerhoff, but it's better than nothing), but me personally, considering that there's ridership data that proves that there's a significant ridership base at the local stops(along with ridership data by line, because there ain't no way that only certain outward segments of those lines garnered that much ridership) between Liberty and Springfield, I'd rather see it go farther southward....to at least Springfield. It would keep services across the blvd pretty streamlined with decent options, almost like how they're envisioning Guy R. Brewer Blvd to be. And the fact that you and him focused solely on the and riders was very telling to be honest, considering that I mentioned / passengers as well in my post. And those riders would also get screwed pretty hard from the aforementioned changes, and they are no small group of riders either. The route I proposed would start at Sutphin & Archer, run down Sutphin, to Brinkerhoff, and take Brinkerhoff all the way to 180th Street (present-day Q42 terminal). That would provide access to not only the but also the LIRR. So no, those riders absolutely weren't forgotten. 4 hours ago, Lex said: Really, the way those purple routes are structured in that draft leaves a lot to be desired. The thing that really pains me, however, is that they're specifically designed to have red routes as their locals, as opposed to green routes. As the reds are glorified limited-stop routes that seem to be some weird mix of the greens and blues, the "nonstop" parts of the purple routes effectively have no locals, leading to gaps that typically range from 1/3 to 1/2 mile (average stop spacing is usually within that range). The QT18 is a particularly egregious red route on a red-purple corridor because it's a red route on two red-purple corridors. The QT65 is of little use because it has worse integration with Merrick Boulevard than the Q60 on Sutphin Boulevard or (arguably) the Q89, since that at least had the decency to stay on the corridor from Jamaica to a point where it broke away and never returned (and for longer, to boot!). The red routes have stop spacing a bit closer than present-day limited-stop routes. For example, the QT18 stops at 193rd Street and 215th Street, which aren't served by the Q43 limited, as well as Brinkerhoff, Foch, and 127th Avenue, which aren't served by the Q5 limited. The QT15 stops at 169th Street, 195th Street, Oceania Street, Bell Blvd, and Luke Place/56th Avenue, which aren't served by the Q27 limited. Look at the north-south routes through Jackson Heights/Corona (QT61/10/11/61/72/74/82). You don't really see any major difference in the number of stops proposed on those routes. Red routes are more to show that those routes run every 10 minutes or better for most of the day on weekdays, and have overnight service (Whereas the spans and frequencies on the green routes are more of a mixed bag). 3 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Someone (not on this forum, that lives in S. Jamaica) pointed this out to me & he has a point.... While he likes the QT46, he abhors the QT7.... I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of what he said is that folks along Linden Blvd (the Queens side of Linden, of course) are not looking to travel to Brooklyn.... The more I look at the blue routes in general, what's being portrayed with them is that the lion's share of riders along those corridors are seeking travel between the two boroughs, instead of riders riding within the respective boroughs... In other words, they're putting too much stock into the fact that they're interborough.... Out of curiosity, if they had the QT7 as a green or red route running only as far as the , would he still be opposed to it? In other words, does he think the western part of (the Queens side of) Linden Blvd needs local service period? Edited January 16, 2022 by checkmatechamp13 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 16, 2022 Share #1782 Posted January 16, 2022 8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said: Out of curiosity, if they had the QT7 as a green or red route running only as far as the , would he still be opposed to it? In other words, does he think the western part of (the Queens side of) Linden Blvd needs local service period? Put it to you like this.... He didn't specify which of the 4 variants it should be (I think it's safe to say he doesn't think it should be a blue route), but yes, he does think it should end at Rockaway Blvd. ... His big thing was it (QT7) running to Brooklyn.... However, his suggestion is that it should run up the Van Wyck service rd. to Liberty, instead of straight across Linden to Rockaway Blvd.... He believes that would make the route more useful, if it's not going to go to Jamaica..... I can ask him if he thinks it should be a red or a green route. I just copy/pasted your post & e-mailed it to him... In addition, I'm going to ask him what he thinks the route should do on the eastern end. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted January 17, 2022 Share #1783 Posted January 17, 2022 I'm just putting this out there. This QT18 is nothing but a pair of short turned routes (Q1 and 5). Granted all the Merrick routes used to end at 169 (F), and have a pit stop at the terminal. I see Jamaica Center would have some space leftover as well. The Q42 would be idiotically merged with the 65, completely bypassing Jamaica proper and the 83 would have no service West of Merrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1784 Posted January 18, 2022 On 1/16/2022 at 4:25 PM, checkmatechamp13 said: I have an issue with drawing it as a circle (rather than actually mapping out 0.25 miles on the street grid). People can't fly over buildings. But in any case, I get that, but what I'm saying is, regardless of how you measure 0.25 miles, that stop barely expands that portions of the neighborhood within 0.25 miles of a bus stop. I agree, especially when you have to deal with long blocks. On 1/16/2022 at 4:25 PM, checkmatechamp13 said: Right, but that has nothing to do with service along 120th Avenue specifically. They could've just as easily taken the Flushing-Cambria Heights route via Francis Lewis Blvd, and ended it at the present-day Q27 terminal, and sent the Jamaica-Cambria Heights route via 120th Avenue to the present-day Q84 terminal. True, though it seems like they didn't want to overserve the section east of Springfield. On 1/16/2022 at 6:48 PM, B35 via Church said: Put it to you like this.... He didn't specify which of the 4 variants it should be (I think it's safe to say he doesn't think it should be a blue route), but yes, he does think it should end at Rockaway Blvd. ... His big thing was it (QT7) running to Brooklyn.... However, his suggestion is that it should run up the Van Wyck service rd. to Liberty, instead of straight across Linden to Rockaway Blvd.... He believes that would make the route more useful, if it's not going to go to Jamaica..... I can ask him if he thinks it should be a red or a green route. I just copy/pasted your post & e-mailed it to him... In addition, I'm going to ask him what he thinks the route should do on the eastern end. That would be interesting routing. There's probably a blue route at Gateway they want to connect the QT7 to, possibly the B82 (via extension). 2 hours ago, Q43LTD said: This QT18 is nothing but a pair of short turned routes (Q1 and 5). Pretty much, it's basically the current service pattern during rush hours represented as a separate route. 7 hours ago, Cait Sith said: From what I understood from Checkmatechamp, the route he proposed would've ran down Merrick to Brinkerhoff(and I think across Brinkerhoff, but it's better than nothing), but me personally, considering that there's ridership data that proves that there's a significant ridership base at the local stops(along with ridership data by line, because there ain't no way that only certain outward segments of those lines garnered that much ridership) between Liberty and Springfield, I'd rather see it go farther southward....to at least Springfield. It would keep services across the blvd pretty streamlined with decent options, almost like how they're envisioning Guy R. Brewer Blvd to be. And the fact that you and him focused solely on the and riders was very telling to be honest, considering that I mentioned / passengers as well in my post. And those riders would also get screwed pretty hard from the aforementioned changes, and they are no small group of riders either. It would be interesting if we could see the current network with the ridership information at each stop. I didn't mention the because the vast majority are going to the QB express. The MTA has O/D information via Metrocard, Bus GPS information, perhaps they see that those using the / are actually coming from the proposed purple route stops anyway? 11 minutes ago, B35 via Church said: On 1/16/2022 at 12:53 PM, B35 via Church said: He said it to you & he's doing the same thing with me, talking about I'm acting like local riders have no other options... That comes across as a projection of his unwanting of local stops & I happen to agree with you when you claimed that he's (@N6 Limited) being selfish in this ordeal.... Making service faster for riders shouldn't have to come with a corridor ONLY having some skip-stop service run along it.... Nested skip-stop services with no local variant to speak of along a corridor complicates matters... So yeah, it's how they're going about instantiating that particular intricacy of bus travel.... Furthermore, I'm not acting like there's no other options for the current local riders that would have matters exacerbated, my argument the whole time is riders' commutes are intentionally being made worse by increased walking... Taking issue with a systematic thinning out of stops isn't the same argument as specifically arguing that riders having no other options.... I see what the plan entails, so please stop acting like you're the only person here with eyeballs & some deeper understanding of what's been presented with this redesign that those of us that are critical of the redesign doesn't somehow understand.... It appears to me that you have zero interest in the network design aspect of the redesign & you're solely going all in on *as long as the buses are fast(er)* - no matter what... Your disposition when it comes to having local riders engage in an increased amount of walking to (whatever) bus route, is that it's some negligible factor - since the ultimate result is to have (whatever) bus route end up being faster... You can't claim that you have no issues with local stops, yet take issue with people (because it's not just me in this discussion regarding that particular aspect) that's defending maintaining local stops in general.... You can't claim you have no issues with local stops, when you sarcastically state "Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives?"... I don't have an issue with local stops. All I'm saying is that if those riders are going to Jamaica Ave to shop, and the QB express anyway, then what difference does it make? 12 minutes ago, B35 via Church said: Sure, improvements should be made where possible... Funny thing about improvements though is that they're subjective... We can go back & forth as to what constitutes an improvement until we're [long in the tooth] & [dead & rotten].... There's really no smoking gun, *right* answer, per se.... Ah, so you think those of us that are critical of this redesign are just defending other riders.... Well that can't be the case when @Cait Sith & @IAlam (Queens residents in their own rights) shared how this redesign would stand to personally, negatively affect them.... Despite the fact that I'm not a Queens resident, I don't think it's a secret that I take buses (moreso than trains) all over the place - and not solely for discretionary travel either.... When I make my assessments of these changes, I'm not only defending current riders, but how these services would affect my use of buses in the borough also.... I can understand that, as I am also looking at how these services would affect my use of buses in the borough. 12 minutes ago, B35 via Church said: I don't really feel like speculating what atrocity they'll come up with for the Brooklyn redesign, but since you bring up Utica, yeah, they'll likely can local service & superimpose a purple route & a red route along it... Oh, that's definitely the thought process behind that QT5 - make an (unreasonably) low amount of stops along the corridor to try to have that offset, or kill runtime, since it's a narrow, congested corridor... That sounds nice in a vacuum, but ask any express bus rider what being stuck on a highway feels like... "I didn't pay $7.50 for this shit".... That will be the same feeling when would-be riders on the QT5 are confined to enjoying their "speed" (and I'm not quoting you with that, I'm emphasizing the word there) on the same narrow, slow, sole lane of moving traffic along 101st that the Q8 does.... @Cait Sith can tell you this, the complaint for literally decades is that the Q24 (even moreso than the Q8) has been slow as shit in that area, yet they prioritize their rendition of a super limited on a corridor that has less moving lanes of traffic to work with? That is how I know this wasn't truly a clean slate approach & that they were trying to drum up an enhanced, but different, form of the Q8... The MTA has always underestimated the Q24 anyway, so it's not too surprising to me.... Still though, to have that many stops being skipped along 101st av specifically, because you have 2 generally proximate green routes total above & below it, is devoid of logic... There's no defending that... None.... The corridors of Liberty, 101st, and Atlantic aren't at all interchangeable - and that's what this plan is trying to have accomplished in that part of Queens with that QT5... A whopping total of 2 f***ing stops along 101st is one of the biggest middle fingers the MTA can give residents that live in that part of Queens.... Not only don't most riders in that part of the borough get to directly benefit from this *faster* route (QT5), your surrounding local routes (QT24, QT67) will run less frequent on top of it.... In your attempted defense of the thing, when you said the riders aren't on 101st av, isn't the point at all & it came across as being very insensitive to the plight of those riders... I would personally be livid if I'm on a bus that's only supposed to be making 2 stops along a corridor it spends a good part of the route traveling on, but not traveling nearly significantly faster than the Q8.... Kind of like riders' frustrations with the when it has a tendency to crawl b/w Roosevelt av & 21st st... Or better yet, riders on the & b/w 59th & 125th with all them goddamn timers... It's to the point where I go out of my way to avoid CPW when I'm coming from Upper Manhattan, or the Bronx.... Being on any bus sitting in traffic is annoying, but yeah I can imagine it being worse on an Express Bus. I was looking at the QT44 routing and it uses the Whitestone Expressway to get to the bridge "faster", but that section is usually backed up during rush hours, the service road might be faster. I've been on the Q24 and it was horribly slow, Atlantic Ave is generally slow in the first place, TSP would probably get more riders to use it. I think they put 2 stops on the QT5 to see how riders would react. They could easily add stops as necessary. Not only is it irritating to be on a crawling express train, but it's even worse when a local train zooms by, especially right after an express stop where a transfer could have been made with advance warning. . 14 minutes ago, B35 via Church said: Yeah, just when it's local. Anyway, that's just it.... Although I haven't made it a sticking point, in reading your assessments of the redesign, I don't get the sense you're really concerned about SE Queens riders; it has & does come off like it's contrived... You don't speak with the same fervor that you do about the n6 (the actual route, not because it happens to be part of your user handle on here) & NICE riders on NICE bus, that you do about MTA routes.... There was a difference with the way you were expressing yourself when it came to my lack of support for that stop addition on the n6x at UBS & the way you're expressing yourself regarding this redesign (or, defending yourself against those that are critical of the redesign on here).... The fact that you've only heard complaints about those routes on this forum, doesn't mean that there isn't a concern or legitimate critique to be had about them at all; rather odd for you to implicate that.... It also doesn't mean that everybody, or the lion's share, or even much of anyone in SE Queens are exactly in lock-step with what the MTA's proposing for the area either.... I would argue that most riders don't care about the entirety of a bus network - just what some part of it (as in, the current network or a redesigned network) will or won't do for them.... I'm looking at the entire network & coming to a conclusion... The entirety of it... Not just SE Queens, not just areas I frequent more than most, all of it... People can concur or become an opposing interlocutor... It is what it is.... A bus network isn't a good network, just because buses in that bus network are being attempted to be made faster... That is what the MTA wants riders to think - full knowing they can sweep service levels, and/or any other intricacies that factor into operating buses in a bus network right up from under the rug from them.... You appear to think that the MTA is sympathetic to the plight of riders, when they only care about their bottom line.... That is & will be the case, regardless if they maintain the current network, 100% double-down on the redesign in the draft plan, or come out with a finalized, modified version of the draft plan offered..... I know the MTA is looking at its bottom line ,they want to reduce overlap, probably simplify operations from their end, the faster the buses run the less buses they need to provide a certain level of service, etc etc. The elephant in the room is that bus speeds started decreasing with the introduction of Vision Zero, THAT is why bus speeds started decreasing which lead to ridership declines. In any case, they've indicated they're going to introduce a new draft based on the feedback received, but it will still be "ambitious". We shall see.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1785 Posted January 18, 2022 @N6 Limited The Q44 & Q50 take the service road (that's why they have stops at 20th Avenue & 14th Avenue). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1786 Posted January 18, 2022 Happened to talk with a family member , B/O, and mentioned that someone said that the Q24 should get TSP and a bus lane in the vicinity of Atlantic and Pennsylvania on it's western end in Brooklyn. He said, and I'm quoting him, "That person has never traveled the segment from North Conduit to Pennsylvania or was high". That segment is one of two major east-west commercial corridors, the other being Linden Blvd, from that segment of Queens into Brooklyn. I happened to make the mistake of traveling the part from N. Conduit westward a few weeks ago and even overlooking the construction work I don't think the street and businesses could or should have any type of bus lane. IMO the width of the street precludes any such thing. Carry on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1787 Posted January 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said: @N6 Limited The Q44 & Q50 take the service road (that's why they have stops at 20th Avenue & 14th Avenue). The Remix Map has a QT44 and QT44 SBS for some reason, and the QT44 route uses the expressway. 37 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said: Happened to talk with a family member , B/O, and mentioned that someone said that the Q24 should get TSP and a bus lane in the vicinity of Atlantic and Pennsylvania on it's western end in Brooklyn. He said, and I'm quoting him, "That person has never traveled the segment from North Conduit to Pennsylvania or was high". That segment is one of two major east-west commercial corridors, the other being Linden Blvd, from that segment of Queens into Brooklyn. I happened to make the mistake of traveling the part from N. Conduit westward a few weeks ago and even overlooking the construction work I don't think the street and businesses could or should have any type of bus lane. IMO the width of the street precludes any such thing. Carry on. It can get really bad with the double parking, lack of left turning lanes, and then cars blocking the intersection at Pennsylvania Ave. They need to institute don't block the box at Pennsylvania and Atlantic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1788 Posted January 18, 2022 On 1/16/2022 at 12:58 PM, B35 via Church said: Someone (not on this forum, that lives in S. Jamaica) pointed this out to me & he has a point.... While he likes the QT46, he abhors the QT7.... I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of what he said is that folks along Linden Blvd (the Queens side of Linden, of course) are not looking to travel to Brooklyn.... The more I look at the blue routes in general, what's being portrayed with them is that the lion's share of riders along those corridors are seeking travel between the two boroughs, instead of riders riding within the respective boroughs... In other words, they're putting too much stock into the fact that they're interborough.... Linden Blvd is a Crosstown road. So the QT7 provides a crosstown route, connects to other north-south routes and the . And according to the following article, these Brooklyn-Queens trips are being generated from somewhere. Atlantic Ticket continues impressive ridership and revenue growth https://www.thelirrtoday.com/2020/09/atlantic-ticket-continues-impressive.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1789 Posted January 18, 2022 5 minutes ago, N6 Limited said: Linden Blvd is a Crosstown road. So the QT7 provides a crosstown route, connects to other north-south routes and the . And according to the following article, these Brooklyn-Queens trips are being generated from somewhere. Atlantic Ticket continues impressive ridership and revenue growth https://www.thelirrtoday.com/2020/09/atlantic-ticket-continues-impressive.html That would mean something if it actually had decent stop spacing. I like how you dredged up Atlantic Ticket while basically ignoring the numbers for the Brooklyn stations, to say nothing of the fact that the QT7 wasn't even planned to approach any LIRR stations beyond St. Albans. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted January 18, 2022 Share #1790 Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) On 1/16/2022 at 6:48 PM, B35 via Church said: Put it to you like this.... He didn't specify which of the 4 variants it should be (I think it's safe to say he doesn't think it should be a blue route), but yes, he does think it should end at Rockaway Blvd. ... His big thing was it (QT7) running to Brooklyn.... However, his suggestion is that it should run up the Van Wyck service rd. to Liberty, instead of straight across Linden to Rockaway Blvd.... He believes that would make the route more useful, if it's not going to go to Jamaica..... I can ask him if he thinks it should be a red or a green route. I just copy/pasted your post & e-mailed it to him... In addition, I'm going to ask him what he thinks the route should do on the eastern end. I've heard similar things about the QT7. There's a sizeable amount of people that do not want a bus on Linden Blvd altogether, with others not agreeing with the amount of stops its making along the line. There's a small, but growing number of people that want a stop at Linden/130th for connectivity reasons with the QT47(how that wasn't in the plans to begin with is pretty stupid). Speaking of the QT47....that is one of the few purple line routes I've been hearing positive things about(compared to the QT46, oof). People south of Rockaway Blvd have been clamoring for a Q9 extension southward for some time now. I very much get the feeling that with the way a majority of these Blue & Purple line routes are structured....the MTA is literally underestimating their own ridership figures(especially with the implementation of the QT5), which is kind of baffling to me. Edited January 18, 2022 by Cait Sith 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted January 19, 2022 Share #1791 Posted January 19, 2022 11 hours ago, Lex said: That would mean something if it actually had decent stop spacing. I like how you dredged up Atlantic Ticket while basically ignoring the numbers for the Brooklyn stations, to say nothing of the fact that the QT7 wasn't even planned to approach any LIRR stations beyond St. Albans. I like how you ignore that Atlantic Terminal is a Brooklyn Station which connects to almost every Subway line in Brooklyn. The point is there is Brooklyn-Queens demand, the other perpendicular bus lines will connect to LIRR stations, the QT7 would be a southern alternative. Actually, virtually every LIRR stop in Queens (Except for Little Neck) now has more direct bus service with this proposal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 20, 2022 Share #1792 Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) On 1/17/2022 at 9:07 PM, N6 Limited said: That would be interesting routing. There's probably a blue route at Gateway they want to connect the QT7 to, possibly the B82 (via extension). I'm of the belief that it's (the QT7) an attempt to connect more of Queens to Gateway in general. On 1/17/2022 at 9:07 PM, N6 Limited said: I don't have an issue with local stops. All I'm saying is that if those riders are going to Jamaica Ave to shop, and the QB express anyway, then what difference does it make? Then you wouldn't have posed this question. Speaking of which, how is it that you are genuinely asking what difference does it make if the riders currently boarding at local stops going to Jamaica av. for shopping purposes & access to the QB express, when stops would be eliminated (along Merrick)? How is there not any difference between what the redesign's proposing for the immediate corridor, compared to the current network? On 1/17/2022 at 9:07 PM, N6 Limited said: Being on any bus sitting in traffic is annoying, but yeah I can imagine it being worse on an Express Bus. I was looking at the QT44 routing and it uses the Whitestone Expressway to get to the bridge "faster", but that section is usually backed up during rush hours, the service road might be faster. I've been on the Q24 and it was horribly slow, Atlantic Ave is generally slow in the first place, TSP would probably get more riders to use it. I think they put 2 stops on the QT5 to see how riders would react. They could easily add stops as necessary. Not only is it irritating to be on a crawling express train, but it's even worse when a local train zooms by, especially right after an express stop where a transfer could have been made with advance warning. I wasn't trying to necessarily convey that it's worse (just that it sucks, for lack of a better term). Anyway, IDK WTF's going on with that whole QT44 & QT44 SBS bit... They make the same few stops whilst in Queens, but one dives right on the Whitestone Expwy. from Mitchell Gdns. onward & the other takes the service road - a la the current Q50.... Yeah, the service rd. is definitely faster on more occasions than not, throughout most of the day.... You can literally say/think that the MTA came up with any facet of this redesign to see how riders would react... That's not saying much of anything.... You don't give a whole, specific corridor 2 f***ing stops & expect current riders along/around that corridor to be content (at the very least) with that.... On 1/17/2022 at 9:07 PM, N6 Limited said: I know the MTA is looking at its bottom line ,they want to reduce overlap, probably simplify operations from their end, the faster the buses run the less buses they need to provide a certain level of service, etc etc. The elephant in the room is that bus speeds started decreasing with the introduction of Vision Zero, THAT is why bus speeds started decreasing which lead to ridership declines. In any case, they've indicated they're going to introduce a new draft based on the feedback received, but it will still be "ambitious". We shall see.. You are still under this impression that the MTA wholeheartedly gives a shit about the riders in this city.... They are not looking to improve riders' commutes (despite how they're selling this redesign to riders).... If that were the case, they wouldn't be cutting service on routes due to decreasing runtimes... In conjunction with how much waste you believe exists in the current system as far as current frequencies go in general, it's really coming across as if you support these diminished frequencies proposed in this redesign.... I mean, you convey that first statement rather matter-of-factly, like you either don't give a f***, or you want it to happen, or something.... Regardless of that, if the MTA believes that they're going to maintain, or even increase ridership trying to promote a system-wide network where each singular bus comes ever so close to (or even surpassing) a load factor of 1 with insufficient headways, they got another thing coming.... As far as Vision Zero, what you're saying isn't quite accurate.... Bus ridership in this city started declining well before the commencement of Vision Zero in 2014; the MTA's own ridership stats illustrates that.... What you could say is that Vision Zero expedited those declines (which it certainly did), no question about that.... As far as whatever changes they plan on making to the original/draft plan of the redesign, yeah, let's see if anything changes for the better.... On 1/18/2022 at 1:23 PM, N6 Limited said: Linden Blvd is a Crosstown road. So the QT7 provides a crosstown route, connects to other north-south routes and the . And according to the following article, these Brooklyn-Queens trips are being generated from somewhere. Atlantic Ticket continues impressive ridership and revenue growth https://www.thelirrtoday.com/2020/09/atlantic-ticket-continues-impressive.html 20 hours ago, N6 Limited said: I like how you ignore that Atlantic Terminal is a Brooklyn Station which connects to almost every Subway line in Brooklyn. The point is there is Brooklyn-Queens demand, the other perpendicular bus lines will connect to LIRR stations, the QT7 would be a southern alternative. Actually, virtually every LIRR stop in Queens (Except for Little Neck) now has more direct bus service with this proposal. ...except nobody's contesting that there is a lack of interborough travel between Brooklyn & Queens... There was no point in quoting that post of mine (for a second time, nonetheless) to draw a parallel between the QT7 & what's going on, on the LIRR, that would make Mr. Fantastic proud..... Also, the mere fact of a bus route panning east-west, doesn't necessarily make it a crosstown route... Virtually nobody in this city refers to going 'cross town when they're traveling between Brooklyn & Queens.... On 1/18/2022 at 2:57 PM, Cait Sith said: I've heard similar things about the QT7. There's a sizeable amount of people that do not want a bus on Linden Blvd altogether, with others not agreeing with the amount of stops its making along the line. There's a small, but growing number of people that want a stop at Linden/130th for connectivity reasons with the QT47(how that wasn't in the plans to begin with is pretty stupid). Speaking of the QT47....that is one of the few purple line routes I've been hearing positive things about(compared to the QT46, oof). People south of Rockaway Blvd have been clamoring for a Q9 extension southward for some time now. I very much get the feeling that with the way a majority of these Blue & Purple line routes are structured....the MTA is literally underestimating their own ridership figures(especially with the implementation of the QT5), which is kind of baffling to me. Pun unintended, but this is by design..... Even before this particular redesign, I have been convinced that they're not trying to spawn (new) ridership, or even maintain current ridership (levels), they're trying to ultimately deter it... Less riders, less service they have to provide... It's a wonder why there has been for years, this adversarial relationship b/w the MTA & the riding public in this city... Edited January 20, 2022 by B35 via Church 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted January 22, 2022 Share #1793 Posted January 22, 2022 @B35 via Church I remember a few years ago, I came across a definition of "crosstown" route that made sense to me, which is "a route that travels perpendicular to to the primary commuting direction". So in Manhattan where most of the subway lines run north-south, the crosstown routes run east-west. In Newark where the busiest routes tend to run east-west, routes like the #90 and #99 would be considered crosstown routes. On Staten Island where most of the ridership is oriented towards the ferry and Brooklyn, the crosstown routes would be the S53, S54, S57, and S59/89. Oftentimes, those crosstown routes bypass the CBD (except for Manhattan, obviously). So by both of those definitions, you could consider the QT7 a crosstown route (likewise, you could consider the QT71 and QT73 as crosstown routes). And for that matter, even the present-day Q10 and Q37 could be considered crosstown routes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 22, 2022 Share #1794 Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: @B35 via Church I remember a few years ago, I came across a definition of "crosstown" route that made sense to me, which is "a route that travels perpendicular to to the primary commuting direction". So in Manhattan where most of the subway lines run north-south, the crosstown routes run east-west. In Newark where the busiest routes tend to run east-west, routes like the #90 and #99 would be considered crosstown routes. On Staten Island where most of the ridership is oriented towards the ferry and Brooklyn, the crosstown routes would be the S53, S54, S57, and S59/89. Oftentimes, those crosstown routes bypass the CBD (except for Manhattan, obviously). So by both of those definitions, you could consider the QT7 a crosstown route (likewise, you could consider the QT71 and QT73 as crosstown routes). And for that matter, even the present-day Q10 and Q37 could be considered crosstown routes. Bringing up Newark's network supports the basic point I was making in that part of my last post; it was exactly what I was thinking of when I said it..... I'm attacking this sole notion that a lateral panning of a bus route makes it a crosstown... N6's words, verbatim, were "Linden Blvd is a Crosstown road. So the QT7 provides a crosstown route..."... The operative word in that statement isn't even route, it's road..... Yes, I'm definitely aware of & remember that definition you bring up; IINM, we briefly talked about it either on the forums or via PM some odd years ago... I never brought it up then, but one problem I always had with that definition is that primary commuting direction is relative... Let's use Queens as an example..... In Queens (or any outerborough of this city, for that matter) in general, the primary commuting direction is towards Manhattan - which by that definition, wouldn't have the QT7 as a crosstown.... At the same time, the QT7 down in that part of the borough could be considered a crosstown by that definition, because the primary commuting direction for folks in that pocket of Queens, is up towards the subway.... BTW, what you're saying in that second paragraph isn't a second definition, it's what that definition (in the first paragraph) in question is implicative of.... For the most part, a route that runs perpendicular to the primary direction of travel of the masses, runs parallel to where the masses are heading towards... In other words, it's implicating that crosstown routes generally don't serve areas such as CBD's & I don't agree with that at all.... Crosstown routes can definitely cut through/serve CBD's & Manhattan's crosstowns (below 59th), funny enough, serves as an example..... FWIW, I'd say crosstown routes have more to do with where people are trying to go, with respect to opposing ends/areas of the route (not necessarily terminal to terminal travel, but it is inclusive), moreso than with what respect that route runs perpendicular (or even parallel) to.... The fact that you have as many definitions of what encompasses a crosstown route (because I've definitely seen some worse definitions), only shows how difficult it is to come up with universally accepted definitions of these types of things.... In any case, I found an interesting link that attempts to describe bus route types.... The list starts getting ridiculous after a certain point IMO, but look at what this person explains as crosstown route (under tangential route) being.... Looking at the map/picture/snippet under "arcantial route", that routing looks scary similar to the Knoll rd. section/variant of the NJT #29x.... ---------------------- * Also, btw, the question you posed earlier this week (regarding the QT7 & the dude that lives in S. Jamaica) was responded to.... He apparently wants a hybrid of the green & the red routes for his rendition of a QT7 (which surprised me, TBH); says it should serve Q112 local stops on Liberty & LTD stops on Linden (he didn't say whether it would make stops on the Van Wyck serv. rd or not)... Then he asked ME what color route would that fall under .... He never answered my question of where in SE Queens the QT7 should end though.... He probably already answered your main inquiry with what I relayed above, but his question to you is, what are you considering as western Linden Blvd here in Queens? Edited January 22, 2022 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted January 23, 2022 Share #1795 Posted January 23, 2022 @B35 via Church So would your definition of crosstown vs. non-crosstown be based on how much turnover there is throughout the route? Yeah, I agree towards the bottom, some of those definitions started to get ridiculously specific. And for the purposes of discussion, western Linden Blvd would be anywhere west of Merrick Blvd. Out of curiosity, how much quicker would his proposed QT7 get to the train compared to the MTA's version? (Also, given a choice of taking Linden-130th-109th, Linden-Lefferts-109th, or Linden straight across to Rockaway, which of the three routings do you think would better serve that part of Ozone Park?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 23, 2022 Share #1796 Posted January 23, 2022 6 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said: @B35 via Church So would your definition of crosstown vs. non-crosstown be based on how much turnover there is throughout the route? Yeah, I agree towards the bottom, some of those definitions started to get ridiculously specific. And for the purposes of discussion, western Linden Blvd would be anywhere west of Merrick Blvd. Out of curiosity, how much quicker would his proposed QT7 get to the train compared to the MTA's version? (Also, given a choice of taking Linden-130th-109th, Linden-Lefferts-109th, or Linden straight across to Rockaway, which of the three routings do you think would better serve that part of Ozone Park?) I'd say it's dependent on how the overall network is set up; I wouldn't try to pin a definition to it... It's not as cut & dry as say, a hub & spoke route..... I mean, I look at Philly's network & it appears to me that there are routes that could be considered crosstowns panning east-west & panning north-south.... With Rockland's & Newark's network, the crosstowns run north-south... And of course with Manhattan's network, they run east-west.... His proposed QT7 to/from Rockaway Blvd would take longer than the MTA's version, but I do agree (with him) that it would be more popular.... Given those 3 choices you pose, I'd say that Linden-130th-109th would better serve South Ozone Park.... You serve way more people in that neighborhood having buses utilize more of 109th than you do more of Rockaway Blvd.... Even though they're proximate (enough), the thing about the Q41 & the Q112 b/w Rockaway Blvd & Jamaica proper is that they're not used interchangeably... Hell, they're not even used interchangeably b/w Ozone Park & South Ozone Park.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted January 23, 2022 Share #1797 Posted January 23, 2022 4 hours ago, B35 via Church said: Hell, they're not even used interchangeably b/w Ozone Park & South Ozone Park.... I'm sorry did you mean, Richmond Hill? The Q112 doesn't serve South Ozone Park 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 23, 2022 Share #1798 Posted January 23, 2022 2 hours ago, Q43LTD said: I'm sorry did you mean, Richmond Hill? The Q112 doesn't serve South Ozone Park As I understand it, Liberty av is the northern border of S. Ozone Park & the southern border of S. Richmond Hill.... Let me be specific then... The Q41 & the Q112 aren't even used interchangeably b/w Rockaway Blvd & Liberty/127th. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 23, 2022 Share #1799 Posted January 23, 2022 On 1/15/2022 at 3:17 AM, Mtatransit said: Something with the Jamaica Bus network that always bugs me is the lack of Cross Jamaica bus service. Unfortunately this plan doesn't really solves this issue. Its easy to get TO/FROM 179th Street/Jamaica Center from the east but if you want to get further into Jamaica, you'll either have to take the subway a few stops or walk. Just look at the amount of service east of 165 St compared to the west of it. This is because there is too much congestion to run buses through reliably, or for more buses from the east or wherever to go through there is no space for layovers for additional buses running through Jamaica the bus runtimes for all the routes terminating in Jamaica are too long to combine with other routes. What would you combine that would have a reasonable runtime and reliability? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted January 23, 2022 Share #1800 Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, B35 via Church said: As I understand it, Liberty av is the northern border of S. Ozone Park & the southern border of S. Richmond Hill.... Let me be specific then... The Q41 & the Q112 aren't even used interchangeably b/w Rockaway Blvd & Liberty/127th. Until you get to Lefferts, where it gets stupid. Just shy of 101st Avenue is considered South Ozone Park from 116th to 120th....but 115th going West, or east of 120th is South Richmond Hill(just thought I'd put that out there to illustrate how stupid that is). And what you said was 100% accurate. The Q41 and Q112 is only used interchangeably between Lefferts and 127th. The AM Rush Hour tells that story better than the PM Rush Hour, which is also why I don't take the Q112 anymore in the AM because it is way too crowded, even when they bunch. Edited January 24, 2022 by Cait Sith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.