BrooklynBus Posted February 7, 2011 Share #76 Posted February 7, 2011 BTW, there were a few changes that involved more than 2 bus routes. In the past round of service reductions, the M9/M15/M21, B61/B75/B77, and Bx5/Bx8/Bx14, and Bx26/Bx28/Bx30 restructurings all involved more than 3 routes. I didn't study all the changes that were made, but I wouldn't consider the B 61/ 75/77 to involve more than two routes since the B75 was discontinued in the process. That change should have occurred at the same time the B61 was split into two routes. If that would have happened, I would agree with you. It made just no sense to operate the B61 only from Downtown Brooklyn to Red Hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted February 7, 2011 Share #77 Posted February 7, 2011 Not to get off topic Brooklynbus who is the head of Brooklyn Operations currently at the ? I don't know. There are all sorts of superintendents but I don't know if anyone is responsible just for Brooklyn or they are responsible for just one depot or a part of the borough. If you are talking about the planning end, they never had anyone just in charge of Brooklyn. Paul Gawkowski was responsible for Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island before his title was changed to Director of Short Range Planning. I think the structure is part of the problem. Someone should be responsible for Brooklyn and also for each individual route, especially the heavy ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 7, 2011 Share #78 Posted February 7, 2011 I don't know. There are all sorts of superintendents but I don't know if anyone is responsible just for Brooklyn or they are responsible for just one depot or a part of the borough. If you are talking about the planning end, they never had anyone just in charge of Brooklyn. Paul Gawkowski was responsible for Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island before his title was changed to Director of Short Range Planning. I think the structure is part of the problem. Someone should be responsible for Brooklyn and also for each individual route, especially the heavy ones. They've done this with several subway lines like the and the lines and according to the MTA service on those lines has improved. Lines with anemic service, as well as lines that suffer from bunching should have some sort of superintendent overseeing the daily operations, this way when buses are MIA repeatedly for an extended period of time answers can be given as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted February 7, 2011 Share #79 Posted February 7, 2011 They've done this with several subway lines like the and the lines and according to the MTA service on those lines has improved. Lines with anemic service, as well as lines that suffer from bunching should have some sort of superintendent overseeing the daily operations, this way when buses are MIA repeatedly for an extended period of time answers can be given as to why. I'm not sure about this, but I think for buses responsibility is for organized by sections of a borough not by route. But as I said, that may not be true. There are also many more bus routes than there are subway routes. like 300 or so as compared to about 25, so it may just cost too much to do it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 7, 2011 Share #80 Posted February 7, 2011 I'm not sure about this, but I think for buses responsibility is for organized by sections of a borough not by route. But as I said, that may not be true. There are also many more bus routes than there are subway routes. like 300 or so as compared to about 25, so it may just cost too much to do it that way. If I recall correctly they don't have these guys on every subway line, just some of them. They could have one person overseeing each borough and assign folks to the most problematic lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 7, 2011 Share #81 Posted February 7, 2011 Someone should be responsible for each individual route, especially the heavy ones. Wouldn't that be a problem, especially when changes involve two or more routes? The managers would have to coordinate their changes, which usually fails. Also, the last thing the MTA needs now is more managers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 7, 2011 Share #82 Posted February 7, 2011 Wouldn't that be a problem, especially when changes involve two or more routes? The managers would have to coordinate their changes, which usually fails. Also, the last thing the MTA needs now is more managers. Riders have been happy overall on lines like the and the , so why not try it as a pilot program on a line or two? Sure it means more managers, but in this case finally someone would be accountable. I just think buses get neglected from some depots in terms of dispatch being around to monitor the situation and this could improve reliability, especially on a line like the S54 which suffers from MIA buses and buses that just seem to show up whenever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 7, 2011 Share #83 Posted February 7, 2011 Riders have been happy overall on lines like the and the , so why not try it as a pilot program on a line or two? Sure it means more managers, but in this case finally someone would be accountable. I just think buses get neglected from some depots in terms of dispatch being around to monitor the situation and this could improve reliability, especially on a line like the S54 which suffers from MIA buses and buses that just seem to show up whenever. IMO instead of one certain line, it should be, say, 5 busy lines and ten less-busy lines per manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 7, 2011 Share #84 Posted February 7, 2011 IMO instead of one certain line, it should be, say, 5 busy lines and ten less-busy lines per manager. Not a bad idea mate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted February 8, 2011 Share #85 Posted February 8, 2011 Wouldn't that be a problem, especially when changes involve two or more routes? The managers would have to coordinate their changes, which usually fails. Also, the last thing the MTA needs now is more managers. I wasn't proposing that for planning purposes (that would make no sense), but rather just for operational purposes for schedule adherence or to minimize large gaps between buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokecrazy Posted February 9, 2011 Share #86 Posted February 9, 2011 If you use the B6 in the middle , there is a double bus transfer on this route. There is also a double transfer on the M10 and 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 9, 2011 Share #87 Posted February 9, 2011 If you use the B6 in the middle , there is a double bus transfer on this route.There is also a double transfer on the M10 and 20. How exactly does this apply to this thread?? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 9, 2011 Share #88 Posted February 9, 2011 In this thread, we also discussed the B6, so he mentioned that it has a third transfer. If you think about it, it does have relevance to this thread. That means that somebody can take a north-south bus from Avenue K to Avenue H, transfer to the B6, and then transfer to the B11, all on one fare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted February 9, 2011 Share #89 Posted February 9, 2011 In this thread, we also discussed the B6, so he mentioned that it has a third transfer. If you think about it, it does have relevance to this thread. That means that somebody can take a north-south bus from Avenue K to Avenue H, transfer to the B6, and then transfer to the B11, all on one fare. And also to the subway. But how many people even know about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 9, 2011 Share #90 Posted February 9, 2011 In this thread, we also discussed the B6, so he mentioned that it has a third transfer. If you think about it, it does have relevance to this thread. That means that somebody can take a north-south bus from Avenue K to Avenue H, transfer to the B6, and then transfer to the B11, all on one fare. I guess my question is why would they want to do that? The only need I could see is if they're going to Sunset Park seeing that the (B6) and (B11) pretty much run together from around Ave J until Brooklyn College over by the Junction. Also, since we were talking about improving the (B6) I don't see how the transfer would help that? Currently the frequencies with the (B11) and the fact that it doesn't have Limited Stop Service makes it far less desirable than the (B11), so like I said, unless someone is going to Sunset Park, they would most likely not transfer from the B6. It also seems like a moot point since most folks use Unlimited cards anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted February 9, 2011 Share #91 Posted February 9, 2011 I guess my question is why would they want to do that? The only need I could see is if they're going to Sunset Park seeing that the (B6) and (B11) pretty much run together from around Ave J until Brooklyn College over by the Junction. Also, since we were talking about improving the (B6) I don't see how the transfer would help that? Currently the frequencies with the (B11) and the fact that it doesn't have Limited Stop Service makes it far less desirable than the (B11), so like I said, unless someone is going to Sunset Park, they would most likely not transfer from the B6. It also seems like a moot point since most folks use Unlimited cards anyway... I agree. I don't think many need to change again for the B11. If the B6 transfer is not counted, could someone taking the B46 to the B6 (instead of walking from Avenue K) get another transfer to the IRT at Nostrand Avenue? If not, then I don't see how the extra transfer applies to this discussion. I think only a little more than half the riders have an unlimited, so it is not really a moot point. And the higher they raise it, fewer will be buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 9, 2011 Share #92 Posted February 9, 2011 I guess my question is why would they want to do that? The only need I could see is if they're going to Sunset Park seeing that the (B6) and (B11) pretty much run together from around Ave J until Brooklyn College over by the Junction. Also, since we were talking about improving the (B6) I don't see how the transfer would help that? Currently the frequencies with the (B11) and the fact that it doesn't have Limited Stop Service makes it far less desirable than the (B11), so like I said, unless someone is going to Sunset Park, they would most likely not transfer from the B6. It also seems like a moot point since most folks use Unlimited cards anyway... Actually, even though the majority of all rides taken are with Unlimited MetroCards, most riders use Pay-Per-Ride MetroCards. See these links: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/20/mta-demographics-a-glimpse-at-who-rides-and-how-we-pay/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/10/20/who-buys-which-type-of-metrocard/ I agree. I don't think many need to change again for the B11. If the B6 transfer is not counted, could someone taking the B46 to the B6 (instead of walking from Avenue K) get another transfer to the IRT at Nostrand Avenue? If not, then I don't see how the extra transfer applies to this discussion. I think only a little more than half the riders have an unlimited, so it is not really a moot point. And the higher they raise it, fewer will be buying it. I think that the third transfer is valid on the subway, but I'm not 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 10, 2011 Share #93 Posted February 10, 2011 Actually, even though the majority of all rides taken are with Unlimited MetroCards, most riders use Pay-Per-Ride MetroCards. See these links: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/20/mta-demographics-a-glimpse-at-who-rides-and-how-we-pay/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/10/20/who-buys-which-type-of-metrocard/ I think that the third transfer is valid on the subway, but I'm not 100% sure. Most folks don't know about a 3rd transfer and the Pay-Per-Ride folks are looking to get the most bang for their buck, so transfering to the (B11) from the (B6) is still a moot point unless they're going to Sunset Park. But backtracking, the original point of the thread was to see how the (B6) could be alleviated from suffering from bunching and the like... Bringing up this transfer in no way would help with that. That's why I don't get the point of bringing up the idea of a third transfer... What I am missing exactly that makes the third transfer so relevant in this post??? It just seems so out of the left field... I read the post twice trying to get the point of that guy putting here. Originally I thought he posted in error here because he has another post about the same thing in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 10, 2011 Share #94 Posted February 10, 2011 If the transfer is valid on the subway, you can take the B46 to the B6 to the subway. That's how it is relevant (which puts a hole in the argument for having the B11 extended because riders in the Georgetown area have the option of taking the B46 or B47 to the B6 to access the (2)/(5)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 10, 2011 Share #95 Posted February 10, 2011 If the transfer is valid on the subway, you can take the B46 to the B6 to the subway. That's how it is relevant (which puts a hole in the argument for having the B11 extended because riders in the Georgetown area have the option of taking the B46 or B47 to the B6 to access the (2)/(5)) So I don't see how the three transfers would help the (B6) in terms of folks opting for the (B11)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted February 10, 2011 Share #96 Posted February 10, 2011 If the transfer is valid on the subway, you can take the B46 to the B6 to the subway. That's how it is relevant (which puts a hole in the argument for having the B11 extended because riders in the Georgetown area have the option of taking the B46 or B47 to the B6 to access the (2)/(5)) The only problem with your logic is that even if everyone knew about the second transfer, and if it is good for the subway, how many people who are riding the B46 and B47, who are already on it would bother getting off and change to the B6 to change again for the Nostrand Avenue Subway, when they can just stay on the bus to the IRT at Utica or Sutter Avenues? With bus reliability the way it is, it's a real gamble to get off a bus to wait for another one. There may only be a 50% chance you will save time, and a 50% chance you will lose time, so unless you can see a bus in the distance before you get off, it is not a good gamble. Also, if the B11 went eastbound on Avenue J and came back with Avenue K at least part of the way, the turn-around and traffic would be no problem. It would be a fast run and riders especially south of Avenue J would be attracted to it if the bus kept to its schedule and the rush hour headways were decent. 20 minutes would be fine for the off-peak at least initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 10, 2011 Share #97 Posted February 10, 2011 The B46 and B47 intersect the B6 at its limited stops, and the limited runs very frequently, so you really don't lose too much time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.