MTA to Tweak East Side Bus Service Schedules

[checkmatechamp13]

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.

 

 

I could definitely see why you would want the limited to come first. I mean, on any given route, riders prefer the limited to the local, so it makes sense to make it easier to take the limited. (I mean, B35's mentioned how the limited on the B35 is no faster than the local, and yet riders still pack onto it).

 

The funny thing with this whole thread is that when I went to Cooper Union, I would always see an M103 at the same time I got out (and I didn't get out at the same exact time every day). I was tempted to take it for the hell of it, but then I figured I'd have to walk from City Hall and worry about catching the ferry and everything, so I said screw it.

[AndrewJC]

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.

 

 

"Super routes"?

 

The midday round-trip running time is 227 minutes on the M101, 199 minutes on the M102, and 187 minutes on the M103. If there were a conspiracy to push riders onto the shortest route, it's working backwards.

 

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.

 

 

People are riding the B82 because - this may come as a shocker - the B82 best meets their transportation needs. Limited service is offered because there are a lot of long-distance riders and overall B82 service is frequent enough to maintain a decent headway at local stops.

 

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.

 

 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

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

 

 

The plural of anecdote is still not data.

 

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.

 

 

In case you were under a rock in late 2009 and early 2010, the B4 and B64 were truncated - among many many other service cuts - to address a funding crisis. Naturally, that had an impact on ridership on the remaining parts of those routes. That's a simple fact, not a conspiracy.

 

 

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...

 

 

That would take quite some time. You do realize that the MTA Board is unpaid?

 

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?

 

 

That was the service pattern until 1995. I don't see it coming back any time soon.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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?

 

 

You know I wouldn't be shocked. Let's look at it this way... If one of the three routes had to go, I don't see the M101 going anywhere simply because the line needs Limited stop service. I'll admit that unless I've got time to burn, I'd rather wait for the M101 limited, just because it will mean fixed stops, so the likelihood of getting caught up is less with that feature added in.

[B35 via Church]

"Super routes"?

 

It's a term I coined.... simply put, it's the unnecessary prolonging of a singular local bus route (that's already long enough) to fit as many people as possible

(a good example of what I'd call a "super route" is some people's suggestion in wanting to combine the B48 with the B49)

 

 

The funny thing with this whole thread is that when I went to Cooper Union, I would always see an M103 at the same time I got out (and I didn't get out at the same exact time every day). I was tempted to take it for the hell of it, but then I figured I'd have to walk from City Hall and worry about catching the ferry and everything, so I said screw it.

 

In what direction though?

Or more specifically, in what direction moreso than the other?

[Threxx]

"Super routes"?

 

The midday round-trip running time is 227 minutes on the M101, 199 minutes on the M102, and 187 minutes on the M103. If there were a conspiracy to push riders onto the shortest route, it's working backwards.

 

No, it's a conspiracy to force people onto the Limited...

 

People are riding the B82 because - this may come as a shocker - the B82 best meets their transportation needs. Limited service is offered because there are a lot of long-distance riders and overall B82 service is frequent enough to maintain a decent headway at local stops.

 

The B82 best meets their transport needs because it is the only route in that area. It is the ONLY route in Flatlands, look at any map!!!

 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is still not data.

 

Still, personal experiences are evidence if they have correlations.

 

In case you were under a rock in late 2009 and early 2010, the B4 and B64 were truncated - among many many other service cuts - to address a funding crisis. Naturally, that had an impact on ridership on the remaining parts of those routes. That's a simple fact, not a conspiracy.

 

Yes, it just happened to be that they are now cutting service on the routes, which lost ridership for that exact reason. Yes, there was an impending problem, but the isn't myopic.

 

That would take quite some time. You do realize that the MTA Board is unpaid?

 

You do realize that they spend millions a year on bullshit amenities for them?

 

 

w00t! We have a bad-ass over here! Replies in red.

 

Are you sure you don't work for MTA Brass? I've never seen anyone so staunchly defend them like this!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

"Super routes"?

 

The midday round-trip running time is 227 minutes on the M101, 199 minutes on the M102, and 187 minutes on the M103. If there were a conspiracy to push riders onto the shortest route, it's working backwards.

 

In theory the M101 should be faster, but with the way they have them scheduled, it isn't surprising that they're the slowest. I mean you've got the M102 and M103 running right behind the M101 so even if it is limited, folks generally will take the first bus they see if possible. It's clear to me that the schedules should be adjusted in that regard.

 

 

People are riding the B82 because - this may come as a shocker - the B82 best meets their transportation needs. Limited service is offered because there are a lot of long-distance riders and overall B82 service is frequent enough to maintain a decent headway at local stops.

 

I would beg to differ. Anytime I needed a B82 it would take an eternity. I hate using the route because the buses run like crap IMO, so I don't see what is so great about having it, hence why I would love to see the B64 brought back to its old terminus.

 

 

 

In case you were under a rock in late 2009 and early 2010, the B4 and B64 were truncated - among many many other service cuts - to address a funding crisis. Naturally, that had an impact on ridership on the remaining parts of those routes. That's a simple fact, not a conspiracy.

When you run crap service on a line like the B4 for YEARS, the budget crisis just gave them an excuse to put those routes on the chopping block to be truncated... Nothing more, nothing less. They had it set in their minds that they wanted to do certain things with certain routes and now they had their chance to act on those cuts. Now since they claim this was due to a funding crisis and now they may be able to restore some cuts, let's see what they do.

[checkmatechamp13]

In case you were under a rock in late 2009 and early 2010, the B4 and B64 were truncated - among many many other service cuts - to address a funding crisis. Naturally, that had an impact on ridership on the remaining parts of those routes. That's a simple fact, not a conspiracy.

 

 

The B64 cut was completely stupid because it chopped off the most efficient part of the route. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't save any money, because a lot of the attractiveness of the B64 for Bath Beach riders was all of the connections available at Coney Island. (Hell, even for Bay Ridge customers, they took it to Coney Island when coming off the SI buses and whatever)

 

As for the B4 cut, it may not been as bad as the B64, but I'm pretty sure there were still other ways to save money, considering that the B4 was a pretty efficient route (according to them, the marginal cost was ~ $2.57 per passenger east of SHB, which is on par with a lot of SI routes, though I'd question that number considering the fact that they restored the (supposedly) less efficient rush hour service instead of the (supposedly) more efficient weekend service.

 

You know I wouldn't be shocked. Let's look at it this way... If one of the three routes had to go, I don't see the M101 going anywhere simply because the line needs Limited stop service. I'll admit that unless I've got time to burn, I'd rather wait for the M101 limited, just because it will mean fixed stops, so the likelihood of getting caught up is less with that feature added in.

 

 

It's also the route with the fewest alternatives. The M102 is covered by the M7 in Harlem, and the M101/103 south of there, and the M103 could theoretically be covered by extending either route down to City Hall (though realistically, I can't see that happening)

 

In what direction though?

Or more specifically, in what direction moreso than the other?

 

 

Southbound. No question about it.

 

No, it's a conspiracy to force people onto the Limited...

 

 

I can see his point. If it were a matter of the limited and local being the same exact length, then I could see it, but in this case, even though the limited is faster, it still has a longer runtime. So the MTA would be providing extra service along Amsterdam Avenue that they don't want to.

 

 

The B82 best meets their transport needs because it is the only route in that area. It is the ONLY route in Flatlands, look at any map!!!

 

 

But that still has nothing to do with being forced onto it.

 

In theory the M101 should be faster, but with the way they have them scheduled, it isn't surprising that they're the slowest. I mean you've got the M102 and M103 running right behind the M101 so even if it is limited, folks generally will take the first bus they see if possible. It's clear to me that the schedules should be adjusted in that regard.

 

 

That's not the issue. The M101 is way longer than the M102/103. It takes a lot longer to travel from 125th & Lexington up to Inwood than it takes to go from 6th Street to City Hall.

[TheSubwayStation]

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.

 

So, what should the MTA do to increase M103 ridership?

 

 

Now since they claim this was due to a funding crisis and now they may be able to restore some cuts, let's see what they do.

 

Are you referring to the 2010 cuts or the current M102/3 cuts?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So, what should the MTA do to increase M103 ridership?

 

I already stated one way... Rearrange the scheduling of the route so it isn't following right behind the M101 and M102.

 

Are you referring to the 2010 cuts or the current M102/3 cuts?

 

 

2010 cuts. Andrew is arguing that the 2010 cuts were made due to financial reasons and I'm arguing that those were cuts that they wanted to make all along in many cases and that the financial crisis just gave them the excuse to justify those cuts.

[TheSubwayStation]

I already stated one way... Rearrange the scheduling of the route so it isn't following right behind the M101 and M102.

Are they scheduled to come after the M101 or M102, or are they just off-schedule? Please tell me if you were looking at the schedule. If so, that seems like surprisingly bad scheduling, even for an agency that can be incompetent...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Are they scheduled to come after the M101 or M102, or are they just off-schedule? Please tell me if you were looking at the schedule. If so, that seems like surprisingly bad scheduling, even for an agency that can be incompetent...

 

 

Not necessarily right after... Maybe 5 minute gaps, but sometimes there is just 3 minute gaps... The problem is that even with a 5 minute gap that is nothing. Perfect example is the X1. All it takes is one bus to have a problem and the whole line gets messed up with terrible bunching. You'll have 3 X1s running together when they're supposed to arrive every 5 minutes. I guess they figure that even if an M103 is scheduled to come three minutes after an M101 that shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they see each line as separate becuase of where they end, but for most of their routes they aren't.

[DanTheTransitMan]

How about this: nothing on Third or Lexington avenue is going to be cut, the only thing that the MTA is going to do is cut useless runs. Trust me they exist on the M101, M102, and M103 equally. On top of that the M103 ridership is to high to be cut. So chill with the conspiracy theories.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

How about this: nothing on Third or Lexington avenue is going to be cut, the only thing that the MTA is going to do is cut useless runs. Trust me they exist on the M101, M102, and M103 equally. On top of that the M103 ridership is to high to be cut. So chill with the conspiracy theories.

 

 

I don't know if I agree with that...

[AndrewJC]

It's a term I coined.... simply put, it's the unnecessary prolonging of a singular bus route to fit as many people as possible

(a good example of what I'd call a "super route" is some people's suggestion in wanting to combine the B48 with the B49)

 

 

Combining routes can reduce the need for transfers but can also reduce reliability. Long routes aren't necessarily good or bad - it depends on the specific circumstances.

 

w00t! We have a bad-ass over here! Replies in red.

 

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that only certain opinions were allowed here.

 

Are you sure you don't work for MTA Brass? I've never seen anyone so staunchly defend them like this!

 

 

Hold on, let me check my paycheck. Nope, it's not from the MTA. Sorry for not fitting your stereotype.

 

No, it's a conspiracy to force people onto the Limited...

 

 

Why would the MTA conspire to force people onto the bus route with a 227-minute round trip running time rather than the ones with a 199-minute and a 187-minute running time? Per trip, it costs them more to operate the M101 than the M102 or M103.

 

 

The B82 best meets their transport needs because it is the only route in that area. It is the ONLY route in Flatlands, look at any map!!!

 

 

Of course. So why do you say that "They continue to try and shove people onto that route"?

 

 

Still, personal experiences are evidence if they have correlations.

 

 

English, please?

 

I once waited over a half hour for the M15 (preferably SBS, but I would have taken a local if it came first - it didn't). During the PM rush. That doesn't mean the M15 has scheduled 30+ minute headways during the PM rush, nor does it mean that there's a conspiracy to chase riders away from the M15.

 

 

Yes, it just happened to be that they are now cutting service on the routes, which lost ridership for that exact reason. Yes, there was an impending problem, but the isn't myopic.

 

 

I will once again post the June 2012 MTA Bus Operations Commitee Meeting book. I will once again suggest that you look at the last six pages. Routine service adjustments, up and down, are based on peak loads. This has been the case since the MTA adopted loading guidelines in the 1980's. It is standard transit scheduling practice around the world.

 

 

You do realize that they spend millions a year on bullshit amenities for them?

 

 

No, I do not. If you are, then I suggest you immediately contact the Office of the Inspector General, who I think will be very interested to hear what you have to tell him.

 

In theory the M101 should be faster, but with the way they have them scheduled, it isn't surprising that they're the slowest. I mean you've got the M102 and M103 running right behind the M101 so even if it is limited, folks generally will take the first bus they see if possible. It's clear to me that the schedules should be adjusted in that regard.

 

 

I didn't say the M101 was slower. I said its running time was longer. It covers a much greater distance than the M102 or M103.

 

I would beg to differ. Anytime I needed a B82 it would take an eternity. I hate using the route because the buses run like crap IMO, so I don't see what is so great about having it, hence why I would love to see the B64 brought back to its old terminus.

 

 

If you don't want to ride the B82, don't ride the B82. (ThrexxBus complained that people were being shoved onto it.)

 

When you run crap service on a line like the B4 for YEARS, the budget crisis just gave them an excuse to put those routes on the chopping block to be truncated... Nothing more, nothing less. They had it set in their minds that they wanted to do certain things with certain routes and now they had their chance to act on those cuts. Now since they claim this was due to a funding crisis and now they may be able to restore some cuts, let's see what they do.

 

 

The B4 was fairly infrequent because its loads were accommodated by fairly infrequent service. Again, it's not a conspiracy - it's a simple outcome of the scheduling process.

 

I can see his point. If it were a matter of the limited and local being the same exact length, then I could see it, but in this case, even though the limited is faster, it still has a longer runtime. So the MTA would be providing extra service along Amsterdam Avenue that they don't want to.

 

 

Thank you for confirming that I haven't lost my mind.

 

So, what should the MTA do to increase M103 ridership?

 

 

Why does the MTA need to increase M103 ridership? Bus ridership, especially in Manhattan, has been on a decline for decades. Why should the M103 be any different?

 

I already stated one way... Rearrange the scheduling of the route so it isn't following right behind the M101 and M102.

 

 

The M101 is a limited - if an M103 is immediately following an M101 at one point on the route, it won't be immediately following the M101 once the limited has gained some time over the local.

[B35 via Church]

Long routes aren't necessarily good or bad - it depends on the specific circumstances.

 

Not when one route is formed that could take on the duties of two or more separate routes in a network, it isn't......

 

 

How about this: nothing on Third or Lexington avenue is going to be cut, the only thing that the MTA is going to do is cut useless runs. Trust me they exist on the M101, M102, and M103 equally. On top of that the M103 ridership is to high to be cut. So chill with the conspiracy theories.

 

That's not exactly nothing

[MHV9218]

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?)

 

Bus Operations doesn't keep regular public data regarding line service and consistency, so that's the gonna be hard to prove. I can tell you, though, from my conversations with line supervisors and dispatchers along with my personal experience, the pre-LFSA M103 was one of the least reliable lines in the system. The 6th street stop was a perennial scramble of truncated M103s turning into M102s and M101/M102s being told by the dispatcher to sign up for an M103 to make up for broken down buses and bunching problems. Waits consistently tallied up to 20 to 25 minutes, and the ops were as miserable as the customers. The introduction of Nova LFSAs curbed some of the breakdown issues, and I haven't heard anything in particular from the dispatchers that'd indicate the problems are as bad as they used to be, but the line is always right on the verge of a disaster. The M103 requires almost all variables to stay in place (no mechanical difficulties, no major traffic, no more than one wheelchair, etc.) for it to run on time. That's what we'd call unsustainable when it comes to a public service in New York City.

 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

LOL! Well, that's the truth.

[AndrewJC]

How about this: nothing on Third or Lexington avenue is going to be cut, the only thing that the MTA is going to do is cut useless runs. Trust me they exist on the M101, M102, and M103 equally. On top of that the M103 ridership is to high to be cut. So chill with the conspiracy theories.

 

 

You're absolutely correct that there's no conspiracy.

 

But come September, there will be schedule changes on the M101/102/103 and on 56 other routes. Some will add service and some will reduce service (and some, like on the M101, will do both, depending on time of day).

 

To those who insist that this is a conspiracy, note that this batch of schedule changes will cost $1.7 million annually.

 

Again, here's the link.

[TheSubwayStation]

Not necessarily right after... Maybe 5 minute gaps, but sometimes there is just 3 minute gaps... The problem is that even with a 5 minute gap that is nothing. Perfect example is the X1. All it takes is one bus to have a problem and the whole line gets messed up with terrible bunching. You'll have 3 X1s running together when they're supposed to arrive every 5 minutes. I guess they figure that even if an M103 is scheduled to come three minutes after an M101 that shouldn't be a problem. Maybe they see each line as separate becuase of where they end, but for most of their routes they aren't.

 

Okay, so what should be done to solve this problem? It seems, from what you're saying, that the M103 isn't scheduled to come right after the M101/2, so bunching is the real issue. If you think that a different schedule could prevent that problem, please explain how that would work.

Why does the MTA need to increase M103 ridership? Bus ridership, especially in Manhattan, has been on a decline for decades. Why should the M103 be any different?

I don't know...VG8 was the person who said that M103 ridership should be increased. Look, whenever ridership declines on a route, VG8 will say that the MTA should bring back the ridership through service improvements. Whether that's a good or bad thing, that's what he says.

 

 

You're absolutely correct that there's no conspiracy.

 

But come September, there will be schedule changes on the M101/102/103 and on 56 other routes. Some will add service and some will reduce service (and some, like on the M101, will do both, depending on time of day).

 

To those who insist that this is a conspiracy, note that this batch of schedule changes will cost $1.7 million annually.

 

Again, here's the link.

 

There was never any evidence that there was a conspiracy, and the whole "MTA intentionally reducing ridership" thing shouldn't have been brought up in the first place in this thread IMO...That would be perfectly good for a thread about the B4 or B64, but not here.

[AndrewJC]

I don't know...VG8 was the person who said that M103 ridership should be increased. Look, whenever ridership declines on a route, VG8 will say that the MTA should bring back the ridership through service improvements. Whether that's a good or bad thing, that's what he says.

 

 

What he says is not realistic. This batch of 73 schedule changes includes 33 service increases and 40 service reductions. Does he plan on discussing all 40 here, trying to figure out what can be done to reverse the ridership loss?

 

And in three months, the next batch of schedule changes comes out, and he gets to start all over again!

 

Not only is it not realistic, I don't see why it's even desirable. If fewer people are riding the M103 than were riding it two years ago, why is that a problem? Nobody has to ride the M103 if they don't want to.

[AndrewJC]

Not when one route is formed that could take on the duties of two or more separate routes in a network, it isn't......

 

 

"Duties"? What does that mean? Many routes have almost as many origin-destination pairs as they have riders.

[DanTheTransitMan]

You're absolutely correct that there's no conspiracy.

 

But come September, there will be schedule changes on the M101/102/103 and on 56 other routes. Some will add service and some will reduce service (and some, like on the M101, will do both, depending on time of day).

 

To those who insist that this is a conspiracy, note that this batch of schedule changes will cost $1.7 million annually.

 

Again, here's the link.

 

 

I don't know if I agree with that...

 

Not when one route is formed that could take on the duties of two or more separate routes in a network, it isn't......

 

 

 

 

That's not exactly nothing

 

You're absolutely correct that there's no conspiracy.

 

But come September, there will be schedule changes on the M101/102/103 and on 56 other routes. Some will add service and some will reduce service (and some, like on the M101, will do both, depending on time of day).

 

To those who insist that this is a conspiracy, note that this batch of schedule changes will cost $1.7 million annually.

 

Again, here's the link.

 

 

I meant to say that I don't believe any lexington or third avenue routes will be cut in the next round of service changes, maybe I should have been a little bit more clear in articulating my ideas.

[AndrewJC]

I meant to say that I don't believe any lexington or third avenue routes will be cut in the next round of service changes, maybe I should have been a little bit more clear in articulating my ideas.

 

 

On any given route, routine schedule changes take place about every two years on weekdays and about every four years on weekends. So, after September 2012, expect the next M101/102/103 schedule changes to be around September 2014 for weekdays and September 2016 for weekends.

[checkmatechamp13]

If you don't want to ride the B82, don't ride the B82. (ThrexxBus complained that people were being shoved onto it.)

 

 

LOL. Actually, I have seen people being shoved onto a bus, but it wasn't the B82.

 

The B4 was fairly infrequent because its loads were accommodated by fairly infrequent service. Again, it's not a conspiracy - it's a simple outcome of the scheduling process.

 

 

He's not talking about that. He's saying that the route is unreliable, and that there were times when it managed to bunch up on 20 minute headways, even though there's no real major traffic spots or anything along the route.

Why does the MTA need to increase M103 ridership? Bus ridership, especially in Manhattan, has been on a decline for decades. Why should the M103 be any different?

 

The thing is that generally more ridership = more service, and the opposite is true. The problem is that if ridership decreases, and service is reduced, now that's worse service for the remaining passengers, especially if it isn't reliable. Then as the frequencies decrease, the number of riders decreases, until you have a point where you just have the dependant riders with really crappy service. (And again, I'm not just referring to the frequencies).

 

You're right that increased ridership isn't always good. If you have to run a bunch of little shuttles all over the place just to say "We attracted more riders to the system", then that's stupid because you spent a whole bunch of money to attract very few riders (and fewer riders benefit from the improvements). But if a route's ridership is declining, then the MTA should at least look into it to see if there's anything that can be done. If nothing can be done with the route or scheduling or whatever, then yeah, there's nothing you can do, but in many cases, there is something you can do to try and boost the ridership.

"Duties"? What does that mean? Many routes have almost as many origin-destination pairs as they have riders.

 

 

I think he's referring to the general purpose of the route. The B49 is meant to bring Manhattan Beach residents & KCC students to the SHB subway station, meant to serve as an Ocean Avenue route, and then serve as a Bedford/Rogers route. Now you'd be having it take on the B48 duties as well (serving Bed-Stuy, East Williamsburg, and Greenpoint). Obviously he's not referring to every single origin-destination pair, but he's talking about the general neighborhoods and corridors the routes are meant to connect.

 

I mean, if you have a route that long (both length-wise & time-wise), that's infrequent, then you end up having a bunch of problems and reliability. It's one thing if you're talking about a route like the B46 that's frequent, but a few problems on one end of the line could lead to problems thoughout the entire line.

 

On any given route, routine schedule changes take place about every two years on weekdays and about every four years on weekends. So, after September 2012, expect the next M101/102/103 schedule changes to be around September 2014 for weekdays and September 2016 for weekends.

 

 

They say they review about 1/4 of the routes every 3 months, so I assume that means they review each route once a year.

[B35 via Church]

"Duties"? What does that mean?

A duty... a function... a purpose...

 

Many routes have almost as many origin-destination pairs as they have riders.

 

Good for those routes....

Doesn't mean those routes have or need to be elongated to serve more passengers & cover a longer distance.....

 

 

I think he's referring to the general purpose of the route. The B49 is meant to bring Manhattan Beach residents & KCC students to the SHB subway station, meant to serve as an Ocean Avenue route, and then serve as a Bedford/Rogers route. Now you'd be having it take on the B48 duties as well (serving Bed-Stuy, East Williamsburg, and Greenpoint). Obviously he's not referring to every single origin-destination pair, but he's talking about the general neighborhoods and corridors the routes are meant to connect.

 

I mean, if you have a route that long (both length-wise & time-wise), that's infrequent, then you end up having a bunch of problems and reliability. It's one thing if you're talking about a route like the B46 that's frequent, but a few problems on one end of the line could lead to problems thoughout the entire line.

I didn't think I had to spell that out, especially w/ as vocal as he's been about the overall subject matter at hand (buses)......

 

He's being disagreeable just to be disagreeable; let him play that game w/ somebody else.....

He asked what a "superroute" was, and I answered it..... Then he makes a statement saying "Long routes aren't necessarily good or bad - it depends on the specific circumstances.".... Now he comes with this question like he doesn't know what the duty of a bus route is....

[Threxx]

Combining routes can reduce the need for transfers but can also reduce reliability. Long routes aren't necessarily good or bad - it depends on the specific circumstances.

 

Well, combining the B48 & B49?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that only certain opinions were allowed here.

 

No, you're just acting like you know everything...

 

Hold on, let me check my paycheck. Nope, it's not from the MTA. Sorry for not fitting your stereotype.

 

 

Why would the MTA conspire to force people onto the bus route with a 227-minute round trip running time rather than the ones with a 199-minute and a 187-minute running time? Per trip, it costs them more to operate the M101 than the M102 or M103.

 

Because the 227 route dosen't cost more to operate because it is LIMITED!!!!!!

 

Of course. So why do you say that "They continue to try and shove people onto that route"?

 

That's one reason right there. They have had years to re-format other routes to fill that gap in Flatlands. The simplest thing to do would to extend the B11 to Rockaway Parkway via Avenue J, but the wants people to continue to use the B82. Also, cuts on the B64 have also forced people to use the B82.

 

English, please?

 

I once waited over a half hour for the M15 (preferably SBS, but I would have taken a local if it came first - it didn't). During the PM rush. That doesn't mean the M15 has scheduled 30+ minute headways during the PM rush, nor does it mean that there's a conspiracy to chase riders away from the M15.

 

How do you know there isn't? There isn't, normally the M15 is reliable, that's one experience that dosen't correlate with others. There's your english....

 

I will once again post the June 2012 MTA Bus Operations Commitee Meeting book. I will once again suggest that you look at the last six pages. Routine service adjustments, up and down, are based on peak loads. This has been the case since the MTA adopted loading guidelines in the 1980's. It is standard transit scheduling practice around the world.

 

Like I've said before, the gets what they want to see in there by manipulating the routes to force people where they want them to go.

 

No, I do not. If you are, then I suggest you immediately contact the Office of the Inspector General, who I think will be very interested to hear what you have to tell him.

Don't be a smart-ass.

 

 

I didn't say the M101 was slower. I said its running time was longer. It covers a much greater distance than the M102 or M103.

 

It's not slower on 3rd & Lex, for sure. It saves them money if they cut the M103, and extend the M102 to City Hall to replace it. How is that not obvious???

 

If you don't want to ride the B82, don't ride the B82. (ThrexxBus complained that people were being shoved onto it.)

 

I don't, because I know it's a bad route.

 

The B4 was fairly infrequent because its loads were accommodated by fairly infrequent service. Again, it's not a conspiracy - it's a simple outcome of the scheduling process.

 

Before you make smart-ass comments like that, ride the damn route! The B4's loads were not satisfied by the frequencies it had! When they cut it, people were fed up and moved to the B1. How is that not at least suspicious???

 

Thank you for confirming that I haven't lost my mind.

 

I think you have.

 

Why does the MTA need to increase M103 ridership? Bus ridership, especially in Manhattan, has been on a decline for decades. Why should the M103 be any different?

 

Bus ridership has been on the decline because the routes are outdated and don't serve people's needs! You would take the subway too if you lived in South Brooklyn!

 

The M101 is a limited - if an M103 is immediately following an M101 at one point on the route, it won't be immediately following the M101 once the limited has gained some time over the local.

 

And then another M101 or an M102 passes it, and it remains empty. The scheduling is no mistake.

 

 

Excuse me as I wade through the most poorly formatted post I have ever seen....

 

Someone thinks they do work for the ...