|
|
| making the QM22 cost neutral (247529) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (247543) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 09:16:28 2011, in response to making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 05:40:44 2011. Here is a little secret: there is nothing special about your express lines in terms of ridership. They are going to eventually eliminate all of your former lines one by one in the next series of budget cuts. The QM10 and QM11 are atop subways, and the rest (QM12, QM24) can be made into subway shuttles during rush hours. You would be wise to make peace with local service. |
|
|
| (247544) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 09:22:16 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 09:16:28 2011. The subways are fucking full haven't you heard of and been on them lately. When I used to do the QM11 our buses used to get full all the goddamn time. The QM24 gets more people in rush hours than those fucking Garbage Point express buses. If you take a look at the MTA ridership tables the only ex QSC express buses that get more ridership than the QM24 is the QM2 and the QM5. Or do you have prospects for our prime work |
|
|
| (247547) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 09:46:23 2011, in response to making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 05:40:44 2011. I agree, the Q100 should be cut full-time to Astoria Blvd with a Q69 Limited replacing it if necessary so people from Harlem and the Bronx don't have to take a tour of the Upper East Side and Queensbridge everytime they go to Rikers Island. |
|
|
| (247548) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 09:50:09 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 09:46:23 2011. The assholes on 21st Street actually pass up Q69's for those Q100 |
|
|
| (247549) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 09:52:10 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 09:16:28 2011. What makes you think those Queens express routes will be eliminated? I know there are budget issues. But it will be politically hard to do so, because those buses serve middle-class voters, particularly in Queens and Staten Island. |
|
|
| (247550) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by hank eisenstein on Wed Nov 9 10:00:05 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 09:52:10 2011. Staten Island express routes aren't going anywhere, though I would expect some schedule changes. |
|
|
| (247552) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by hank eisenstein on Wed Nov 9 10:01:07 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 09:46:23 2011. Usually when they go to Riker's, transportation is provided...secure transportation... :p |
|
|
| (247553) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 10:01:44 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 09:52:10 2011. JAzumah sees business opportunities so he wants those express routes to fall mugu to the budget axe |
|
|
| (247556) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 10:03:25 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by hank eisenstein on Wed Nov 9 10:01:07 2011. no it is those bitchy baby mommas correction bitches asshole laywers released motherfuckers |
|
|
| (247580) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 10:54:46 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 09:22:16 2011. Let's get something straight.I can run practically anything I want as long as I can afford it. The fact that I can compete with the M101 does not mean that is it useful. I ASSURE you that if I wanted to kick you off the QM10 tomorrow, I could do it. The issue is that there is so much to do that is not being done that it is not necessary for me to take routes from MTA Bus. That does not mean that I won't, but it just isn't my focus. Putting boots on the ground in Detroit would yield substantial money and I am considering it. |
|
|
| (247582) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 11:00:28 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 09:52:10 2011. The X90 was politically the most difficult route to kill and it died.Anything carrying less than 750 trips per day is on the block. The 2010 cuts are small compared to what is going to happen next. |
|
|
| (247584) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 11:06:28 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 10:54:46 2011. The QM10 is not even our route we lost that to the Garbage Point assholes in 2009. I hope that you dont get fucked in Detroit as you did in New York |
|
|
| (247585) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 11:08:22 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 11:00:28 2011. The Q79 was more difficult. Those Upper East Side assholes think that their shit does not stink and I am sure the polticians understand that they needed a lesson because why are those snobs not fighting for the MTA to restore the X90 LOL |
|
|
| (247587) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Wed Nov 9 11:10:54 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 11:08:22 2011. Don't get me started on those Yorkville scum.... |
|
|
| (247588) | |
IAWTP |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 11:11:48 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LRG5784 on Wed Nov 9 11:10:54 2011. see subject |
|
|
| (247590) | |
Re: IAWTP |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Wed Nov 9 11:15:24 2011, in response to IAWTP, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 11:11:48 2011. +1 |
|
|
| (247591) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 11:16:31 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 10:54:46 2011. Putting boots on the ground in Detroit would yield substantial money and I am considering it.Knew it. |
|
|
| (247597) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 11:21:51 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 09:50:09 2011. And I don't really see why, 21st Street is pretty wide and the Q69 is pretty fast there. Might it be for reliability reasons? IINM, the Q69 is a loop route, and passengers can ride through Long Island City and Court Square back to Queensbridge and Jackson Heights. |
|
|
| (247599) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 11:23:00 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by hank eisenstein on Wed Nov 9 10:01:07 2011. Lol, LAG Driver is right though, those buses have a lot of "baby mamas" on them. Kinda ironic since some of their boyfriends could be someone's girlfriend if you know what I mean. |
|
|
| (247600) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Wed Nov 9 11:30:43 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 10:03:25 2011. LMAO! |
|
|
| (247603) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 13:23:51 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 11:00:28 2011. ==750 trips per day is on the block==I'm sure you mean 750 passengers per day. |
|
|
| (247604) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 13:26:20 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by hank eisenstein on Wed Nov 9 10:00:05 2011. I feel the same way but there seems to be a growing chorus of morons who see express bus service as a 'luxury'. If anything S.I. will soon need real express bus service to Jersey City and Hoboken because so many financial services jobs have relocated to those cities from Manhattan. |
|
|
| (247612) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 13:45:35 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 11:16:31 2011. It's getting to the point where I would be an idiot not to consider it. As much as I've been warned about remotely managing an operation (inherently dangerous) and as much as I am concerned about the level of corruption, the fact remains that a premium bus system is needed. I am thinking that a $3 one way fare with one free transfer would work Monday through Friday. |
|
|
| (247613) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 13:45:58 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 13:23:51 2011. Passenger trips, yes |
|
|
| (247614) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 13:46:43 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 13:45:35 2011. Remotely, dont you have assistance are you a company or you run everything yourself |
|
|
| (247617) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 13:50:56 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 11:00:28 2011. The QM24 carries about 1,200 so should still deserve PRIME WORK |
|
|
| (247621) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Nov 9 14:33:00 2011, in response to making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 05:40:44 2011. The job of the MTA is to provide service to the riding public, not "prime work" to the B/Os. |
|
|
| (247622) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Wed Nov 9 14:36:44 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 09:46:23 2011. Many years ago the Q101 went to Rikers Island, but the local Astoria community did not want to share the same buses with "outsiders" destined for Rikers Island. Nor did the local Astoria community want those "outsiders" making connections to and from the subway within their community. The "outsiders" were viewed as troublemakers. Thus, a non-stop route was established between Rikers Island and a subway station outside Astoria . . . Queensboro Plaza station. But to be "fair" and non-discriminatory to all involved, these separate buses had an equal span of service (i.e., 24 hours a day) and a comparable (though not exactly equal) frequency of service. |
|
|
| (247623) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Nov 9 14:38:29 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by vfrt on Wed Nov 9 13:26:20 2011. Hopefully the higher tolls on the Bayonne Bridge will provide enough ridership for Joel to revive the 144, as well as provide a route over the Goethals Bridge.As I've always said, express buses can be cheap to operate if done right. On the weekends, the X1 has a farebox recovery ratio higher than that of a lot of local routes (citywide), and the X10's FRR is higher than those of a lot of SI routes. The main reason is that they both have a fairly even schedule. It's in the MTA's best interest to encourage off-peak express ridership (the same could apply to ridership in general, but especially express routes). |
|
|
| (247624) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Nov 9 14:39:57 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 13:45:58 2011. When the MTA did those numbers, passenger-trips were one-way trips, correct? |
|
|
| (247625) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 14:45:04 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Nov 9 14:33:00 2011. But we do not want to sit on a fucking bus and deal fucking scum of the earth after all those years of TRAFFIC AND ASSHOLES. If the MTA job is to only provide service then why the FUCK do we get paid 30 dollars an hour and the other motherfuckers do not. We want a decent well paying job that is good, go be a bus operator work lines like the Q100, B35, B46 get a cup of piss thrown in your face and tell me that senior guys do not deserve and should not have prime work |
|
|
| (247626) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 15:18:01 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by BusMgr on Wed Nov 9 14:36:44 2011. The MTA probably doesn't care these days and only continues to wastefully run the Q100 to Queens Plaza because they're not footing the bill. Astoria Blvd station is pretty isolated, and few Steinway residents would probably ride the new Q100 to really care about who's riding it. |
|
|
| (247627) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 15:24:33 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 15:18:01 2011. The stop at 20th Avenue and 31st Street does get decent weekday usage weekends are a bitch with the added Q100 stops though. This is why I came up with this shit |
|
|
| (247629) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 15:46:23 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 15:24:33 2011. It does, but it would be better served with a bus to Ditmars station. NYCDOT had the right idea in extending the Q102 to Steinway IMO, but the MTA apparently disagrees with them. |
|
|
| (247636) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Wed Nov 9 17:13:46 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 11:00:28 2011. If what you're saying is true, then the X64 is gone and the X63 and X68 are on life support. I'm sure many express bus haters will be happy. |
|
|
| (247639) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed Nov 9 18:17:08 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 14:45:04 2011. So I guess its safe to say that LGA lost their EXP lines? That might explain why LGA just recived 9 more RTSs today and I heard some senior guys saw them coming in and had a shitfit. Folks, I ll try to get details please try to be patient. |
|
|
| (247640) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 18:19:48 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed Nov 9 18:17:08 2011. The Mets would have to win another world series in order to convince me that they have not lost the PRIME WORK to Garbage Point |
|
|
| (247641) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed Nov 9 18:55:38 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 18:19:48 2011. Huh? |
|
|
| (247642) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 19:29:45 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed Nov 9 18:55:38 2011. Could the Mets win the world series yesWill it likely happen no get it |
|
|
| (247644) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 9 19:45:36 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 09:50:09 2011. I truly believe you are in the wrong line of work.As a former operator AND rider..I am ashamed at you. |
|
|
| (247648) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by regent23 on Wed Nov 9 20:53:53 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 9 19:45:36 2011. Your foul language is not appropriate and you loose any respect with this ranting. Maybe you should retire if you are not happy with your work which many people who have no work would love to have. |
|
|
| (247657) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Nov 9 22:29:46 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by PATHman on Wed Nov 9 17:13:46 2011. I'd be nice if the MTA adopted NJT's fare structure and allowed the Express Bus Plus MetroCard to be used for intra-NYC travel. For instance, the BxM4 doesn't get a whole lot of riders and is pretty much guaranteed to be eliminated if/when NYCT and MTA Bus merge. If they had this plan, it would make it easier on Woodlawn riders.The same applies for other instances where the LIRR parallels an express bus route. |
|
|
| (247679) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 10 00:52:00 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by regent23 on Wed Nov 9 20:53:53 2011. Of course I understand you are directing your post to him...and I agree. |
|
|
| (247684) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Thu Nov 10 01:47:36 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by LAG Driver on Wed Nov 9 19:29:45 2011. I still don't get it |
|
|
| (247686) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Nov 10 02:55:14 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Thu Nov 10 01:47:36 2011. He's saying that chances are very high that LGA lost more express lines to College Point. |
|
|
| (247687) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Thu Nov 10 03:11:28 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Nov 10 02:55:14 2011. Oh duh me lol. Thanks for that. I wasn't to sure. |
|
|
| (247690) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Thu Nov 10 05:57:56 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by regent23 on Wed Nov 9 20:53:53 2011. I need a job but the working man deserves good treatment this is just street talk anyway |
|
|
| (247691) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by LAG Driver on Thu Nov 10 05:58:59 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by JAzumah on Wed Nov 9 11:00:28 2011. why 750 how do you know |
|
|
| (247731) | |
Re: making the QM22 cost neutral |
|
|
Posted by Nyctransitman on Thu Nov 10 13:25:16 2011, in response to Re: making the QM22 cost neutral, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 9 09:46:23 2011. While cutting the Q100 full time to Astoria Blvd. the route should than proceed to 31st Street/Astoria Blvd. for the subway connection ( returning back via Hoyt Avenue). Also a three legged transfer should be implemented between the Q100 and all buses the Q100 transfers with such as the Q101, the Q69, the Q102, the Q19 and the M60 routes. A few new stops could be added to the Q100 route at 31st Street/Astoria Blvd.(Terminal) and a few more limited stops along 20th Avenue. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|