Jump to content

SI Express Route Public Hearing Request, M4 Truncation, July 2018 Schedule Changes


checkmatechamp13

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I suppose the only way to do it out of the depot would be to increase the costs on the line by ensuring that drivers had adequate time to switch.

i don't remember how much time was given on paddles from report time to either relief point (i preferred pullout runs) but 3rd avenue reports get a little extra leeway. with that said, the reason why lateness is such a problem is because (and i've been a victim of this tragedy on both ends) if my run is severely late, my swing was say, 44 minutes and i completely missed it, a SLD will tell me "ok, take 30 minutes and report back to me"... now, whoever i was supposed to relieve shows up on time or late, there's where the gap begins. there's no plug in for me being on my swing, which i am entitled to. so, that operator (and SLD) has to wait for me to return or the SLD will release those passengers and operator, and when i'm done, i'll take the bus with no passengers and be adjusted. and the same thing can happen the other way. if i'm late, but my relief was late also, then he/she'll get adjusted, as will i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

i don't remember how much time was given on paddles from report time to either relief point (i preferred pullout runs) but 3rd avenue reports get a little extra leeway. with that said, the reason why lateness is such a problem is because (and i've been a victim of this tragedy on both ends) if my run is severely late, my swing was say, 44 minutes and i completely missed it, a SLD will tell me "ok, take 30 minutes and report back to me"... now, whoever i was supposed to relieve shows up on time or late, there's where the gap begins. there's no plug in for me being on my swing, which i am entitled to. so, that operator (and SLD) has to wait for me to return or the SLD will release those passengers and operator, and when i'm done, i'll take the bus with no passengers and be adjusted. and the same thing can happen the other way. if i'm late, but my relief was late also, then he/she'll get adjusted, as will i.

What a mess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

It's just too much w/ the M101 nowadays.... A line has to be drawn somewhere....

Case in point, the M100 has become popular north of 125th as of, I'd say, the last decade or so & the M101 is losing its popularity in that general region of Manhattan.... Instead of giving those riders more M100 service, & aiming to increase efficiency for the masses of 3rd/Lex riders (those that get on & off along 3rd/Lex), they continue on with this abomination (I'd even argue antiquated) of a route....

 

the M101 has been a victim of 125 street for years (from what i'm told) i knew nothing of harlem/east harlem/spanish harlem until i joined (MTA) in 09 worked up there. since that time, as you stated, the M100 has grown extremely popular, end to end. people are tired of waiting for 60 foot buses showing up in 3-5 bus clusters or waiting upwards of 20 minutes from 2-7pm for buses to roll up 3rd avenue. the M102 has to contend with the chokepoint in & around the east 50's... and is home free the rest of the way. i loved picking the M102 (late if possible, and a combo with the M103 if i could help it) the M103 obviously has the bowery to contend with, but with it's headway, and the "help" it gets above cooper union, it's actually not a bad run, seeing as customers above 86 street aren't clamoring for the 103. the m101 has the unfortunate task of traveling amsterdam, 125 & lex/3rd (which when school lets out, is hell on earth... i never realized how many schools are in harlem until i worked up there.) with as many runs as they push across on the 101 and artics, it's really not enough service. and adding runs won't help. similar to the staten island express bus situation, the problem doesn't lie in  how many buses are out there or not, it's about those buses getting uptown/downtown on time. when adjusting late m101's some SLD's will send 101's via the 102 (meaning having the M101 run on lenox, 116 & back to regular route) to try to get operators on time. but, you can't send every run that way, and that doesn't make up for the traffic problems on lex/3rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I have to say (not directed at you - a general comment to what I've been reading which irks me) I really don't support any truncation/splitting of the M101 and I don't know why so many people here keep suggesting it. It's like why do we need to keep screwing over riders and FORCING the damn subway down their throats? There are A LOT of disabled people and others that prefer the M101 and need it go from East to West.  We should be looking at why lines are failing, not just splitting them up and thinking that's going to do the trick.  It isn't. 

 

Splitting the line has absolutely nothing to do with the subway.

57 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

the M101 has been a victim of 125 street for years (from what i'm told) i knew nothing of harlem/east harlem/spanish harlem until i joined (MTA) in 09 worked up there. since that time, as you stated, the M100 has grown extremely popular, end to end. people are tired of waiting for 60 foot buses showing up in 3-5 bus clusters or waiting upwards of 20 minutes from 2-7pm for buses to roll up 3rd avenue. the M102 has to contend with the chokepoint in & around the east 50's... and is home free the rest of the way. i loved picking the M102 (late if possible, and a combo with the M103 if i could help it) the M103 obviously has the bowery to contend with, but with it's headway, and the "help" it gets above cooper union, it's actually not a bad run, seeing as customers above 86 street aren't clamoring for the 103. the m101 has the unfortunate task of traveling amsterdam, 125 & lex/3rd (which when school lets out, is hell on earth... i never realized how many schools are in harlem until i worked up there.) with as many runs as they push across on the 101 and artics, it's really not enough service. and adding runs won't help. similar to the staten island express bus situation, the problem doesn't lie in  how many buses are out there or not, it's about those buses getting uptown/downtown on time. when adjusting late m101's some SLD's will send 101's via the 102 (meaning having the M101 run on lenox, 116 & back to regular route) to try to get operators on time. but, you can't send every run that way, and that doesn't make up for the traffic problems on lex/3rd.

22

Me personally, even if I do see an M100 and M101 pull into the stop together, I'll go for the M100 because the buses usually move slightly quicker (there's a good chance that M101 was late, so it'll be picking up & dropping off more than its share of people, and from what I've seen, in general, B/Os tend to be more comfortable handling the 40-foot buses vs. the 60-foot ones, though I have had a few trips on the 60-foot ones where the B/O really knew how to move the bus). 

But yeah, the people I feel really bad for are those in Washington Heights. Unfortunately, a lot of times, buses will turn around at 161st Street, and usually, there's no 193rd Street trips in the immediate area (So on top of losing the M100 at 161st, they also lose the unofficial M101 short-turns). Combine that with the fact that buses sometimes run drop-off only along 125th (so if you're boarding at say, 125th & Lenox heading uptown, you have to wait for the next bus). and they're really getting the short end of the stick.

I've mentioned it before, but the M100 is actually one of the few routes in Manhattan that's gaining ridership, while the M101 continues to lose ridership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading the recent comments on the M100-103 routes and it seems like a lot of its ridership are in the northern part of Manhattan but its southern part has lost its ridership. I think that is true for a lot of routes that go from the northern part of Manhattan to the south. In the lower part you have more subway lines available and more congestion that hinders buses from being on time or close to. From what I see and again I could be wrong is that a lot of the routes that goes uptown tend to be almost empty in lower manhattan. If I lived in harlem or washington heights I wouldn't bother taking the bus if I could from there to somewhere else in 15 to 20 minutes verses almost 2 hours on the bus. To me that would make the bus less desirable. Also when you have the artic routes that most likely would cost money if they're almost completely for most of their trip. When I took the M101 yesterday it wasn't crowded until it got further up north. Again I could be wrong I don't rely on these routes so I can't speak for anyone who does.

But my gut feeling is that when they do restructure our bus system I think a lot of these uptown and downtown routes are going to be cut in place for a single route or two in its place and have the ones needed for service uptown to serve where ever most people disembark. But thats my guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brillant93 said:

I've been reading the recent comments on the M100-103 routes and it seems like a lot of its ridership are in the northern part of Manhattan but its southern part has lost its ridership. I think that is true for a lot of routes that go from the northern part of Manhattan to the south. In the lower part you have more subway lines available and more congestion that hinders buses from being on time or close to. From what I see and again I could be wrong is that a lot of the routes that goes uptown tend to be almost empty in lower manhattan. If I lived in harlem or washington heights I wouldn't bother taking the bus if I could from there to somewhere else in 15 to 20 minutes verses almost 2 hours on the bus. To me that would make the bus less desirable. Also when you have the artic routes that most likely would cost money if they're almost completely for most of their trip. When I took the M101 yesterday it wasn't crowded until it got further up north. Again I could be wrong I don't rely on these routes so I can't speak for anyone who does.

But my gut feeling is that when they do restructure our bus system I think a lot of these uptown and downtown routes are going to be cut in place for a single route or two in its place and have the ones needed for service uptown to serve where ever most people disembark. But thats my guess. 

Yeah, most of the bus riders from Upper Manhattan are only traveling short distances. To give you an idea, I often take the (A) to 145th and then hop on the M3 down to 141st Street and walk up the hill to City College. There's still a decent amount of people getting on the 125th Street short-turns at 145th Street & 141st Street (even though it's a mile or less to the terminal). On the M100/101, a lot of people get on at 125th & St. Nicholas and get off at 131st & Amsterdam for the projects across the street (I forget the name offhand. I think it's the  Manhattanville Houses), and then you have people getting on the M11 at 125th & Amsterdam to travel a short distance uptown. Some of the short-distance ridership can be explained by the hills in Upper Manhattan, but in general, buses up there move reasonably quick, so people are more willing to depend on them. 

But even then, you have to consider that Upper Manhattan is a big area. From 193rd to 125th on the M3 is almost 4 miles, which is a decent-length route by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems, really, that the solution is separating the buses running north-south through lower and upper Manhattan. There's no real need for a one-seat bus trip from 14th to 193rd Street, and all it seems to do is degrade reliability for all of the riders, which is a lose-lose. What should happen is the 5th/Madison and 3rd/Lexington bus routes should be split somewhere in Harlem, so that buses only run from the East Village/SoHo as far north as Harlem, and only run as far south as Harlem from Washington Heights and Inwood.

The northern branch of the M101 and the existing M100 could be combined in the same fashion as the M16 and M34 were several years ago, with the M100 becoming the M125 (following the pattern of crosstowns adopting the street name as their number) and the M101 route becoming the M125a, dividing at Amsterdam and 165th. Both would terminate at the M100's current terminus.

The same thing could happen to the M2 and M3. The northern branches of those could become the M110 (to 168th Street via Powell) and the M110a (to 193rd Street via St. Nicholas), both running across 100th and 106th to the FDR.

This would allow both the 5th/Madison and 3rd/Lex buses to be simplified in to one or two more frequent routes. If the M104 took the northern part of the M4, you could run two Fifth Avenue routes: the M1 limited from 147th to Grand Street, and the M2 local from 125th or 135th to Cooper Square. Same with Third, where you could have just the M101 limited to City Hall, and the M102 local to Cooper Square. Perhaps the M101 could turn around at 138th & 3rd in the Bronx, to improve interborough connectivity, and possibly lighten the load on the Lex subways under the Harlem River.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

It seems, really, that the solution is separating the buses running north-south through lower and upper Manhattan. There's no real need for a one-seat bus trip from 14th to 193rd Street, and all it seems to do is degrade reliability for all of the riders, which is a lose-lose. What should happen is the 5th/Madison and 3rd/Lexington bus routes should be split somewhere in Harlem, so that buses only run from the East Village/SoHo as far north as Harlem, and only run as far south as Harlem from Washington Heights and Inwood.

The northern branch of the M101 and the existing M100 could be combined in the same fashion as the M16 and M34 were several years ago, with the M100 becoming the M125 (following the pattern of crosstowns adopting the street name as their number) and the M101 route becoming the M125a, dividing at Amsterdam and 165th. Both would terminate at the M100's current terminus.

The same thing could happen to the M2 and M3. The northern branches of those could become the M110 (to 168th Street via Powell) and the M110a (to 193rd Street via St. Nicholas), both running across 100th and 106th to the FDR.

This would allow both the 5th/Madison and 3rd/Lex buses to be simplified in to one or two more frequent routes. If the M104 took the northern part of the M4, you could run two Fifth Avenue routes: the M1 limited from 147th to Grand Street, and the M2 local from 125th or 135th to Cooper Square. Same with Third, where you could have just the M101 limited to City Hall, and the M102 local to Cooper Square. Perhaps the M101 could turn around at 138th & 3rd in the Bronx, to improve interborough connectivity, and possibly lighten the load on the Lex subways under the Harlem River.

AFAIC, any type of 110th Street crosstown needs to go all the way to Broadway (Shoot, anything less would be a really half-assed crosstown). Doing otherwise isolates that whole section of Broadway from the East Side and turns the resultant M104 into a 100% subway duplicate. Right now, the setup works nicely for those in the West Harlem/Washington Heights area. For East Side trips or short West Side trips, you take the bus and for long West Side trips, you take the (1) train (with the M5 as an option for those who really need to take the bus down the West Side). 

I could live with the M3/4 having a similar setup as you're proposing for the M100/101 (M110: East Harlem-Cloisters via Broadway and M110a: East Harlem-Fort George via St. Nicholas) and keep the M2 running down 5th/Madison. But even still, running the M1/M102 from 147th Street down to the East Village area is still a pretty long route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

AFAIC, any type of 110th Street crosstown needs to go all the way to Broadway (Shoot, anything less would be a really half-assed crosstown). Doing otherwise isolates that whole section of Broadway from the East Side and turns the resultant M104 into a 100% subway duplicate. Right now, the setup works nicely for those in the West Harlem/Washington Heights area. For East Side trips or short West Side trips, you take the bus and for long West Side trips, you take the (1) train (with the M5 as an option for those who really need to take the bus down the West Side). 

Yeah, ideally the M110 would be a true crosstown, although the general route is largely covered by the M106. And you're right - under this plan the 104 is largely made redundant by the subway, especially since stop spacing on the (1) is pretty close together. I suppose this all depends on how many Broadway bus riders are trying to go to the east side directly; remember, Amsterdam Avenue will have the M100 (M125) going directly east along 125th, and I'd expect that would be able to cover any northern Manhattan to East Harlem ridership.

I see two options: the M110a could take over Broadway from 110th to the Cloisters, with the St. Nicholas branch running to 116th Street as the M116a, but this would cut off Broadway south of 110th. Alternatively, you could reroute the M5 from Riverside to West End Avenue between 72nd and 106th, since West End is closer to Broadway (making up for the loss of service there) and has more of a walkshed than Riverside, which is a park on one side.

As for the remaining 5th and 3rd Avenue routes - they are long, no argument from me on that. However, some of the other points of thee bus plan, as well as long-standing bus improvement proposals - better stop spacing, all-door boarding, more and better-enforced bus lanes - should make the trips much more manageable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

Yeah, ideally the M110 would be a true crosstown, although the general route is largely covered by the M106. And you're right - under this plan the 104 is largely made redundant by the subway, especially since stop spacing on the (1) is pretty close together. I suppose this all depends on how many Broadway bus riders are trying to go to the east side directly; remember, Amsterdam Avenue will have the M100 (M125) going directly east along 125th, and I'd expect that would be able to cover any northern Manhattan to East Harlem ridership.

I see two options: the M110a could take over Broadway from 110th to the Cloisters, with the St. Nicholas branch running to 116th Street as the M116a, but this would cut off Broadway south of 110th. Alternatively, you could reroute the M5 from Riverside to West End Avenue between 72nd and 106th, since West End is closer to Broadway (making up for the loss of service there) and has more of a walkshed than Riverside, which is a park on one side.

As for the remaining 5th and 3rd Avenue routes - they are long, no argument from me on that. However, some of the other points of the bus plan, as well as long-standing bus improvement proposals - better stop spacing, all-door boarding, more and better-enforced bus lanes - should make the trips much more manageable.

3

The issue is twofold:

Amsterdam is uphill from Broadway (by a decent amount, especially in the CCNY area). 

Those routes (and the M60 for those south of 125th) only provides access to the 125th Street corridor. However, that's not an easy walk from the southern part of East Harlem (e.g. Mount Sinai), and it forces more transfers. At least by going down to the 110th/106th Street corridor, you allow people to be able to make the trip with no transfers if they're willing to walk a little bit more. 

The other thing is that the 110th Street corridor moves much quicker than the 125th Street corridor. The M100/101 crawl across 125th with all the passenger activity (the M60 is a little quicker, but still). The M2/3/4 zoom across 110th Street. To give you an idea, there was a time period when I had a tutoring gig in East Harlem around 110th & Lexington. Even though the M101 would've given me a direct ride, I always opted for the M3/4 (and walked from 5th Avenue) and made the trip in about 25 minutes instead of 40 minutes. 

In any case, I'm not seeing what having the M110A cover the Upper Broadway corridor has to do with losing service south of 110th. Unless you're using that as an excuse to get rid of an entire north-south route on the West Side, there's nothing saying that the M104 and M4/M110A can't run together for 15 blocks between 110th and 125th. 

In any case, if the M3 were to be combined with the M116, I would just have it be the sole branch at that point. The M116 isn't too frequent for most of the day, so if you were to have only half of the buses running down to 106th Street & Broadway, you'd end up with a situation similar to the outer ends of the M34/34A. At that point, I'd rather just use those buses to beef up service on the main 116th->St. Nicholas route and call it a day. Riders traveling between the UWS and the 116th Street corridor can use the M4/M110A, M7, or M60, depending on their exact trip. It ends up Bx33-ing the 116th Street corridor (in terms of not making an attempt to go around the park) which I'm not wild about, but on the bright side, it provides a good connection for riders traveling between West Harlem/Washington Heights and East Harlem. You get a Broadway-110th route, a St. Nicholas-116th route, and an Amsterdam-125th route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What do you propose? I tend to respect your opinions more since you actually use the routes and understand ridership patterns better than most that either have an angle of "saving money" or look at a map.  We're just talking about how to make the line more efficient, putting money and everything else aside...

Few people think about these things this deeply, but the MTA has it as to where the M101 is the main LTD service along 3rd/Lex, the M102/M103 equally providing local service along 3rd/Lex, and the M100/M101 equally providing local service along Amsterdam b/w 163rd & 125th...... The part of the M101 I'd argue antiquity, is the notion of Amsterdam riders wanting to put up w/ 125th st for LTD service along 3rd/Lex..... There's a gross misallocation of how bus service is distributed when it comes to the areas the M101 serve - classic case of putting quantity over quality..... I'm looking to change most of this entire setup when it comes to providing 3rd/Lex w/ bus service & Amsterdam, etc. with bus service.....

In general, what I'd propose, entails having The M98 become the primary/main LTD service along 3rd/Lex (no more of this peak only service nonsense), The M103 to become the primary/main local service along 3rd/Lex, & The M100 to become the main local service transporting riders b/w that part of [Washington Heights] & [Harlem]....

The two complementary services left over ([the M101 portion b/w 3rd/125th & Ft. George] and [the M102]), I would look to combine.... The M102 model serving as an unofficial 125th st bypass (as opposed to the M101 running along 125th) works; as evidenced by as many riders you see waiting for NB M102's at that 3rd/116th stop getting off at 125th/Lenox (and points north)..... I personally don't care for MCH depot as a terminal anyway (really 145th, since buses pretty much tanks out for the god-awful Bx19) & there are too many buses as it is shooting across 125th....

To sum it up:

M98 - Washington Hgts./168th - Kips Bay/23rd.... (short turns run b/w 23rd & 125th)..... Service would be setup similar to the B103, except there would be more short turns running b/w 23rd & 125th on this route, compared to how many short turns there are on the current B103...... This would be the greatest improvement for most 3rd/Lex riders IMO & one that is sorely needed.... Service levels on buses running the full route (to/from Wash. Hgts.) would be slightly less than the current M101 & service levels on the short trips (b/w 23rd & 125th) would be slightly more than the current M101..... If you're gonna flood the market, do it in a way that benefits/reflects current ridership habits (unlike the current M101).....

M100 - route unchanged... Slight service increase.

M101 - notation eliminated

M102 - UES/86th st - Ft. George/193rd.... via 3rd/Lex > 116th > Lenox > 145th > Amsterdam.... on the south end of the route, buses turnaround on 84th & layovers are done on the 3rd av side.... Similar service levels to the current M102....

M103 - full route, unchanged (short turns run b/w E. Village/8th st & 125th).... Service approximately tripled throughout most of the day.

 

18 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

the M101 has been a victim of 125 street for years (from what i'm told) i knew nothing of harlem/east harlem/spanish harlem until i joined (MTA) in 09 worked up there. since that time, as you stated, the M100 has grown extremely popular, end to end. people are tired of waiting for 60 foot buses showing up in 3-5 bus clusters or waiting upwards of 20 minutes from 2-7pm for buses to roll up 3rd avenue. the M102 has to contend with the chokepoint in & around the east 50's... and is home free the rest of the way. i loved picking the M102 (late if possible, and a combo with the M103 if i could help it) the M103 obviously has the bowery to contend with, but with it's headway, and the "help" it gets above cooper union, it's actually not a bad run, seeing as customers above 86 street aren't clamoring for the 103. the m101 has the unfortunate task of traveling amsterdam, 125 & lex/3rd (which when school lets out, is hell on earth... i never realized how many schools are in harlem until i worked up there.) with as many runs as they push across on the 101 and artics, it's really not enough service. and adding runs won't help. similar to the staten island express bus situation, the problem doesn't lie in  how many buses are out there or not, it's about those buses getting uptown/downtown on time. when adjusting late m101's some SLD's will send 101's via the 102 (meaning having the M101 run on lenox, 116 & back to regular route) to try to get operators on time. but, you can't send every run that way, and that doesn't make up for the traffic problems on lex/3rd.

Yeah, I just abhor how service is allocated on the M101 & quite frankly, how it f***s things up along the 3rd/Lex corridor..... The way the MTA operates that route is the source of  the problems with how things are set up along 3rd/Lex overall..... With what I explained above, you can see that I wouldn't center overall 3rd/Lex bus service around any one route, like the MTA does w/ the M101 (and the shitty service leves it singularly provides the M102 & the M103).....

 

B35 for president.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Few people think about these things this deeply, but the MTA has it as to where the M101 is the main LTD service along 3rd/Lex, the M102/M103 equally providing local service along 3rd/Lex, and the M100/M101 equally providing local service along Amsterdam b/w 163rd & 125th...... The part of the M101 I'd argue antiquity, is the notion of Amsterdam riders wanting to put up w/ 125th st for LTD service along 3rd/Lex..... There's a gross misallocation of how bus service is distributed when it comes to the areas the M101 serve - classic case of putting quantity over quality..... I'm looking to change most of this entire setup when it comes to providing 3rd/Lex w/ bus service & Amsterdam, etc. with bus service.....

In general, what I'd propose, entails having The M98 become the primary/main LTD service along 3rd/Lex (no more of this peak only service nonsense), The M103 to become the primary/main local service along 3rd/Lex, & The M100 to become the main local service transporting riders b/w that part of [Washington Heights] & [Harlem]....

The two complementary services left over ([the M101 portion b/w 3rd/125th & Ft. George] and [the M102]), I would look to combine.... The M102 model serving as an unofficial 125th st bypass (as opposed to the M101 running along 125th) works; as evidenced by as many riders you see waiting for NB M102's at that 3rd/116th stop getting off at 125th/Lenox (and points north)..... I personally don't care for MCH depot as a terminal anyway (really 145th, since buses pretty much tanks out for the god-awful Bx19) & there are too many buses as it is shooting across 125th....

To sum it up:

M98 - Washington Hgts./168th - Kips Bay/23rd.... (short turns run b/w 23rd & 125th)..... Service would be setup similar to the B103, except there would be more short turns running b/w 23rd & 125th on this route, compared to how many short turns there are on the current B103...... This would be the greatest improvement for most 3rd/Lex riders IMO & one that is sorely needed.... Service levels on buses running the full route (to/from Wash. Hgts.) would be slightly less than the current M101 & service levels on the short trips (b/w 23rd & 125th) would be slightly more than the current M101..... If you're gonna flood the market, do it in a way that benefits/reflects current ridership habits (unlike the current M101).....

M100 - route unchanged... Slight service increase.

M101 - notation eliminated

M102 - UES/86th st - Ft. George/193rd.... via 3rd/Lex > 116th > Lenox > 145th > Amsterdam.... on the south end of the route, buses turnaround on 84th & layovers are done on the 3rd av side.... Similar service levels to the current M102....

M103 - full route, unchanged (short turns run b/w E. Village/8th st & 125th).... Service approximately tripled throughout most of the day.

 

Yeah, I just abhor how service is allocated on the M101 & quite frankly, how it f***s things up along the 3rd/Lex corridor..... The way the MTA operates that route is the source of  the problems with how things are set up along 3rd/Lex overall..... With what I explained above, you can see that I wouldn't center overall 3rd/Lex bus service around any one route, like the MTA does w/ the M101 (and the shitty service leves it singularly provides the M102 & the M103).....

 

B35 for president.

 

I can't agree with that set up. There's no LTD south of 23rd Street. God forbid if someone wants to go to 8th Street with the bus... I also don't understand starting service at 86th Street??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Splitting the line has absolutely nothing to do with the subway.

Splitting the line up has everything to do with the subway since you're basically screwing riders by forcing them to take the damn thing. You support it because it works for you as usual. The thing is it screws over the people that would need it most. The poor, the disabled, etc. That's who I see riding in East Harlem going to points north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I can't agree with that set up. There's no LTD south of 23rd Street. God forbid if someone wants to go to 8th Street with the bus...

I also don't understand starting service at 86th Street??

I'm thinking about the masses & a way to move these people along 3rd/Lex efficiently.... I get what you're saying about 8th st, but on the SB M101, buses have a tendency to tank at 14th..... There's really nowhere feasible to end a bus along/around 14th (which is the real reason I believe buses even end at Cooper Union)..... I don't want to extend the proposed M98 that far south.... The only other option I can perhaps consider to address what you've mentioned there, is to have M103's running LTD (as E. Flatbush Larry mentioned).... All in all, I want to do away with how the M101 is setup.

As for starting service at 86th st due north, that has more to do with how riders in E. Harlem & points north utilize the M101/102.... They generally don't ride that point due SB, weekdays & especially on weekends.....

The main 3rd/Lex local service for most 3rd/Lex riders would come at the hands of (significantly increased) M103 service.... The way I see it, the portion of the M102 within & north of E. Harlem should be used to better facilitate more of northern Manhattan, moreso than being complementary service along 3rd/Lex all the way down to Cooper Union..... I think it would beat the heck out of putting up with the M2/M3 (which, as you know, 5th/Madison has its own share of problems)....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm thinking about the masses.... I get what you're saying about 8th st, but on the SB M101, buses have a tendency to tank at 14th..... There's really nowhere feasible to end a bus along/around 14th (which is the real reason I believe buses even end at Cooper Union)..... The only other option I can perhaps consider to address that, is to have M103's running LTD (as E. Flatbush Larry mentioned).... All in all, I want to do away with how the M101 is setup.

As for starting service at 86th st due north, that has more to do with how riders in E. Harlem & points north utilize the M101/102.... They generally don't ride that point due SB, weekdays & especially on weekends.....

The main 3rd/Lex local service for most 3rd/Lex riders would come at the hands of (significantly increased) M103 service.... The way I see it, the portion of the M102 within & north of E. Harlem should be used to better facilitate more of northern Manhattan, moreso than being complementary service along 3rd/Lex all the way down to Cooper Union..... I think it would beat the heck out of putting up with the M2/M3 (which, as you know, 5th/Madison has its own share of problems)....

 

 

There definitely needs to be LTD service on the M103 if that set up came to fruition. I support restructuring the bus network. I don't support little rinky dink routes that force people into the subway. I personally prefer the local bus on weekends especially when it's hot out. The last thing I want to do is go underground with bags, etc and heat. When I'm by the Bowery I'll take the M103 or walk to M101 and take that from 8th Street to get the BxM1 home since that is LTD. Very easy compared to getting the subway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Splitting the line up has everything to do with the subway since you're basically screwing riders by forcing them to take the damn thing. You support it because it works for you as usual. The thing is it screws over the people that would need it most. The poor, the disabled, etc. That's who I see riding in East Harlem going to points north.

I didn't realize I would be eliminating bus service along 3rd/Lexington. (**checks plan again**) Nope, still plenty of bus service available for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There definitely needs to be LTD service on the M103 if that set up came to fruition. I support restructuring the bus network. I don't support little rinky dink routes that force people into the subway. I personally prefer the local bus on weekends especially when it's hot out. The last thing I want to do is go underground with bags, etc and heat. When I'm by the Bowery I'll take the M103 or walk to M101 and take that from 8th Street to get the BxM1 home since that is LTD. Very easy compared to getting the subway.

I've never been a proponent of forcing people onto the subway & my post history on here would easily have anyone come to that conclusion.... The point of the proposed M102 wouldn't be to dump folks off at 86th for the Lex. lines.... A route running from Ft. George to 86th is far from dinky & I always prefer taking buses over taking the subway (for numerous reasons), so AFAIC, we're on the same page when it comes to that.....

While I don't want a network comprised of 1/2 hour runtimes on 1/2 hour headways, I don't want one where as many routes have actual runtimes (never mind what's posted on any schedule) nearing the 2 hour mark running on low headways either..... The latter is one reason the north/south Manhattan routes are losing so much riders... Can't really blame these people.

I just cant anymore with the subways on the weekend... Yes, necessary trackwork, etc. has to get done, but at this age, I don't feel like playing where's waldo with what train is going to take on which service pattern....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I didn't realize I would be eliminating bus service along 3rd/Lexington. (**checks plan again**) Nope, still plenty of bus service available for them.

Maybe if you rode the bus in East Harlem, you'd see who uses the bus and where they get off. Those are the people that would get screwed specifically by your proposal to essentially split service at 125th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Maybe if you rode the bus in East Harlem, you'd see who uses the bus and where they get off. Those are the people that would get screwed specifically by your proposal to essentially split service at 125th.

I do ride the bus in East Harlem. As a matter of fact, I specifically mentioned in multiple posts.

In any case, you're changing the subject. It still has nothing to do with the subway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I do ride the bus in East Harlem. As a matter of fact, I specifically mentioned in multiple posts.

In any case, you're changing the subject. It still has nothing to do with the subway. 

It has everything to do with it. Those people will be forced to take the subway. You're clearly delusional. To sit here and say oh I use the bus in East Harlem and not see where these people get off at and claim that splitting the route at 125th will have NO impact on those riders. Just an out and out lie. You favor that because it works for YOUR commute. Always about you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It has everything to do with it. Those people will be forced to take the subway. You're clearly delusional. To sit here and say oh I use the bus in East Harlem and not see where these people get off at and claim that splitting the route at 125th will have NO impact on those riders. Just an out and out lie. You favor that because it works for YOUR commute. Always about you...

If you say so....

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

M102 - UES/86th st - Ft. George/193rd.... via 3rd/Lex > 116th > Lenox > 145th > Amsterdam.... on the south end of the route, buses turnaround on 84th & layovers are done on the 3rd av side.... Similar service levels to the current M102....

 

If the M102 were to run in that configuration, I'd give it a slight service boost so that Fort George riders can benefit from it as well (since that's going to be the standalone part). Right now, the M102 runs every 12-15 minutes for most of the day. I'd make it something like an even 10 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

On the M100/101, a lot of people get on at 125th & St. Nicholas and get off at 131st & Amsterdam for the projects across the street (I forget the name offhand. I think it's the  Manhattanville Houses)

A lot of people also get on the M100/101 at Amsterdam/125 (which of course, you got the Grant houses).....

And yes, those are the Manhattanville houses over there b/w 129th & 133rd.....

17 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

It seems, really, that the solution is separating the buses running north-south through lower and upper Manhattan. There's no real need for a one-seat bus trip from 14th to 193rd Street, and all it seems to do is degrade reliability for all of the riders, which is a lose-lose. What should happen is the 5th/Madison and 3rd/Lexington bus routes should be split somewhere in Harlem, so that buses only run from the East Village/SoHo as far north as Harlem, and only run as far south as Harlem from Washington Heights and Inwood.

The northern branch of the M101 and the existing M100 could be combined in the same fashion as the M16 and M34 were several years ago, with the M100 becoming the M125 (following the pattern of crosstowns adopting the street name as their number) and the M101 route becoming the M125a, dividing at Amsterdam and 165th. Both would terminate at the M100's current terminus.

The same thing could happen to the M2 and M3. The northern branches of those could become the M110 (to 168th Street via Powell) and the M110a (to 193rd Street via St. Nicholas), both running across 100th and 106th to the FDR.

This would allow both the 5th/Madison and 3rd/Lex buses to be simplified in to one or two more frequent routes. If the M104 took the northern part of the M4, you could run two Fifth Avenue routes: the M1 limited from 147th to Grand Street, and the M2 local from 125th or 135th to Cooper Square......

I would be careful with that general train of thought.... I do think there's a need for routes like the M1, 2, 7, and 11, but the worst culprits of these long winded routes (M3, M4, M101), yeah, they need to be broken up/restructured....

As I said in an older post (in a different thread) discussing the M100/101, I wouldn't have a problem if the M101's northern portion be coupled with the M100 (with the M100 having the majority of the service), but I wouldn't bother with the renaming.... Those 2 routes would run along a nice chunk of 125th and along Amsterdam, so they would be just as much an "M125/a" as the current M31 is(n't) "the M57"....

I would truncate the M3 back in this fashion as rendered sometime last year & have increased M1 & M2 service serving 5th/Madison the way they currently do, but I can't agree with coupling the M2/M3 & having them both act as 110th st crosstowns, ending in E. Harlem....

Lastly, to have the M104 take over the northern portion of the M4 as a means of simplifying 5th/Madison service, lets me know that you're doing nothing more than just looking at a map & coming to these conclusions.....

16 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I could live with the M3/4 having a similar setup as you're proposing for the M100/101 (M110: East Harlem-Cloisters via Broadway and M110a: East Harlem-Fort George via St. Nicholas) and keep the M2 running down 5th/Madison. But even still, running the M1/M102 from 147th Street down to the East Village area is still a pretty long route. 

...as for having the M104 running to Ft. Tryon Park is as well.

I don't care for the whole notion of a 110th st crosstown per se, but curtailing the M3/M4 in E. Harlem makes more sense than curtailing the M2/M3 in E. Harlem.....

6 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

If the M102 were to run in that configuration, I'd give it a slight service boost so that Fort George riders can benefit from it as well (since that's going to be the standalone part). Right now, the M102 runs every 12-15 minutes for most of the day. I'd make it something like an even 10 minutes.

I thought the M102 ran every 10 mins.... Well in that case, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

I've never been a proponent of forcing people onto the subway & my post history on here would easily have anyone come to that conclusion.... The point of the proposed M102 wouldn't be to dump folks off at 86th for the Lex. lines.... A route running from Ft. George to 86th is far from dinky & I always prefer taking buses over taking the subway (for numerous reasons), so AFAIC, we're on the same page when it comes to that.....

While I don't want a network comprised of 1/2 hour runtimes on 1/2 hour headways, I don't want one where as many routes have actual runtimes (never mind what's posted on any schedule) nearing the 2 hour mark running on low headways either..... The latter is one reason the north/south Manhattan routes are losing so much riders... Can't really blame these people.

I just cant anymore with the subways on the weekend... Yes, necessary trackwork, etc. has to get done, but at this age, I don't feel like playing where's waldo with what train is going to take on which service pattern....

Ugh this forum is buggy. I wrote a long list which didn't post here. My point was that all of this is being proposed because of the horrendous congestion. Signal priority, enforced bus lanes, and true LTD service could make such a route work. I would make it SBS and none of this LTD then local stops. No more than 25 stops from end to end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

If you say so....

 

You've said it... How you take the bus to hop on the subway and you prefer such arrangements, but other people have to commute as well. If you ride the bus the way you claim you do, you'd acknowledge the people that get on in East Harlem and then explain what alternatives they're supposed to be taking but you won't because what I'm saying is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I would truncate the M3 back in this fashion as rendered sometime last year & have increased M1 & M2 service serving 5th/Madison the way they currently do, but I can't agree with coupling the M2/M3 & having them both act as 110th st crosstowns, ending in E. Harlem....

2

So you would eliminate the whole thing? :p 

In all seriousness, the map is set to private.

4 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You've said it... How you take the bus to hop on the subway and you prefer such arrangements, but other people have to commute as well. If you ride the bus the way you claim you do, you'd acknowledge the people that get on in East Harlem and then explain what alternatives they're supposed to be taking but you won't because what I'm saying is true.

 
 

Not to get to East Harlem I don't. I take the bus directly there.

And I explained it multiple times. Either they take the M98/M102/M103 and transfer to the M100/101, or take the M98/M102 directly, depending on their exact destination. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.