MTA to Tweak East Side Bus Service Schedules

[WorkerX]

I have taken M103 many times and waited for M103 bus feels like every 30 minutes.

 

Maybe this is reason why M101/M102/M103 got Schelppie Award from Straphangers Campaign.

 

 

This is because the masses gun for LTD service (and are riding past harlem), the 102 bunches, and the 103 runs like crap (buses are few & far between)...... Those stats aren't telling me much more than that.....

 

If you ask me, there should be a balance between 102's & 103's.... the usage the 102 sees north of 116th is no more important than the usage the 103 obtains south of cooper union.....

 

 

And the cut to the 102 isn't gonna help in the bunching of it. I do agree the 103 has crap service and also agree that a nice balance of 102 to 103 is nice but then the next problem is to not have them bunch and TU could do a better job at that when they get to 100th & 3rd Ave northbound and 24th St & Lexington Ave southbound.

 

It will annoy me to no end that come fall, M102s will still bunch horribly even with the headway change. Just this past Monday afternoon I see no less than 4 M102s at 125th & Lenox Ave and know if you missed that 4th one, you got a long wait just as long as when the first one of that group would came.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

If the MTA were to make headways longer on any of the Lexington Avenue Buses, I'd prefer it to be M102, because that bus is just a duplicative of the M7 and M103. But it shouldn't be cut. Instead the M102 and M103 should get 7 minute bus service throughout the day and 10 at night and 48 late nights, while the M101 is at 8 minutes all day, 11 nights and 45 late nights

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is basic scheduling according to demand. If checks reveal that a bus line is overcrowded at the peak load point, then service is increased. (That's what's happening to the M101.) If checks reveal that a bus line carries well-below-guideline loads at the peak load point, then service is reduced. (That's what's happening to the M102 and M103.)

 

Reducing service when there's too much is the flip side of increasing service when there isn't enough. The two go hand in hand.

 

As Dan Garodnick says at the end of the article, "They happen every year, and usually without complaint."

 

 

That's not the point... The point is understanding WHY ridership is increasing or decreasing on a route. It doesn't take rocket science to cut or increase service. That's the easy part. They should be trying to figure out why the M103 isn't used as much and the reason is because it runs like CRAP. Anytime I use the Lexington Ave line to get to or from the BxM1, I just sit and observe how each line runs... The M101 seems to be the most reliable, then the M102 and the M103 just comes whenever. It's almost like the bus is an after thought. In sum, FIRST try to fix the damn line to make it more reliable and people will use it. It's the same thing with a few other lines like the M2. I can't fathom why that line runs so horribly along 5th Avenue when it is supposed to be LIMITED stops only. The local buses seem to be much more reliable, even if they're bunched. Considering how long you can wait for one M2 to come, it was absurd to cut it back to 15 minutes instead of every 12 when it was already extremely unreliable as it is.

[AndrewJC]

That's not the point... The point is understanding WHY ridership is increasing or decreasing on a route. It doesn't take rocket science to cut or increase service. That's the easy part. They should be trying to figure out why the M103 isn't used as much and the reason is because it runs like CRAP. Anytime I use the Lexington Ave line to get to or from the BxM1, I just sit and observe how each line runs... The M101 seems to be the most reliable, then the M102 and the M103 just comes whenever. It's almost like the bus is an after thought. In sum, FIRST try to fix the damn line to make it more reliable and people will use it. It's the same thing with a few other lines like the M2. I can't fathom why that line runs so horribly along 5th Avenue when it is supposed to be LIMITED stops only. The local buses seem to be much more reliable, even if they're bunched. Considering how long you can wait for one M2 to come, it was absurd to cut it back to 15 minutes instead of every 12 when it was already extremely unreliable as it is.

 

 

Dare I suggest that you're overanalyzing the situation?

 

There's nothing surprising about ridership fluctuations, and any competent transit agency adjusts service periodically to match demand. It's not rocket science nor should it be.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Dare I suggest that you're overanalyzing the situation?

 

There's nothing surprising about ridership fluctuations, and any competent transit agency adjusts service periodically to match demand. It's not rocket science nor should it be.

 

 

Ridership fluctuations always happen, but there is more than just ridership fluctuations happening here because of the unreliability of the M102 and M103 in particular and it should be addressed where possible, before they simply attribute the situation to ridership fluctuation.

[TheSubwayStation]

Ridership fluctuations always happen, but there is more that just ridership fluctuations happening here because of the unreliability of the M102 and M103 in particular and it should be addressed where possible, before they simply attribute the situation to ridership fluctuation.

 

Why has service gotten more unreliable? Is your point that the MTA didn't used to short turn the buses?

[Threxx]

My proposal:

 

M101 LTD service is increased.

 

M102 and M103 service is balanced at 10-11 minutes each.

[AndrewJC]

Ridership fluctuations always happen, but there is more that just ridership fluctuations happening here because of the unreliability of the M102 and M103 in particular and it should be addressed where possible, before they simply attribute the situation to ridership fluctuation.

 

 

I haven't seen any indication that the M102 are M103 are particularly unreliable compared to the rest of the system. (Do you have any data to back up your claim?)

 

I think they want more folks using the M101 because they are limited stop buses. I personally don't mind it since I always use the M101 but it sucks for the other folks who don't.

 

 

This has nothing to do with what "they want" (I'm quite certain they don't care!) and everything to do with ridership fluctuations that have already happened. See the last six pages of the June 2012 MTA Bus Operations Committee Meeting book. Midday peak loads are 109% of guideline on the M101, 51% on the M102, and 43% on the M103.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This has nothing to do with what "they want" (I'm quite certain they don't care!) and everything to do with ridership fluctuations that have already happened. See the last six pages of the June 2012 MTA Bus Operations Committee Meeting book. Midday peak loads are 109% of guideline on the M101, 51% on the M102, and 43% on the M103.

 

 

lol... Actually I wouldn't agree with that. The does like super routes and pushing folks to use Limited Stop and Select Bus Service, so yes while you have a point, I wouldn't say that they don't care. Rolling out more M101s and cutting back on M103s could indeed save them money as well since that could mean shorter run times.

[Threxx]

For example, the B82. It's a super route (obviously...) They continue to try and shove people onto that route, recently with the addition of LTD Stop service, it's gotten even more prevalent.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Why has service gotten more unreliable? Is your point that the MTA didn't used to short turn the buses?

 

 

Well it's hard to say for me because I don't use the routes everyday, but I have noticed that the M103 is almost non-existent. I rarely see one and it's not like their frequencies are that terrible. Today and yesterday I noticed far more M101s that anything else. Last night I actually got an M102 over to the BxM1 which is a rarity, but that was only because I had just missed an M101. lol Today I got an M101 from the BxM1, so I guess my point is that for folks really in need of the M102 or M103, they're usually in for a long commute/wait.

[Threxx]

I once waited 40 minutes for an M103. And they want to cut service? All I can say is smh..

[TheSubwayStation]

Well it's hard to say for me because I don't use the routes everyday, but I have noticed that the M103 is almost non-existent. I rarely see one and it's not like their frequencies are that terrible. Today and yesterday I noticed far more M101s that anything else. Last night I actually got an M102 over to the BxM1 which is a rarity, but that was only because I had just missed an M101. lol Today I got an M101 from the BxM1, so I guess my point is that for folks really in need of the M102 or M103, they're usually in for a long commute.

 

Well, I don't mean to state the obvious, but buses can be affected a lot by traffic conditions. Unless you can show that the MTA is specifically doing things that make service unreliable, I don't see your point.

[Threxx]

Well, I don't mean to state the obvious, but buses can be affected a lot by traffic conditions. Unless you can show that the MTA is specifically doing things that make service unreliable, I don't see your point.

 

 

Um, cutting M102/M103 service is doing just that...

[TheSubwayStation]

Um, cutting M102/M103 service is doing just that...

 

I'm talking about delays, not infrequent scheduling.

 

VG8 said that the lack of ridership (which led to the cuts) was because of unreliable service, which I interpreted as delays.

[Threxx]

I'm talking about delays, not infrequent scheduling.

 

 

3rd and Lexington Avenues aren't the most crowded streets, except:

 

The M102/103 get bogged down on two-way 3rd Avenue.

The M103 gets bogged down on the Bowery as well.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, I don't mean to state the obvious, but buses can be affected a lot by traffic conditions. Unless you can show that the MTA is specifically doing things that make service unreliable, I don't see your point.

 

 

Well this is true, but they generally take the same route for most of their run. There have been routes where the has indeed done things to make the route unreliable though, so I wouldn't put it past them with the M103. Case in point would be the B4. That is a line where buses would constantly go MIA and residents complained about drivers being pulled from the B4 to fill in on other routes, so basically the line was a sacrifical lamb of sorts. Back in 2010 when the cuts first occurred city wide, what they were doing on many routes was simply not filling in for drivers when they called out sick or had vacation time so that "scheduled bus" on whatever line just never came.

 

There is nothing stopping them from pulling drivers from runs either. You could say that some routes may have more priority over others, but at the same time it is a nice way to cut service. Then when riders start migrating to the other lines you simply pull out the stats and say well we're justified in cutting this service because look, ridership decreased, but of course that doesn't tell the whole story of why ridership decreased. Is the line more unreliable? Now as Andrew said, yes ridership does fluctuate but there can also be cases where riders are being forced onto other lines simply because one line isn't performing as it should be so I would say there is natural flucuation if you may and forced fluctuation and there is a difference between the two.

[Cait Sith]

3rd and Lexington Avenues aren't the most crowded streets, except:

 

The M102/103 get bogged down on two-way 3rd Avenue.

The M103 gets bogged down on the Bowery as well.

 

 

The two-way 3rd avenue segment until 24th Street is not bad at all compared to Midtown, thats where the problem persists going Northbound when you got both bridge and tunnel traffic.

 

Plus the M103 only gets tied up South of Houston, after that it's pretty much like the 102.

[Threxx]

The resorts to "forced fluctuation" too much. The forcing of B64 & B4 riders onto the B1 is a perfect example. They bastardized the B4 & B64 in terms of routings and frequencies, and people found alternatives. Now, they propose to further cut those two routes with their forced statistics. If the had their way, they'd just shut down the whole system until the board's pockets are full enough for them not to have to worry anymore...

[B35 via Church]

Today, I lucked out & caught a 103 w/i minutes (over by 56th st)..... a 101 of course came ~5 mins. before it....

while loading a wheelchair passenger onto the bus in the 30s (it was before it hit 34th b/c it was before the bus diverted down 2nd av), another bus passed us - which happened to be another 103...... While being stuck in traffic along bowery for at least 20 minutes, I must have seen about 4 or 5 103's going the opposite direction...... I'm like, isn't this irony, b/c normally 103's do not run like that.....

 

ended up walking from delancey to worth st, couldn't take it anymore.... b/o was too passive in letting so many cars turning off spring & off rivington go ahead of her.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The resorts to "forced fluctuation" too much. The forcing of B64 & B4 riders onto the B1 is a perfect example. They bastardized the B4 & B64 in terms of routings and frequencies, and people found alternatives. Now, they propose to further cut those two routes with their forced statistics. If the had their way, they'd just shut down the whole system until the board's pockets are full enough for them not to have to worry anymore...

 

 

LOL... I wouldn't go that far, but they certainly have agendas at times and when they feel that a route should be cut back they will find a way to get it cut back even if it has to be done slowly. The B64 truncation is clearly an example of them trying to kill off a route. I said that when I first saw the cut and that's exactly what is happening. Folks are being forced to use the B82 now and now the is cutting back service on the B64 citing low ridership when their truncation forced ridership to decline.

[Threxx]

LOL... I wouldn't go that far, but they certainly have agendas at times and when they feel that a route should be cut back they will find a way to get it cut back even if it has to be done slowly. The B64 truncation is clearly an example of them trying to kill of a route. I said that when I first saw the cut and that's exactly what is happening. Folks are being forced to use the B82 now and now the is cutting back service on the B64 citing low ridership when their truncation forced ridership to decline.

 

 

The move from 86th Street wasn't the real problem, as there is still a connection to subway lines near 13th Avenue. All they have to do is send the route back to Coney Island, and the revenue they'd get back would make up for it....

[TheSubwayStation]

Well this is true, but they generally take the same route for most of their run. There have been routes where the has indeed done things to make the route unreliable though, so I wouldn't put it past them with the M103. Case in point would be the B4. That is a line where buses would constantly go MIA and residents complained about drivers being pulled from the B4 to fill in on other routes, so basically the line was a sacrifical lamb of sorts. Back in 2010 when the cuts first occurred city wide, what they were doing on many routes was simply not filling in for drivers when they called out sick or had vacation time so that "scheduled bus" on whatever line just never came.

 

There is nothing stopping them from pulling drivers from runs either. You could say that some routes may have more priority over others, but at the same time it is a nice way to cut service. Then when riders start migrating to the other lines you simply pull out the stats and say well we're justified in cutting this service because look, ridership decreased, but of course that doesn't tell the whole story of why ridership decreased. Is the line more unreliable? Now as Andrew said, yes ridership does fluctuate but there can also be cases where riders are being forced onto other lines simply because one line isn't performing as it should be so I would say there is natural flucuation if you may and forced fluctuation and there is a difference between the two.

 

Your points about the B4 are valid but irrelevant to the M101/2/3. There's no reason, from what I've heard, to suspect that the M102/3 have been intentionally ruined like the B4. If you can show that they have, then it's a different story, but so far, your argument seems to have nothing specifically to do with the M102/3.

 

Sure, anytime ridership decreases, you can theoretically say, "It's probably because the MTA ruined service," but there's no evidence so far that it was the case.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Today, I lucked out & caught a 103 w/i minutes (over by 56th st)..... a 101 of course came ~5 mins. before it....

while loading a wheelchair passenger onto the bus in the 30s (it was before it hit 34th b/c it was before the bus diverted down 2nd av), another bus passed us - which happened to be another 103...... While being stuck in traffic along bowery for at least 20 minutes, I must have seen about 4 or 5 103's going the opposite direction...... I'm like, isn't this irony, b/c normally 103's do not run like that.....

 

ended up walking from delancey to worth st, couldn't take it anymore.... b/o was too passive in letting so many cars turning off spring & off rivington go ahead of her.....

 

 

Another thing I notice is how the M103 comes. I'll sometimes watch how the buses come when waiting for the BxM1 at various stops along 3rd Avenue and it's usually the same set up. M101 will come, then maybe an M102 comes and maybe an M103 will follow so even if the buses are running properly you can already see how they've got it set up. The M101 will pick up most folks naturally being a limited stop bus and any crumbs the M102 gets unless those folks need Harlem or local stops and then there's the M103. If it is ontime, even then with the frequencies if someone can find an alternative they'll use it. I mean folks naturally will try to gravitate to whatever comes the most and is most convenient.

 

Your points about the B4 are valid but irrelevant to the M101/2/3. There's no reason, from what I've heard, to suspect that the M102/3 have been intentionally ruined like the B4. If you can show that they have, then it's a different story, but so far, your argument seems to have nothing specifically to do with the M102/3.

 

Sure, anytime ridership decreases, you can theoretically say, "It's probably because the MTA ruined service," but there's no evidence so far that it was the case.

 

 

I just used an example of what they do in some cases, but even when you look at how the buses come, the fact that the M103 generally comes last AND so close behind the M101 and M102 means that it is generally going to only pick up folks that really need it AND have the patience to wait for it because I'm sure some folks will use alternatives if at all possible. Then when you look at how often it comes late, it isn't a surprise that ridership would drop on the line. So no, you don't have to be "devious" per se to have an impact on ridership, but you can have an impact even without realizing it. Having the M101s come first AND be limited will be a draw right there and it seems clear to me that that's what they want. More folks using the M101s and fewer using the M102 and M103. They could do the reverse if they really wanted to see who needs what bus before claiming fluctuations in ridership to cut back service... Have the M102 and M103 come first and then the M101.

[Threxx]

Who wants to bet that the next thing is going to be extending the M101 or M102 to City Hall to replace the M103, which they will cut?