Home  Maps  About

Home > BusChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  

(44036)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jan 6 13:30:59 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:33:38 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It's the QM18! What's wrong with taking the subway?

Post a New Response

(44037)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Sat Jan 6 13:39:54 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jan 6 13:30:59 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Exactly. F train to Q10A Limited.

Post a New Response

(44041)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by MCI D4000 81994 on Sat Jan 6 14:28:11 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:43:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
35' HEV's would not work on SI on some routes

Post a New Response

(44043)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 15:06:50 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by MCI D4000 81994 on Sat Jan 6 14:28:11 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They would be kept on lighter use routes, and would NOT ever be used on the S62, S78, and S79.

Post a New Response

(44046)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 15:23:54 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 15:06:50 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They would never be used on ALOT of SI routes, these lines are crush-loaded during rush hours out here.

However, 35' buses would work on routes like the S59, S54, S42, S60, S55/S56, and S52.

Post a New Response

(44058)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Mysterious Friday 1986 on Sat Jan 6 17:04:12 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by petabread2 on Sat Jan 6 00:39:37 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
That's so true.

Post a New Response

(44060)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 17:34:48 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Mysterious Friday 1986 on Sat Jan 6 17:04:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
And, it is one of many cases where express buses take up depot space that local routes desperately need (converting 5894-7 to two-door buses, and eliminating cruisers altogether would go a long way to meeting customer demand on the Q10, which is currently NOT met---because it is constantly leaving passengers behind during peak service.)

Post a New Response

(44069)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 6 18:57:21 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:43:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Oh geez.

Will you please be quite?

You sound foolish.

Post a New Response

(44071)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 19:14:50 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 6 18:57:21 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It's not impossible, Los Angeles has already done it as other agencies across the world.

Post a New Response

(44072)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Mr. Harlem Line on Sat Jan 6 19:16:14 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:43:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
That's borrring...

Post a New Response

(44073)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 19:25:19 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Mr. Harlem Line on Sat Jan 6 19:16:14 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
No more boring than it is now! There's nothing spectacular about the fleets we see now, and have seen for the past 5+ years.

Post a New Response

(44076)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 6 19:36:42 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 19:25:19 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I wasn't really involved with BusTalk/BusChat back then, but how did everyone feel when RTSs were taking over NYC? Were we bored then?

Post a New Response

(44077)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by q55viamyrtle on Sat Jan 6 19:44:27 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 6 19:36:42 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think most bus fans liked the RTS.
Remember, we also has GMC Fishbowls and FLXIBLES..we also had the new GRUMMAN 870s and we had the colorful PBL Liveries.

Post a New Response

(44085)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:38:26 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Future FLA bus operator on Fri Jan 5 14:09:11 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Probably the same amount of people who forked over the $5 to ride the Orion Vs just a few months ago.

Personally, it wouldn't be me.

Post a New Response

(44087)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:42:19 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 10:12:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well I've seen it happen on the QM17 on numerous occasions. For example, when the TA first took over the route, the 2nd bus (there were only two trips each direction then) was 3156 for over a week.

Post a New Response

(44088)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:45:32 2007, in response to 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jan 5 13:58:23 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hell, I didn't even know JFK had Orion VIIs.



Post a New Response

(44089)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:48:15 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 01:09:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I do not agree at all. If the latter was the case, they could just simply "borrow" a bus from another depot-which has been the practice since forever.

Post a New Response

(44090)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:52:38 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Sat Jan 6 01:33:24 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Even when GBL operated these lines, the QM15/QM18 did receive anything and I do mean anything that was available-from '85/86 RTSs to 1999 Orion Vs.

Post a New Response

(44096)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:30:28 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:48:15 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
However, at rush hour, good luck getting a spare bus.

Post a New Response

(44098)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:31:16 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:48:15 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Doesn't matter. If the fleet is all RTS, Orions, and New Flyer (standard transit buses), then ANY bus can run on ANY route.

Post a New Response

(44101)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:48:00 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:30:28 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hey, it's been done before-definately not impossible.

Post a New Response

(44102)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:51:41 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:31:16 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well if that's the case, then ANY and ALL routes, INCLUDING the EXPRESS routes should charge $2 NOT $5.

If you are going to charge premium fare for express bus routes, then premium buses should be used. Why in the world would someone want to pay $5 to ride on a bus that you can pay $2 for?

Post a New Response

(44103)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:54:26 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:51:41 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
MBTA and WMATA, and many TAs in Canada use transit-style buses on express routes sometimes (MBTA all the time, since they have no express buses per se). Why should the MTA be so special?

Remember, if express service is cut, the buses may have to be sold off.

Post a New Response

(44104)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:55:22 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:31:16 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I know this is off topic, but do you know the address to any current MTA NYC and Bus websites? I want to know when did JFK start receiving O7s?

Thanks.

Post a New Response

(44106)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 23:02:06 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:54:26 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Because we are not in Boston, Canada or any other transit region that use express style buses.

NYC, with the exception of a few NYCDOT companies, always provided premium service for the premium fare-over 30 years. If I am correct, the original purpose of the express bus service was to provide more comfortable service to/from Manhattan than the subway, thus charging a premium fare.

Why after 30 years, provide us with regular service, BUT also charges us premium fares? I don't think that would fly at all. In fact I know for yours truly, it wouldn't.

Post a New Response

(44108)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 23:19:33 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:55:22 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Look on BusTalk.net in Hot Topics.

Post a New Response

(44109)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 23:19:59 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 23:02:06 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It's also sending a message.

Post a New Response

(44110)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 23:20:14 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 23:19:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Thanks.

Post a New Response

(44113)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 23:49:06 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 23:19:59 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
And what would that message be?

Post a New Response

(44114)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jan 7 00:03:09 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 23:49:06 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Take the local bus, you are not special, and we need the floor space for local buses more than you need an express bus.

Post a New Response

(44126)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jan 7 01:01:13 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:51:41 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I suspect that most people pay for the service, not for the physical bus.

The service offered by the express bus has an operating cost of $11.98 per passenger trip. The service offered by the local bus has an operating cost of $2.26 per passenger trip. It's bad enough that those of us who don't ride express buses have to fork over $6.98 (actually, closer to $7.81 or more, since very few express bus riders pay in cash) each time somebody boards one of those things.

But, hey, if you object to the seats, fine -- take the local bus and subway like the vast majority of your fellow New Yorkers do.

Post a New Response

(44266)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Mon Jan 8 01:23:42 2007, in response to 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jan 5 13:58:23 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
That reminds when in October, I took my first ever express bus ride. I took the BM2 into the city. It was a MCI coach. I met my girlfriend and we took the BQM1 back to Bklyn. We just missed a late BQM1 which was another MCI coach. After a whole bunch of MCI flew by on 5Ave, our bus finally showed up. My girlfriend looked at me and said, "Is this the bus?"

It was CNG Orion V#7223

Post a New Response

(44336)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 8 20:30:20 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by q55viamyrtle on Sat Jan 6 19:44:27 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Uhhh.....there was no BusTalk back then when the GMC Fishbowls were still around. Windows and Mac were both at a very primitive state, was the internet even around then?

Post a New Response

(44339)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by q55viamyrtle on Mon Jan 8 20:46:04 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 8 20:30:20 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I wasn't referring to the bustalk site or any site.

I was just making a general statement to the original poster that I believe most people (especially from what I've read on sites like this and others) liked the RTS when they were introduced.
I went on to further explain that there was also a wider variety of bus models and color schemes (the PBLs) when the RTS was introduced.

Post a New Response

(44353)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Jan 9 07:49:59 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 8 20:30:20 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
HAHAHAHAHA newbie.

Yes, the Internet was around in the mid-90's. As was the World Wide Web (begun in 1991), which is an entirely different thing but which you may be referring to.

Did it not occur to you that there might have been other operating systems in use at the time, and that today's perception of "primitive" was not really relevant back then? I spent many a late night in 1992 in the Mac Lab in the basement of Upson working on computer science projects; aside from the frequent crashes, they served the purpose just fine. Then the next year, I obtained an account at the Sun Lab on the third floor.

Incidentally, the fishbowls were still in service on New York Bus Service in 2005.

Post a New Response

(44594)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Fri Jan 12 14:49:13 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jan 7 00:03:09 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
First of all, that so called message is retarded and ignorant at best. It is not about be being so special. It is about getting what I'm paying for.

If you have such a low self esteem about yourself that you would pay for a certain level of service, but get sh*t instead and be happy about it, then by all means enjoy yourself, just leave me out of it.

Post a New Response

(44596)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Fri Jan 12 14:56:17 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jan 7 01:01:13 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You can go into all of that ying-yang about what it cost to operate an express bus if you want to. My point is if the TA and NOT YOU feel that it is too much to operate the service, then don't operate it.

But don't operate the service, charge express fare and give local service.

Oh and by the way, not only do I take the local buses and subways every day, but I've been taking them long before you were even thought of, so point blank, you aint said nothing.

Post a New Response

(44600)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Jan 12 16:05:19 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Fri Jan 12 14:49:13 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You're getting double what you're paying for.

Post a New Response

(44701)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jan 14 11:09:18 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Fri Jan 12 14:56:17 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Who's giving local service? The bus ran all the way from Manhattan out to Ozone Park (without picking up any new fares outside Manhattan). It didn't pick up its passengers at the subway station, as a local bus would.

Again: People don't pay $5 (actually $4.17 and down) to ride on a bus with soft seats. It's the service they're paying for, not the seats. (It's also the service that drives the operating cost way up.)

The QM18 is not a TA route.

Post a New Response

(44703)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jan 14 11:11:39 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Fri Jan 12 16:05:19 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Closer to triple. Which, in absolute terms, comes out to quite a bit per ride.

Post a New Response

(44705)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by B53RICH on Sun Jan 14 12:30:59 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jan 14 11:09:18 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
How much of the cost would be brought down if those OTR MCI coaches weren't used and instead using regular transit buses, maybe with soft seats as were used on express routes for many years before the MCI's were used?

Post a New Response

(44719)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 14 16:08:55 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by B53RICH on Sun Jan 14 12:30:59 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I thought it would be a lot but I think now it isn't that significant, although I would definitely sacrifice the MCIs for a cheaper fare.

Post a New Response

(44741)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jan 14 21:38:47 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by B53RICH on Sun Jan 14 12:30:59 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I like that idea. What I would do is either get rid of all MCI Cruisers, if feasible rebuild and repaint all MCI Classics in service and all Eastchester Storage buses, and put them in express bus service. Or, I would rebuild all RTS Suburban/Orion V Suburban buses in service, and place them in express service along with newly ordered Orion V Suburban buses. Hybrids will replace the lost buses.

Post a New Response

(44793)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by QM18Express on Mon Jan 15 20:30:07 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by PATHman on Sat Jan 6 00:40:23 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
BUT will you pay $5 to ride this?



(Please note, my friend was nice enough to set it as the QM18)

Post a New Response

(44795)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jan 15 21:27:29 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by QM18Express on Mon Jan 15 20:30:07 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well, that one has soft seats, so it'd be more attractive to express riders.

That's what all express routes should be utilizing rather than the MCI Cruisers.

Post a New Response

(44803)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by QM18Express on Mon Jan 15 22:26:09 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jan 15 21:27:29 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I agree. I don't mind the MCI Cruisers anyway.
On a side note, 9860 was on the QM1 today!

Post a New Response

(44805)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by mr_brian on Mon Jan 15 22:26:45 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by QM18Express on Mon Jan 15 22:26:09 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
wowzers!

Post a New Response

(44810)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by PATHman on Mon Jan 15 23:13:59 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by QM18Express on Mon Jan 15 20:30:07 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It's not a MCI but at least it's not a Orion VII. The Orion V's on the former private routes are surprisingly comfortable.

Post a New Response

(44811)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by QM18Express on Mon Jan 15 23:27:35 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by mr_brian on Mon Jan 15 22:26:45 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
And to think that I ALMOST rode on it? If I had been a little bit faster at walking, I could

Post a New Response

(44812)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jan 16 00:52:15 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jan 15 21:27:29 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Some RTS still have suburban seats similar to the Crusiers. 9336 I think was on the B3 a few weeks ago. I wouldn't mind sitting in that bus.

Post a New Response

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]