|
|
| Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? (345307) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sun Apr 17 15:26:51 2022, in response to Re: Why 2 Terminals for Q1?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 17 14:35:02 2022. Precisely. Some routes, such as Q12A, Q44A, and Q65A, were labeled as such for political or administrative expediency, and not on the basis of any substantive service or marketing rationale.But the larger issue is this: should there be branches on the outer ends of routes? On the one hand, the current policy of NYCTA favors only single route paths, with every bus traveling exactly the same route. Such a strategy makes bus scheduling easier, and limits boarding passenger confusion. On the other hand, branches expand the service area of a route, along with a lessening of service frequency in outer areas where demand typically is much less compared to the route's trunk. Places like Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh have historically invoked these branching strategies. Is one policy uniformly preferable over the other? No, both are good and reasonable when used properly. A campaign to completely eradicate route branches--merely for the sake of uniformity--is bad policy. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|