|
|
| Why 2 Terminals for Q1? (345294) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (345294) | |
Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by nh153 on Sun Apr 17 03:14:30 2022 The Q1 has two terminals. Half the buses run on Braddock Avenue to Jamaica Avenue. And half run on Springfield Boulevard to Jamaica Avenue. But other than rush hours, the Q1 is so infrequent that each branch only gets service every 30 to 40 minutes or more. Overnights it has loop service every hour.And unlike most other dual terminal routes like Q15/Q15A or Q20A/Q20B, the Q1 doesn't have designations for its two terminals. If you're standing at a bus stop on Hillside Avenue, you have to read the print on the bus sign to figure out if it's the Q1 bus you want or not. Shouldn't the Q1 just be a continuous loop route all the time? Outbound run on Braddock Avenue and inbound run on Springfield Boulevard with no idle time? You'd have to stay on the bus a little longer if you live near Braddock Avenue going inbound or if you live near Springfield Boulevard going outbound. But at least you'd have service with double the frequency. |
|
|
| (345295) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 17 07:15:46 2022, in response to Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Sun Apr 17 03:14:30 2022. The plan for the redesign is to dispense with the Springfield branch and keep the Braddock branch. |
|
|
| (345296) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 08:35:33 2022, in response to Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Sun Apr 17 03:14:30 2022. There are other routes with branches that don't have separate designations, such as the B41. Also, I still hold that the B44 SBS and the B82 SBS are sufficiently different from their local counterparts that they should have entirely different numerical designations.I'm not sure of the reasons, but loops in general seem to be just hated by MTA. When routes are short but have to form a loop anyway, there would be greater efficiency in just running them as such instead of making them layover halfway around a loop (B2 / B31 / B100 forming one giant loop together at Kings Hwy Station without any layovers is a fantasy of mine). The Q1 is probably long enough that taking away the layover(s) on the eastern end could hurt reliability. |
|
|
| (345298) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Apr 17 09:33:43 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 08:35:33 2022. I believe all of the LGA routes still run in a loop form, which unfortunately has a negative impact on reliability. For Kings Highway specifically, I think the B2/B100 should be combined (probably mostly along the B2 route) and extended further west (there definitely needs to be some route along 65th Street. Whether it's the B31 or a B2/B100 combo is up for debate) |
|
|
| (345299) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Snilcher on Sun Apr 17 11:07:01 2022, in response to Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Sun Apr 17 03:14:30 2022. And unlike most other dual terminal routes like Q15/Q15A or Q20A/Q20B, the Q1 doesn't have designations for its two terminals. If you're standing at a bus stop on Hillside Avenue, you have to read the print on the bus sign to figure out if it's the Q1 bus you want or not. Not contesting your point, but even if you change the route numbers to Q1A and Q1B, you still have to read the print on the bus sign to figure out which one it is. Anyhow, they did a good job of getting rid of all the "A" and "B" designations for routes in Queens (no more Q3A, Q5A, Q17A, Q19A&B, etc.) but then had to go and create the Q15A and Q20A/B... Getting rid of the Q1 Springfield Blvd. branch is probably a good idea. With the Q27 and Q88 (at least for now) providing service along that portion, plus you have direct access from the Queens Village terminus to Jamaica subways via the Q36, there's little need for that extra branch. Directing all the Q1s to Braddock would provide better service. And of course the Q43 duplicates most of the Q1 anyway. If they really wanted to economize on service in that area, especially overnight, I thought why not eliminate the Q1 and have the Q36 run in a loop via Springfield, Hillside, Braddock and Jamaica. Of course, that's assuming the original 257th St. terminus and not taking into account the Q36 extension to replace the former Q79 (which was also an old "A" route, Q12A) on Little Neck Parkway, but there's no overnight service there anyhow. |
|
|
| (345300) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Apr 17 13:25:07 2022, in response to Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Sun Apr 17 03:14:30 2022. The Legend BusMgr might be able to expound on this, but you have to remember that the Q88 is a relatively new route, and the Q27 only ran as far south as Horace Harding Expressway for many years (and only to Jamaica Avenue until the early 2000s as well), so I’d imagine that historically speaking, the Q1 was the only bus on that section of Springfield Boulevard for quite some time. I’d also guess that politics play a role in this as well, since obviously Jamaica would be the preferred destination for riders in that area of Springfield Boulevard over Flushing or Queens Center, and those riders understandably don’t want to give up their one-seat ride to Jamaica.That being said, now that the Q27 runs to Cambria Heights 24/7, I wonder why the Q83 hawk still goes to Queens Village instead of just ending at Springfield and Murdock? I fanned it twice going towards Jamaica out of curiosity, and both times, I was the only one on the bus until Murdock Avenue. |
|
|
| (345301) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 14:10:24 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Apr 17 09:33:43 2022. There was an idea floating around that the Brooklyn redesign will involving servicing Mill Basin in a whole different manner. One draft map I think was posted around here recently suggested sending the B47 there but that would probably be fought, as there would be more worse / more distant connections to the subway. The Bergen Beach branch of the B41 (which would probably have a whole different number and not originate as far away as Downtown Brooklyn) could be a a candidate for Mill Basin, but still it will probably be hard (and also not a good idea anyway) to take away Mill Basin's connection to the Brighton Express. At the end of the day, I think the B100 will hold on as is. (Remember, this same draft map involved having no buses going through Grand Army Plaza). |
|
|
| (345302) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 14:18:09 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Sun Apr 17 11:07:01 2022. They act like they need to pay royalties on new route numbers! I'd prefer if different streets used, then different number. No suffixes. (Not counting specials like once-a-day runs for schools and such). |
|
|
| (345303) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 17 14:33:16 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 14:10:24 2022. Link to draft map? |
|
|
| (345304) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 17 14:35:02 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Sun Apr 17 11:07:01 2022. There’s a logic to the Q20A and Q20B in that it’s mostly the same route. The eliminated letter suffixes were only tangentially related to each other due to long obsolete franchising rules. |
|
|
| (345306) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 15:17:26 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 14:10:24 2022. The entire reason for the existence of B100 was obstinance of the New York City Transit Authority. Were that obstinance to no longer exist today, then the raison d'être disappears . . . but does anyone trust New York City Transit Authority to not have it reappear in the future? Low density housing, with no other traffic generators, at the periphery of a service area are anathema to it, and without Command Bus Company around anymore Mill Basin should not sit still if its residents continue to desire bus service. |
|
|
| (345307) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 15:26:51 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 17 14:35:02 2022. Precisely. Some routes, such as Q12A, Q44A, and Q65A, were labeled as such for political or administrative expediency, and not on the basis of any substantive service or marketing rationale.But the larger issue is this: should there be branches on the outer ends of routes? On the one hand, the current policy of NYCTA favors only single route paths, with every bus traveling exactly the same route. Such a strategy makes bus scheduling easier, and limits boarding passenger confusion. On the other hand, branches expand the service area of a route, along with a lessening of service frequency in outer areas where demand typically is much less compared to the route's trunk. Places like Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh have historically invoked these branching strategies. Is one policy uniformly preferable over the other? No, both are good and reasonable when used properly. A campaign to completely eradicate route branches--merely for the sake of uniformity--is bad policy. |
|
|
| (345308) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Apr 17 17:02:13 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Apr 17 08:35:33 2022. For years you couldn’t even tell which branch of the Q16 that a Flushing-bound bus was going to serve, they finally updated the destination signs to fix that a few years ago though. Not that too many people are looking to go from Fort Totten to Utopia Parkway anyways to be fair. |
|
|
| (345309) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 17:20:07 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Apr 17 13:25:07 2022. Without attempting a comprehensive history, I would note that Hillside Avenue has long been a key path for bus routes east of Jamaica. The first operating authority ever granted by the Board of Estimate, in 1914, was a revocable consent (not a full franchise) to Hillside Transportation Company, Inc., for four routes. One route operated from the Jamaica LIRR station along Jamaica Avenue and Parsons Boulevard to Hillside Avenue, then out Hillside to 197th Street and making a loop to the Hollis LIRR station. Operations lasted only four months, and the consent was revoked in 1915. In the 1920s a franchise was proposed for Equitable Coach Corporation for a route from the Jamaica LIRR station along Stuphin Boulevard to Hillside Avenue, then out Hillside Avenue to Springfield Boulevard, and then to the Queens Village LIRR station. That franchise, of course, was not granted. In 1934 the Board of Estimate adopted a system of bus routes for Queens County, in which the route designation Q1 first appears for a route virtually identical to the above-noted Equitable Coach Hillside Avenue route, as well as the branch along Braddock Avenue to Jamaica Avenue. Eventually that franchise came to North Shore Bus Company. The Q43 was appended to the franchise as a separate route, labeled "Bellaire-City Line," acting as an extension of the Q1. The Q43 began at 212th Street and Jamaica Avenue (turn-around loop: 212th Street, 99th Avenue, 211th Street), up 212th Street to Hillside Avenue, then out Hillside Avenue to the city line. In 1945 the routes were restructured. The Q1 was cut back from the Jamaica LIRR station to the 165th Street bus terminal, and route Q43 extended from 212th Street to Sutphin Boulevard. In effect, the Q43 became the primary Hillside Avenue bus route, operating along its entire length (or at least all east of Sutphin Boulevard) while the Q1 became a supplement thereto along the busiest portion of Hillside Avenue.Springfield Boulevard was never a street with a through bus route, but rather was simply a convenient place at which to end bus routes. The Queens Village LIRR station was a convenient terminal point. The Q27 ended, as noted, on Springfield Boulevard at Horace Harding Expressway. Several other bus routes, including Q1, ended at the Queens Village LIRR station (Braddock Avenue came later to the Q1, but the Queens Village LIRR station terminal stayed on). There was never really any serious attempt to run service along the full length of Springfield Boulevard, at least not until the modern era. There was then never really a need to do so. |
|
|
| (345311) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Snilcher on Mon Apr 18 10:57:14 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 17:20:07 2022. There were few serious attempts to run bus service along the full lengths of any major north-south thoroughfares in eastern Queens, most likely because such service would not connect with any subway. It wasn't until the 1960s that Francis Lewis Blvd. was covered, and that was with two routes that both went to Hillside/179th St.An exception to the subway-serving rule was the Q12A (later Q79). (The Q31 also used to be lacking in subway access until it was extended down Utopia Parkway to Jamaica, around the same era.) Over the years I've seen suggestions to combine the Q76 and Q77 into a single FLB route. Why it was never pointed out that this would eliminate subway access was a mystery to me, but I guess there is enough pent-up demand for crosstown eastern Queens service to make it worthy of consideration. While such a proposal did not make it into the current revised Queens draft plan, it's notable that the proposed Q87 in the draft plan for Springfield Blvd. service does not bother with subway access, which is probably a first since the Q79 days. |
|
|
| (345312) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Apr 18 12:53:49 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Mon Apr 18 10:57:14 2022. The thing with "eliminating" subway access is that for the most part, that direct subway access is available through the cross-streets (and in the case of the proposed QT73 via Francis Lewis Blvd, there was still a connection to the subway, albeit at Flushing rather than Jamaica). |
|
|
| (345313) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Mon Apr 18 14:09:47 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Mon Apr 18 10:57:14 2022. That crosstown routes in eastern Queens would not connect with the subway illustrates the even larger issue that such routes do not connect anything. In the route development era, this was all farmland with no commercial centers . . . routes were generally laid out east-west so as to get to and from commercial centers, and to the extent that some operated a short distance on, say, Springfield Boulevard it was in the context of a route that, as a whole, operated east-west. Today these routes are helpful to the extent that they (1) provide access, even if not very good access, to the infill areas that were previously farms, and (2) provide a time-saver for the relatively few people that are traveling peripherally. But in designing such routes it is important to recognize that they will not perform well. They provide service for policy reasons (typically service coverage), rather than meeting a particular defined need, and will be a financial drain on the system. |
|
|
| (345317) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by nh153 on Mon Apr 18 17:57:36 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 17:20:07 2022. Interesting history of how the bus routes in Queens developed! I always wondered why this relatively insignificant route got named the Q1. And the answer is, originally it was the primary route along Hillside Avenue east of Jamaica. It still serves as the "local" during rush hours, when other Hillside Avenue routes are running limited.This is why the Q1 has two terminals to this day. Springfield Boulevard service pre-dates the Q27 and Q88, as well as the Braddock Avenue branch. Riders on Springfield Boulevard don't want to give up their one seat ride to Jamaica, even as Q27 and Q88 buses pass them by. So that's why Springfield Boulevard has three bus routes. But as I said in my original post, Q1 service is so infrequent in middays, evenings and weekends that it really should always run as a continuous loop, down Braddock Avenue and up Springfield Boulevard. But with no idle time. |
|
|
| (345318) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by nh153 on Mon Apr 18 18:24:45 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 17 07:15:46 2022. I noticed that. But I have the feeling folks along Springfield Avenue are not going to give up their one-seat ride to Jamaica so easily. According to Bus Mgr below, they've had that Q1 service for 80-something years.The Queens bus map redesign looks good and tries to avoid duplication. But folks on Springfield Avenue won't accept that they will have to get on a Q27 or Q88 and switch buses at Hillside Avenue for the ride to Jamaica. "Why do commuters on Braddock Avenue still get a one-seat ride to Jamaica but not us?" they will ask. Same for the redesign of the Q17. Logic says one route shouldn't go from Flushing, then out to Fresh Meadows, then to Jamaica. But I'm sure some folks will complain if the Q17 doesn't do all those things after the redesign. |
|
|
| (345319) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Mon Apr 18 20:01:48 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Mon Apr 18 17:57:36 2022. It is the "first" official route of the Board of Estimate, so Q1 makes for a nice tribute. That said, it was only a revocable consent granted in 1914, not a full franchise. The first bus routes in the city of New York franchised by the Board of Estimate were the predecessors of routes N31, Q22, and Q22A, dating from 1915. While the franchise had three "routes," those routes could be strung together, the intent being that these routes would continue into Lawrence, Cedarhurst, and Woodmere. Within Queens, buses were to be operated along (using modern street names) Central Avenue, Beach 20th Street, and Seagirt Avenue to Ostend Beach (O'Donohue Park); Mott Avenue to Point Breeze Place; and along a route not entirely clear but probably from Beach 20th Street via Cornaga Avenue, Grassmere Terrace, Ocean Crest Boulevard, Far Rockaway Boulevard, Beach Channel Drive to Beach 35th Street, then along a no longer existent Rockaway Beach Boulevard to Beach 37th Street, then Rockaway Beach Boulevard to Beach 54th Street, then along a no longer existent Rockaway Beach Boulevard (as it crossed the LIRR at grade) to Beach 56th Street, then Rockaway Beach Boulevard to Beach 102nd Street, then along a no longer existent Rockaway Beach Boulevard to Beach 108th Street, then Rockaway Beach Drive to Beach 109th Street, then along a no longer existent Rockaway Beach Boulevard to Beach 110th Street, then Beach 110th Street, Rockaway Beach Boulevard to Beach 116th Street. The bus company that received this first-ever Board of Estimate-granted franchise, Far Rockaway Transportation Company, Inc., did not succeed, and the following year its franchise was revoked. But his small bus company, in a far corner of Queens County, was the first Board of Estimate bus franchise, and arguably among these routes ought to be "Q1."As for the service along Springfield Boulevard, I am a bit ambivalent as to its continued service by route Q1. Service was established there because that was as far out as service was reasonably warranted, and the only sensible terminal was the Queens Village LIRR station, accessed by Springfield Boulevard. Extending out along Braddock Avenue makes sense, and probably it should have replaced Queens Village LIRR station as a terminal at the time it was so extended. But it is hard, politically, to retrench, then as now. Springfield Boulevard functions as part of a turn-around loop, and is really does not fundamentally warrant Q1 bus service. But its withdrawal would be a lost convenience. Hence, my ambivalence. |
|
|
| (345320) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Apr 18 20:45:04 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Mon Apr 18 18:24:45 2022. They're not really losing a one-seat ride to Jamaica. They can still walk a few blocks over to Hillside Avenue or Jamaica Avenue (and many likely do anyway, considering how much more frequent those routes are). |
|
|
| (345321) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Snilcher on Tue Apr 19 00:06:25 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Mon Apr 18 20:01:48 2022. Thanks again to BusMgr for the amazingly in-depth reportage of Queens bus history.Another alternative to the Q1 double branching that I had thought of in the past was to eliminate the Q1 and replace it with an extension of the (then Q3A) Q83 Springfield Blvd. branch past the QV RR station, up Springfield to Hillside and Braddock to the current Q1 Braddock branch terminus. That would cover both Q1 branches, provide the one-seat ride to Jamaica, and allow for full-time coverage without looping. The only downside (outside of the fact that this would still be half of a double branch route, with the associated impact on headways) might be one with sociopolitical overtones in that eastern Queens riders might not be enthusiastic about a longer routing through Hollis to reach their destinations. In any case, the replacement of the Q83 with the Q27 along Springfield south of QV probably renders this idea irrelevant. |
|
|
| (345332) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Tue Apr 19 20:27:36 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Mon Apr 18 20:01:48 2022. Not to steer away, quick clarity, isn’t the Board of Estimate the modern City Council?These transportation franchises discussed, is it the same concept as to a food chain or store? |
|
|
| (345334) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 19 21:51:28 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusRider on Tue Apr 19 20:27:36 2022. No. The Board of Estimate was abolished in 1989. It was like the municipal senate (with the council being like the House). It had the mayor, the city council president (directly elected, now called public advocate), comptroller, and each of the 5 borough presidents.It was abolished because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional as it gave the same representation to each borough. |
|
|
| (345336) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Wed Apr 20 03:44:59 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Apr 19 21:51:28 2022. Not quite . . . it is a bit more complicated than that. The council itself, originally referred to fully as the "common council," later became known as the "municipal assembly," a bicameral legislature with an upper house known as the "board of aldermen," and a lower house known as as the board of assistant aldermen (or just "board of assistants"). Later, the council would become unicameral with just a "board of aldermen," become eventually becoming the modern "city council." The "board of estimate," or more fully the "board of estimate and apportionment" has never been part of the city legislature, but has been quasi-legislative with its members being a collection of citywide elected officials from the executive (mayor, etc.) and legislative (president) branches, plus borough presidents. It was abolished for the reason stated (though it might have been retained by fixing the constitutional problem).A "franchise" is in most general meaning is a right not universally granted to all the people. Another way to put it is that rights come from God, while franchises come from the government. In the a food chain or a store, it is the owner of the larger enterprise that gives a right to certain individuals to use their name and business processes, and so in that context the giving of that right is a franchise from the larger enterprise. Same general idea, but with a private company, rather than the government, giving a particular right. At its heart the power to grant of franchises is vested in the sovereign, which in the case of New York is the state legislature. The earliest franchises were, in fact, direct acts of the legislature, and that's how the New York and Harlem Railroad and Fifth Avenue Transportation Company were initially chartered and given franchises for the services they would provide. Most states, including New York, delegate the power to grant franchises to local governments, and that power is exercised by the local legislatures . . . in the case of New York, by the common council, municipal assembly, board of aldermen, or city council, depending on what the legislature is named at any given time. The problem in New York City (and other cities, too) was that the aldermen were corrupt. This is where Boss Tweed played his games, and the nickname "forty thieves" was given the board of aldermen. Franchises were granted by the aldermen to the person who the most to the personal accounts of the individual aldermen. A few methods were tried to dispel the corruption, but eventually state legislation was enacted in 1913 to remove the power to grant franchises from the board of aldermen to the board of estimate. A provision was added to the city's charter that required franchise from the board of estimate--not the board of aldermen--as a condition for operating bus routes in the city. (That provision was later moved from the charter to the administrative code, and it still exists there at section 6-202, requiring a franchise from the board of estimate for the operation of a bus line.) When the board of estimate was abolished in 1990 (the charter was revised in 1989, but the board of estimate continued through the following year) the power to grant franchises reverted back to the city council. But the framers of the revised charter were still concerned about corruption, so they added provisions in the revised charter to prevent the council from actually deciding upon individual franchisees and granting them franchises. So under the current charter, the council council continues to set policy, gets to write all the terms and conditions of a franchise, and decides on the process by which a franchisee is selected. But since the council cannot, itself, select a franchisee, the council must adopt a resolution authorizing an administration agency (in the case of bus line franchises, the Department of Transportation) to select a franchisee, using the process specified by the council for making the selection, and then granting the franchise itself. In this way the framers hoped that there would not be corruption among the council members (but could there be corruption in the administrative agency instead?!). All of this is, of course, meaningless because the only bus line franchise now being exercised is for the largely insignificant B110 route. A lot of time, money, and effort being invested in charter revision and establishment of processes for very little return! |
|
|
| (345343) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Wed Apr 20 11:43:11 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Wed Apr 20 03:44:59 2022. Definitely appreciate your insight. Thank you Spider as well.We conversed prior (I haven’t found the thread), but with this Q1 route, due to its historical nature is there a “limitation” of what can be done? Between both Queen drafts, the proposals appear similar, if not the same (simply a route label change), though reading the ridership data and the discussion here (the route having branches and it’s relation to the Q27), wouldn’t a different proposal have been made? Don’t get me wrong, that question could go for any route or service (transit or not) being provided. It seems with this Q1 having multiple branches and so short in length, the more flexibility in restructuring could be done. |
|
|
| (345344) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Wed Apr 20 15:41:56 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusRider on Wed Apr 20 11:43:11 2022. What type of limitation? Legal, political, institutional?Arguably, anything that NYCTA and MTABC intend to do to change a route requires the authority to go before the city for its approval for route changes, but the NYCTA and MTABC have routinely ignored that limitation (and the city has not taken action to date . . . perhaps the city is exercising political wisdom in not taking accountability?). And whether the law requires actual approval by the city is not entirely certain. |
|
|
| (345354) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Allen45 on Fri Apr 22 06:17:01 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Wed Apr 20 15:41:56 2022. I doubt the city particularly cares for accountability. City elected officials like to pretend MTA is a state agency and they have no control over anything when in reality they do have control over bus routes, especially MTABC. |
|
|
| (345410) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Tue May 3 13:41:52 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Wed Apr 20 15:41:56 2022. Sorry for the delay on this. I would say either one of those in its own way. For instance, the Q1 duplicates the Q43, the historical nature of this route seems its operationally "past practice" both legally and institutionally.Now for this redesign plan, because of such limitations, is there a lack of ability to transform the route, while at the same time out right eliminate it? Service duplication that does not have a ridership component (either having a ridership generator or being an extra layer to ease congestion) is often quickly axed. Though the proposal appears to be minor, it still duplicates the Q43, combining with the Q6 is a mere extension. I am not familiar of the ridership dynamics or the area, but say to further improve couldn't it have been revamped into blue crosstown route to a new area as one example, leaving its duplication if it had too and open new opportunities? Possibly rerouting the Q100 up to that discontinued branch of the Q1 if walking distance is a concern. |
|
|
| (345476) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:27:56 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 17:20:07 2022. Thank you for delivering again as you always do BusMgr! So the Q1 was, and basically still is designed to be a supplement to the Q43, with the Queens Village LIRR terminal remaining just as a legacy as I suspected. |
|
|
| (345477) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:27:57 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 17:20:07 2022. Thank you for delivering again as you always do BusMgr! So the Q1 was, and basically still is designed to be a supplement to the Q43, with the Queens Village LIRR terminal remaining just as a legacy as I suspected. |
|
|
| (345478) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:30:39 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Mon Apr 18 10:57:14 2022. The Village of Floral Park really neutered the Q79's potential by not letting the MTA extend it to the LIRR station.As for a Q76/Q77 combo, I don't think there's too much of a demand for that exactly per se. I can see a route between College Point and Green Acres via Francis Lewis Boulevard (i.e. serving Francis Lewis the whole way and not turning on to Springfield Boulevard) working though. |
|
|
| (345479) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:33:36 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by BusMgr on Mon Apr 18 14:09:47 2022. Southeastern Queens and Northeastern Bronx are very similar demographically, and I think that there is untapped demand between the two areas, but the MTA doesn't feel the same way unfortunately. |
|
|
| (345480) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:36:48 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by nh153 on Mon Apr 18 18:24:45 2022. Same for the redesign of the Q17. Logic says one route shouldn't go from Flushing, then out to Fresh Meadows, then to Jamaica. But I'm sure some folks will complain if the Q17 doesn't do all those things after the redesign.TBH I don't see that happening, the Q17 is pretty much a ghost town south of Fresh Meadows. Makes you wonder why it even gets so much service south of Fresh Meadows in the first place. |
|
|
| (345481) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:47:08 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Tue Apr 19 00:06:25 2022. So Braddock Avenue riders would have to take a Grand Tour of Queens Village to get to Jamaica? I don't see that working unfortunately. |
|
|
| (345484) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Snilcher on Fri May 13 22:56:31 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:36:48 2022. the Q17 is pretty much a ghost town south of Fresh Meadows. Makes you wonder why it even gets so much service south of Fresh Meadows in the first place.Maybe the section of 188th St. between the LIE and 75th Ave. doesn't get much patronage because the Q88 along the same routing provides service to the Queens line resulting in a shorter subway ride (Woodhaven Blvd. station as opposed to 169th St. or 179th St.). Though if it were me I'd rather travel to the first stop (guaranteeing a seat) of an express train than a local-only stop in the middle of a crowded subray run. But what about the rest of the stretch along 188th St., which used to be duplicated by the Q75 until that route was discontinued? Surely that can't be a ghost town now, can it? |
|
|
| (345485) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Snilcher on Fri May 13 23:01:16 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:33:36 2022. Southeastern Queens and Northeastern Bronx are very similar demographically, and I think that there is untapped demand between the two areasThis might be better served by some kind of express bus service between the two neighborhoods utilizing Cross Island Parkway and the Throgs Neck or Whitestone bridge. Residents of the endpoints wouldn't be thrilled with a long trip along local streets, and I suspect residents in the neighborhoods between those two endpoints might not be thrilled either. |
|
|
| (345487) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 14 00:10:24 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri May 13 15:33:36 2022. A local bus would definitely drag the ride out.BRT or extremely limited stop would help. |
|
|
| (345490) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat May 14 09:59:03 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Fri May 13 23:01:16 2022. utilizing Cross Island ParkwayThere would be problems with Overpass clearances, and lane crowding for sure. Perhaps limiting this type of vehicle on the Belt System could safely work.   |
|
|
| (345491) | |
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat May 14 10:00:33 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Snilcher on Fri May 13 23:01:16 2022. utilizing Cross Island ParkwayThere would be problems with Overpass clearances, and lane crowding for sure. Those lanes are narrower. Perhaps limiting with this type of vehicle on the Belt System could safely work. |
|
|