|
|
| MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) (295922) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (295930) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 26 14:23:02 2014, in response to MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Jul 26 11:18:15 2014. Regarding the Q114, how many routes in the city does that make now that are 100% limited runs (not counting SBS)?B103, M98, Q35(?), Q52, Q53, Q113, Q114, S80s and S90s. . . Then there are the all-day limiteds like the M2 and the Q44. |
|
|
| (295936) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Jul 26 17:49:23 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 26 14:23:02 2014. Well, I wouldn't count the S80s/90s (except the S89 & S93), since if they were in the other boroughs, they would just be labeled as a limited-stop version of their respective local route.I think the only ones left to add to that list are the M5, M101, and Q50 (with the Q50 being the only one that doesn't run local at any time). I heard the M7 used to be a full-time limited along Amsterdam/Columbus, but that obviously doesn't apply anymore. |
|
|
| (295946) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sat Jul 26 21:06:02 2014, in response to MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Jul 26 11:18:15 2014. The net operational cost associated with this service is $147,000 annually. Why should this minor reroute of the turn-around cost so much, or anything additional at all? There will be a loss of some metered parking spaces to create the new drop-off bus stop on 39 Av, but that would be DOT's lost revenue, not the TA's or MTA's. |
|
|
| (295947) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sat Jul 26 21:07:51 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by gbs on Sat Jul 26 21:06:02 2014. (Referring to the Q17/Q27 Flushing reroute.) |
|
|
| (295949) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Sat Jul 26 21:12:40 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by gbs on Sat Jul 26 21:07:51 2014. You have to thank the CS bus operators for pissing at the church. |
|
|
| (295957) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by bx36ltd on Sun Jul 27 02:54:47 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by Gold_12th on Sat Jul 26 21:12:40 2014. I read In 2015 the Bx5 is gonna be split and some trips will go to bay plaza that's a good move I think |
|
|
| (295975) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sun Jul 27 12:24:22 2014, in response to MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Jul 26 11:18:15 2014. So, 147th Ave gets its limited service back. The only thing that I would've done is change the current Q113LTD to the Q114 and the Q113 local becomes the Q113LTD via 147th Ave. |
|
|
| (296067) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 02:48:32 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by bx36ltd on Sun Jul 27 02:54:47 2014. My concern is the Bx5 summer weekend riders, which make up a significant portion of its ridership.I would like the Bx5 service span increased to all times except hawk, because, based on the current schedule, it's needed. I also think that there should be Hunts-Point-bound weekday AM Peak limited-stop service leaving Pelham Bay Park from 6:54am-7:55am (the current 7:41 AM, 7:51AM, 8:01AM short trips would be converted to full-length trips). The limited-stop zone would be west of White Plains Rd-Story Ave, stopping only at Rosedale Ave, Morrison Ave, Colgate Ave, Hunts Point Ave station, and, of course, West Farms Rd-Westchester Ave. |
|
|
| (296068) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 02:51:38 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 02:48:32 2014. Posted on the wrong thread. My bad. |
|
|
| (296095) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 20:42:15 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sun Jul 27 12:24:22 2014. I would also extend the Q111 all times via Francis Lewis Blvd to the Green Acres Mall.Some of you may think that the Q111 should only operate part-time to Green Acres, if at all. However, running times during the overnight is 57 minutes in each direction with 3 minutes recovery time at each terminal (required under the current work rules). One additional minute in either direction will throw off the schedule that the people have been used to for a long time. Hence, it makes sense to extend the Q111 all times to Green Acres. |
|
|
| (296097) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 20:47:11 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 20:42:15 2014. BTW, this would in no way affect the Q111 Five Towns service. |
|
|
| (296100) | |
Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Jul 29 21:51:04 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by dkupf on Tue Jul 29 20:42:15 2014. Wait, if adding any running time would throw off the schedule, wouldn't it make sense to leave the Q111 as-is overnights? Especially considering that nobody would be traveling to/from the mall at that hour. |
|
|
| (296115) | |
Re: Q17/27 Flushing Reroute) |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Wed Jul 30 05:29:14 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by gbs on Sat Jul 26 21:06:02 2014. [Why should this minor reroute of the turn-around cost so much, or anything additional at all?] First... The reroute is slightly longer according to Google Maps. Second... Maybe they added running time because the reroute has both routes (1) using one more crazy-busy block of Main Street; (2) making a left turn from 37th Avenue into that crazy-busy block of Main Street; and (3) using a narrow-ish block of 37th Avenue. |
|
|
| (296116) | |
Re: Q17/27 Flushing Reroute |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Wed Jul 30 05:30:52 2014, in response to Re: MTA Committee Materials 7/28/14 (Bx24 Extension, Q114, Q17/27 Flushing Reroute), posted by Gold_12th on Sat Jul 26 21:12:40 2014. [You have to thank the CS bus operators for pissing at the church.] Q17 is in JA. Q27 is in QV. |
|
|
| (296119) | |
Re: Q17/27 Flushing Reroute |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jul 30 07:41:32 2014, in response to Re: Q17/27 Flushing Reroute, posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Wed Jul 30 05:30:52 2014. Owned!!! |
|
|
| (296179) | |
Re: Q17/27 Flushing Reroute |
|
|
Posted by hound on Thu Jul 31 16:23:52 2014, in response to Re: Q17/27 Flushing Reroute, posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Wed Jul 30 05:30:52 2014. Maybe they thought it was an ePISScopalian church. |
|
|