MTA to Tweak East Side Bus Service Schedules

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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.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.

5 minutes is actually pretty close IMO. With traffic, loading and so on it is pretty easy for buses to start bunching with just a separation of 5 minutes. What should be done? Better spacing of buses for starters. The X1s sometimes run 5 minutes apart and they bunch like crazy and the dispatchers are there and allow it to happen! The end result is one bus getting slammed and one bus half full and the third bus practically empty. My hope is that when BusTime is implemented citywide, the will be more proactive in trying to better space buses. Their current set up in terms of how buses are given their run times is having a bus run empty through the route. Sometimes I feel like some routes take traffic and pickups into consideration while others don't. Having more realistic data at their hands should improve things... Theoretically.

 

And you want to know something, part of the 's job is to PROMOTE usage of MASS TRANSIT! Their attitude with bus service has been pretty non chalant. One board member basically had the attitude of "Oh well, what can we do?" For starters do more investigation on why riders are not using the buses. One of the main reasons folks will stop using a line is speed and unreliability and I can certainly see why ridership in Manhattan overall is on the decline. Buses are simply less and less reliable, even when there doesn't seem to be traffic. Yesterday for example I waited almost 30 minutes by that Kids R Us store by Union Square for one bus and finally an M2 came. Two M2s and two M3 had been scheduled in the time I was there so that's 1 bus showing up when 4 should've came. The bus was empty because some folks just gave up on it altogether and started walking or took a cab. Now sometimes what happens with the M2 and M3s is they start short turning them to 26th street forcing folks further down the line to wait longer and that's another example of how you discourage people from using a line. This is a consistent problem too. In short, I believe that the just doesn't give a damn about bus service because there are some things that can be done to improve service and they aren't doing them, so while it isn't a flat out "conspiracy" perhaps, it sure as hell isn't a level of concern.

 

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.

We're entitled to use examples to make our points. This is about bus ridership in general, so both examples are valid whether you like them or not. The thing with you is you don't seem to understand how free the is in putting out their numbers with no one to question them. I mean of course there isn't any evidence, because who does the really have to answer to when they put out their figures?

 

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

Well that's kind of hard to do without the B64 now isn't it? That was the point...

 

 

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.

 

Yes, the line was infrequent, but the real issue was reliability. If there wasn't a conspiracy to kill off ridership on the line, they sure as hell didn't care about reliability on the line, that's for sure, and as far as I'm concerned it is an indirect message to the community that you don't matter. It was well known that drivers were pulled from the B4 to be put on other lines, so instead of waiting 15 - 20 minutes for a bus, folks were forced to wait 40 minutes to an hour sometimes for one bus, which is ridiculous. Make folks wait for an hour on most lines for a local bus and you'll see what happens to ridership, especially if several buses were scheduled within that time period.

[TheSubwayStation]

5 minutes is actually pretty close IMO. With traffic, loading and so on it is pretty easy for buses to start bunching with just a separation of 5 minutes. What should be done? Better spacing of buses for starters. The X1s sometimes run 5 minutes apart and they bunch like crazy and the dispatchers are there and allow it to happen! The end result is one bus getting slammed and one bus half full and the third bus practically empty. My hope is that when BusTime is implemented citywide, the will be more proactive in trying to better space buses. Their current set up in terms of how buses are given their run times is having a bus run empty through the route. Sometimes I feel like some routes take traffic and pickups into consideration while others don't. Having more realistic data at their hands should improve things... Theoretically.

What's your point? Is the problem bad dispatching, or bad scheduling?

And you want to know something, part of the 's job is to PROMOTE usage of MASS TRANSIT! Their attitude with bus service has been pretty non chalant. One board member basically had the attitude of "Oh well, what can we do?" For starters do more investigation on why riders are not using the buses. One of the main reasons folks will stop using a line is speed and unreliability and I can certainly see why ridership in Manhattan overall is on the decline. Buses are simply less and less reliable, even when there doesn't seem to be traffic. Yesterday for example I waited almost 30 minutes by that Kids R Us store by Union Square for one bus and finally an M2 came. Two M2s and two M3 had been scheduled in the time I was there so that's 1 bus showing up when 4 should've came. The bus was empty because some folks just gave up on it altogether and started walking or took a cab. Now sometimes what happens with the M2 and M3s is they start short turning them to 26th street forcing folks further down the line to wait longer and that's another example of how you discourage people from using a line. This is a consistent problem too. In short, I believe that the just doesn't give a damn about bus service because there are some things that can be done to improve service and they aren't doing them, so while it isn't a flat out "conspiracy" perhaps, it sure as hell isn't a level of concern.

Well, I asked you to tell me if M102 and M103 service has worsened, and you didn't have anything to tell me...Look, you have no evidence from what I've heard that something new is going wrong with the M102 and M103, so first you bring up the B4 and then you bring up the M2. I know that we can't trust the MTA, but we also shouldn't say, "They screwed up the B4, so of course they must have screwed up the M103."

We're entitled to use examples to make our points. This is about bus ridership in general, so both examples are valid whether you like them or not. The thing with you is you don't seem to understand how free the is in putting out their numbers with no one to question them. I mean of course there isn't any evidence, because who does the really have to answer to when they put out their figures?

But, it seems like you turn to this one example every time you don't have evidence about why a bus route has been ruined by the MTA.

 

Still, I'm waiting for a clearer explanation about what has worsened with the M102 and how it should be fixed.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What's your point? Is the problem bad dispatching, or bad scheduling?Well, I asked you to tell me if M102 and M103 service has worsened, and you didn't have anything to tell me...Look, you have no evidence from what I've heard that something new is going wrong with the M102 and M103, so first you bring up the B4 and then you bring up the M2. I know that we can't trust the MTA, but we also shouldn't say, "They screwed up the B4, so of course they must have screwed up the M103."But, it seems like you turn to this one example every time you don't have evidence about why a bus route has been ruined by the MTA.

Quite frankly all three lines have issues. The only reason the M101 doesn't look as bad is because it is more frequent, but chronic bunching is an issue with all three lines. From my observations and experience, it is a combination of bad scheduling and bad dispatching. Having to let two or three buses pass for example at 34th street when they're supposed to go to 8th street is a great example of problems that exist. Too many buses have to be short turned that usually are short turned at the last minute, forcing folks to get off and take another bus or wait for several buses to pass before getting one further Downtown. Sometimes as I'm getting on at 34th street from the BxM1, I'll be forced to get off again and wait at the stop, or on my way to 14th street from 34th street, we'll then be told that oh this bus is terminating at 23rd street once we've already boarded at 34th street. Sometimes I just don't even bother using the line when I would rather use it because of the headaches involved. It should be a short ride from 34th to 14th especially on the M101 since that is just two stops, but it usually is anything but short.

 

The point is that the service runs like crap and they're not doing much to make things better when they could be on the line and that's a problem across the system when it comes to bus service for the most part with some exceptions. Then they wonder why ridership keeps dwindling in the city... It isn't rocket science. Poor service (as in unreliable and slow trips) means fewer people riding and it isn't necessarily because they don't want to. I would much rather use the local bus in the city over the subway because it is more convenient but the problem is will the bus come even close to what the schedule says if at all?

 

Still, I'm waiting for a clearer explanation about what has worsened with the M102 and how it should be fixed.

 

There's nothing to explain. All three lines suffer from the same crap. Bunching. The difference with the M102 and M103 is that they don't come as frequently as the M101 and they're local buses. If anything, I would try to schedule the M102 and M103 to work off of each other similar to what they try to do with the M1 and M3 when it comes up Madison. When it works well it can be quite effective in keeping both lines moving quickly, and actually just as quick if not quicker than the M2 limited up to at least 42nd street and that's from 14th street.

 

Something else to consider is fewer stops for both the M102 and M103. They should really look at that and they also need to get as many LFSAs on the line as possible, because boarding is pretty annoying with the older buses. I see a lot of old folks get on literally struggling with the high floor buses. The LFSAs are for most part are put on the M101 a lot, though I saw more on the M102 and M103 this weekend than I usually do, so hopefully as time goes on all three lines will have mainly LFSAs if not all LFSAs. That is one thing that the Madison Avenue lines have benefited from in having low floor buses. I don't see lots of wheelchairs on the Lexington Avenue lines, but still. Every little thing helps.

[TheSubwayStation]

@ Via Garibaldi 8, yes, you've talked about the short turning issue. But the other time I asked you what the problem was, you said it was bad scheduling. Tell me: what's wrong with the schedule? If the M103 is supposed to come 5 minutes after the M102, than the schedule doesn't seem to be an issue. And, aside from the short turning issue, what's wrong with the dispatching? If buses are late, how can the dispatcher make them arrive more quickly? Or is it that buses arrive early? And please don't respond by talking about a different bus line, which may or may not have the same problem as the M103.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

@ Via Garibaldi 8, yes, you've talked about the short turning issue. But the other time I asked you what the problem was, you said it was bad scheduling. Tell me: what's wrong with the schedule? If the M103 is supposed to come 5 minutes after the M102, than the schedule doesn't seem to be an issue. And, aside from the short turning issue, what's wrong with the dispatching? If buses are late, how can the dispatcher make them arrive more quickly? Or is it that buses arrive early? And please don't respond by talking about a different bus line, which may or may not have the same problem as the M103.

 

When I say scheduling, I don't necessarily mean the schedule. I mean how buses are scheduled in terms of run times and so forth, and yes, I see no point in having buses scheduled so close together that one runs empty which is what I usually see with the M103. They're trying to treat all three lines as if they have no relation with each other when in reality they use Third and Lex respectively for most of their run, so they are very well interlinked and should be scheduled as such.

[TheSubwayStation]

When I say scheduling, I don't necessarily mean the schedule. I mean how buses are scheduled in terms of run times and so forth, and yes, I see no point in having buses scheduled so close together that one runs empty which is what I usually see with the M103. They're trying to treat all three lines as if they have no relation with each other when in reality they use Third and Lex respectively for most of their run, so they are very well interlinked and should be scheduled as such.

 

This doesn't make any sense. You said before that the M103 isn't scheduled to be right behind the other buses.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This doesn't make any sense. You said before that the M103 isn't scheduled to be right behind the other buses.

 

 

Well what is your interpretation of right behind? 3 - 5 minutes behind the bus in front of it is not that far behind for a bus schedule here in NYC when talking about why M103s would be running empty during certain portions of the route. Take into consideration that there is usually an M101 AND M102 in front of the M103 when talking about it running 3 - 5 minutes behind and it is easy to see why they would be empty at times.

[TheSubwayStation]

Well what is your interpretation of right behind? 3 - 5 minutes behind the bus in front of it is not that far behind for a bus schedule here in NYC when talking about why M103s would be running empty during certain portions of the route. Take into consideration that there is usually an M101 AND M102 in front of the M103 when talking about it running 3 - 5 minutes behind and it is easy to see why they would be empty at times.

 

Well, you would seem to be right. I just looked at the schedule, and M103s come just about every 15 minutes, so an M103 arriving 3 - 5 minutes behind an M102 isn't good. Still, I don't think it explains the decrease in ridership, since theoretically the scheduling was always bad.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, you would seem to be right. I just looked at the schedule, and M103s come just about every 15 minutes, so an M103 arriving 3 - 5 minutes behind an M102 isn't good. Still, I don't think it explains the decrease in ridership, since theoretically the scheduling was always bad.

 

 

Well yes it doesn't explain it completely, but certainly it is a factor. What I do see is more M101s than anything and me quite frankly unless I couldn't walk to my destination, I would just wait for an M101. They're the most reliable out of the three which doesn't say much.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well, combining the B48 & B49?

 

 

He was just speaking in general terms. I don't think he had a position on combining the B48 & B49 (though I do agree with B35 with the thing about the purposes)

 

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

 

 

I'm sorry, man, but he's got a point. They don't save money just by slapping a limited sign on the bus. The B/O is sitting behind the wheel for 227 minutes instead of 199 minutes, so they have to pay him for the extra 18 minutes. Then there's the extra fuel, wear-and-tear, etc.

 

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.

 

 

The B64 argument is valid. The B11, not so sure. If it were extended and then cut back, the yeah I would agree, but I don't think the only reason the MTA isn't sending the B11 there is because they want to force people onto the B82. I mean, the route does have reliability issues in Borough Park, so maybe they feel that ridership would be low in Flatlands for the simple reason that riders will have to deal with unreliabie buses from Borough Park.

 

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.

 

 

In some cases yes, and some cases no.

[Threxx]

He was just speaking in general terms. I don't think he had a position on combining the B48 & B49 (though I do agree with B35 with the thing about the purposes)

 

 

I never said he had a position, I was stating my position...

 

I'm sorry, man, but he's got a point. They don't save money just by slapping a limited sign on the bus. The B/O is sitting behind the wheel for 227 minutes instead of 199 minutes, so they have to pay him for the extra 18 minutes. Then there's the extra fuel, wear-and-tear, etc.

 

 

That's all true, but the bus idles less along 3rd and Lex. I don't think it costs that much more than the M102. They may be thinking money spent on the shorter M103 is money wasted...

 

 

The B64 argument is valid. The B11, not so sure. If it were extended and then cut back, the yeah I would agree, but I don't think the only reason the MTA isn't sending the B11 there is because they want to force people onto the B82. I mean, the route does have reliability issues in Borough Park, so maybe they feel that ridership would be low in Flatlands for the simple reason that riders will have to deal with unreliabie buses from Borough Park.

 

 

Any ridership stat on the B82 would tell them otherwise. They've had about 3 decades to fix the problems in Borough Park and extend the route, why didn't they?

 

In some cases yes, and some cases no.

 

 

I'm not denying the existence of natural ridership fluctuation, I'm saying they've done this before and they are doing it now.

[AndrewJC]

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.

 

 

That's hardly unique to the B4!

 

Reliability has been a big problem with bus service for as long as I can remember. It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm hoping that expanding BusTime to the bus dispatchers' handheld devices will help them regulate service better.

 

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).

 

 

No doubt about that! But, as I've said, the flip side of increasing service in response to increased demand is decreasing service in response to decreased demand. The MTA has predefined loading guidelines for buses and trains, and the point of the scheduling process is to increase or decrease frequencies to bring loads in line with those guidelines.

 

Everybody recognizes that decreasing frequencies reduces the attractiveness of a bus route and, all else being equal, tends to lose even more riders. But every transit agency has limited funds. Should the agency spend money to operate more service than is needed on a line that's been losing ridership, or should the agency spend that money instead to enhance service where ridership is growing or where there's an emerging market?

 

Of the 73 bus schedule changes slated for September, 40 are reductions and 33 are increases - and the entire package comes at an annual cost of $1.7 million. Imagine the cost if there were only increases and no reductions! That would obviously be unsustainable.

 

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.

 

 

The latest round of schedule changes incorporates 40 frequency reductions. Are you suggesting that the MTA should (in three months or less, before the next batch of schedule changes comes in!) investigate in detail why ridership has dropped on each of those routes?

 

That would be a profound waste of manpower. Small ridership fluctuations occur regardless of how the service runs. People move and people change jobs. People shift from one bus route to another, or perhaps to the subway, or to other modes of transport. None of that is cause for alarm.

 

If there's a large, prolonged drop in ridership that isn't picked up by other nearby bus and subway routes, then, yes, that's worth investigating. But that is by far the exception, not the rule.

 

As you know, there has been a long-term decline in bus ridership, but bus-plus-subway ridership has been steadily increasing. What that suggests to me is that many trips that used to be taken by bus are now taken by subway. Why would that be? On the one hand, the subway system is far more reliable, far safer, and far pleasant than it was 20-30 years ago, and the generation that was scared off of the subway in the 70's and 80's and never came back is dying off. This is a good thing, since it means that people are getting to their destinations faster than they used to, at far lower cost to the MTA. On the other hand, bus travel has been getting slower and slower. SBS is one means of stemming that tide, and I hope some of the features of SBS, like bus lanes and off-board fare payment, are expanded to non-SBS routes as well. And BusTime, while not directly improving travel times, does reduce wait times, by giving riders the opportunity to stay home or at the office until just before the bus arrives and by giving them information to help them pick a route if they have multiple options.

 

But if there's a slight drop in ridership on the M102 and M103, what's the big deal? Most of the M102 and M103 routes are in a dense transit corridor with many travel options. If M102/M103 riders have shifted to the M101 or M15 or M1/2/3/4 or 4/5/6 train, good for them. Now reduce M102/M103 frequencies slightly and use that money to make sure the M101 and M15 and M1/2/3/4 and 4/5/6 trains have adequate service to accommodate their loads.

 

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 think the term you're looking for is market: there is a market for bus service between Manhattan Beach and the Sheepshead Bay station, there is a market for bus service along Ocean Avenue, etc. But the markets overlap, with plenty of people riding between Manhattan Beach and Ocean Avenue or beyond. I'm not aware of any rule of thumb for a maximum or minimum number of markets that a bus route should serve - as I said before, it depends on the circumstances.

 

The primary advantage to combining two routes is that riders who currently have to transfer (and potential riders who are turned off by the need to transfer) can get a one-seat ride. The primary disadvantage, as you say, is that reliability can suffer, especially if one of the routes goes through an area prone to delays. (To shift gears a bit, this is one reason I'm steadfastly opposed to the idea of extending the B44 over the Williamsburg Bridge. The vast majority of B44 riders have no interest in staying on the bus across the bridge, but they'll still be subject to delays in bridge traffic on the full length of the route. If there's significant demand for a bus route over the bridge, and I don't think there is, it should be a bus route of its own, a revived B39.)

 

Should the B48 and B49 be combined? I don't know enough about the markets to answer that question. Is there a significant market for trips involving transfers between the two routes? What would the implications be on reliability? I'll have to leave that to somebody else.

 

Should the M103 be absorbed by the M101 and/or M102? That would be a reversion to the pre-1995 service pattern. Given the large overlap, I doubt there's much of a market for through service. It would be interesting to see if splitting off the M103 had a positive impact on reliability, but I don't know if the historical records are available.

 

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.

 

 

Where do you see that? According to the staff summary, "Under the NYCT bus schedule review program all of the weekday NYCT express bus route schedules, approximately 50% of the weekday NYCT local bus route schedules and approximately 25% of the weekend NYCT local and express bus route schedules are evaluated each year."

 

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

 

 

Yes, I know how to use a dictionary. But what do you mean in the context of bus scheduling or planning? I've read a good number of articles and read a few books on transit planning and I haven't come across the term (I think checkmatechamp13 answered my question - you seem to be referring to markets. But it's still not clear to me where you're going with the idea.)

 

Good for those routes....

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

 

 

Did I recommend that anything be elongated?

 

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)......

 

 

Pardon me for not being familiar with terminology that you coined! Transit planning is a well established field. Why don't you read some articles or even take some courses and learn the terms and concepts and issues that transit planners deal with? I don't have any formal training in the field, but I've read up on it, and it's helped me understand why transit agencies do the things they do.

[checkmatechamp13]

That's hardly unique to the B4!

 

Reliability has been a big problem with bus service for as long as I can remember. It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm hoping that expanding BusTime to the bus dispatchers' handheld devices will help them regulate service better.

 

 

Except that generally on infrequent routes, they generally don't have bunching problems that extreme.

 

The latest round of schedule changes incorporates 40 frequency reductions. Are you suggesting that the MTA should (in three months or less, before the next batch of schedule changes comes in!) investigate in detail why ridership has dropped on each of those routes?

 

 

No, I'm not suggesting that.

 

As I've said before (in another thread), the MTA should periodically take a look at the whole system (or maybe just the underperforming routes) and see what needs to be changed. Yeah, if you're changing headways from 8 minutes to 10 minutes, then fine. But when you start going to 12 minutes, 15 minutes, etc, at some point you have to see what's causing the ridership decline. Is it unreliability? Is it a problem with the routing (indirectness, missing major ridership generators, etc)? Is it a change in demographics? (Population loss) Sometimes it's out of the MTA's control, but other times it isn't. I think it's pretty obvious why the B64 is losing ridership for instance.

 

Aside from that, as I've pointed out, the MTA's numbers often don't make sense. For instance, they say that changing X17 headways on Saturdays from 60 minutes to 30 minutes would result in buses going from 109% of the guideline to 43% of the guideline. Now tell me how doubling the frequencies is going to reduce ridership like that. Even on te M102/103, their numbers don't make sense (Do the math). The same for the S89, and I could go on and on with past examples (and probably examples I've overlooked)

 

Where do you see that? According to the staff summary, "Under the NYCT bus schedule review program all of the weekday NYCT express bus route schedules, approximately 50% of the weekday NYCT local bus route schedules and approximately 25% of the weekend NYCT local and express bus route schedules are evaluated each year."

 

 

I could've sworn it said "each quarter" or something like that, but I guess you're right.

[AndrewJC]

Well, combining the B48 & B49?

 

 

I don't know enough about them to comment. Sorry. But I like your eyes.

 

 

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

 

 

Wrong. The longer the running time, the more time the MTA has to pay each bus operator on the route. If a 187-minute run is replaced by a 227-minute run, the MTA has to pay a bus operator for 40 additional minutes of work (or the bus operator is unavailable for 40 minutes worth of a second run).

 

A limited is cheaper to operate than a local covering the same distance, because the running time is shorter on a limited. But this limited covers a greater distance than the local, and the running time is significantly longer.

 

 

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.

 

 

The B6 already covers that corridor a few blocks to the north (Glenwood and H). To a lesser extent, so does the B103. I don't even see what the B82 has to do with it. Am I missing something?

 

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....

 

 

Begging the question.

 

 

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.

 

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???

 

 

I've seen no evidence of manipulated data, but if you're suspicious, then please file a FOIL request for the underlying data and see for yourself. If you catch data tampering, you'll probably get a lot of people fired (and they'll deserve it).

 

That was the service pattern before 1995. I've seen no indication of any intent to switch back to that service pattern. Have you?

 

 

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???

 

 

I said that "its loads were accommodated by fairly infrequent service" - in other words, that buses weren't overcrowded even at fairly low frequencies - not that its riders were thrilled by infrequent service. Nobody likes infrequent service, but operating funding is not unlimited. If some people want to shift from the B4 to the B1, they're quite welcome to do that. What's the problem?

 

 

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!

 

 

I'm truly puzzled now. If people want to ride the subway, why shouldn't they ride the subway? Whenever I have a choice between bus and subway, I typically ride the subway, because it gets me where I'm going much faster, and I'm hardly alone. Is that somehow a problem? Am I doing someone a disservice by riding the subway instead of the bus?

 

 

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

 

 

The M101 is a limited. It proceeds along the route faster than the M102 and M103 locals. An M101 can't always be directly ahead of an M103!

 

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

 

 

I do apologize for that - I'm not sure why IPBoard did that to my post. It looked fine until I posted it - hopefully it won't do that again.

 

Someone thinks they do work for the ...

 

 

My actual employer would be very surprised to hear that.

[checkmatechamp13]

The B6 already covers that corridor a few blocks to the north (Glenwood and H). To a lesser extent, so does the B103. I don't even see what the B82 has to do with it. Am I missing something?

 

 

If you live south of roughly Avenue J, you're pretty much forced to take the B82 because the B6/103 are too far. If there were a route along Avenue J, you would have the option of avoiding the route.

 

I've seen no evidence of manipulated data, but if you're suspicious, then please file a FOIL request for the underlying data and see for yourself. If you catch data tampering, you'll probably get a lot of people fired (and they'll deserve it).

 

 

He's talking about manipulated routes, not data. (However, in my post above, I mentioned what looks like manipulated data)

 

I said that "its loads were accommodated by fairly infrequent service" - in other words, that buses weren't overcrowded even at fairly low frequencies - not that its riders were thrilled by infrequent service. Nobody likes infrequent service, but operating funding is not unlimited. If some people want to shift from the B4 to the B1, they're quite welcome to do that. What's the problem?

 

 

Because the B4 is much more convenient, and if it were run properly, people would be able to use that route instead of having to walk further for a different route. Like I said, it's not just the frequencies, but also bad frequencies and unreliability. If a route isn't frequent enough for you, and there's another, more frequent route nearby, then by all means, go for the more frequent route, even if it's further away. But if the issue is unreliability, and you'd rather not walk the extra distance, then that's a problem.

[AndrewJC]

Except that generally on infrequent routes, they generally don't have bunching problems that extreme.

 

 

I'm not so sure about that. (Some actual data would help here rather than mere anecdotes.)

 

No, I'm not suggesting that.

 

As I've said before (in another thread), the MTA should periodically take a look at the whole system (or maybe just the underperforming routes) and see what needs to be changed. Yeah, if you're changing headways from 8 minutes to 10 minutes, then fine. But when you start going to 12 minutes, 15 minutes, etc, at some point you have to see what's causing the ridership decline. Is it unreliability? Is it a problem with the routing (indirectness, missing major ridership generators, etc)? Is it a change in demographics? (Population loss) Sometimes it's out of the MTA's control, but other times it isn't. I think it's pretty obvious why the B64 is losing ridership for instance.

 

 

I don't think headways of 15 minutes are all that terrible. In any case, this is the purpose behind policy headways, which determine the maximum headway any route will have, even if ridership is too low to support it. In New York City, the policy headway during the day on local bus routes is 30 minutes - the idea being that, once the headway rises beyond that point, the route becomes very difficult to market.

 

I completely agree that the MTA's planners should be spending more time looking for ways to improve the system. But if they're spending all their time responding to fiscal crises and politicians' demands, that doesn't leave much time for true planning. I don't think they like it either. Hiring more planners would help, but it would be very difficult to push that through in the current fiscal environment.

 

Aside from that, as I've pointed out, the MTA's numbers often don't make sense. For instance, they say that changing X17 headways on Saturdays from 60 minutes to 30 minutes would result in buses going from 109% of the guideline to 43% of the guideline. Now tell me how doubling the frequencies is going to reduce ridership like that. Even on te M102/103, their numbers don't make sense (Do the math). The same for the S89, and I could go on and on with past examples (and probably examples I've overlooked)

 

 

I've wondered about that myself. Is it possible that the guidelines depend on headways? That is, might the guideline for an express bus on a 30 minute headway allow more passengers per bus than at a 60 minute headway? That might explain what you've seen on the X17. And it makes some sense from a scheduling perspective as well, although I don't know how many agencies do it - to improve the marketability of infrequent routes, schedule them to carry somewhat lighter loads than more frequent routes.

 

Just a wild guess.

[checkmatechamp13]

Ugh. This stupid quote thing is screwing me up, so I'll do it like this.

 

I'm not so sure about that. (Some actual data would help here rather than mere anecdotes.)

 

Well, doesn't it make sense that more infrequent routes would bunch less? Based on what other transit systems experience?

 

I don't think headways of 15 minutes are all that terrible. In any case, this is the purpose behind policy headways, which determine the maximum headway any route will have, even if ridership is too low to support it. In New York City, the policy headway during the day on local bus routes is 30 minutes - the idea being that, once the headway rises beyond that point, the route becomes very difficult to market.

 

I completely agree that the MTA's planners should be spending more time looking for ways to improve the system. But if they're spending all their time responding to fiscal crises and politicians' demands, that doesn't leave much time for true planning. I don't think they like it either. Hiring more planners would help, but it would be very difficult to push that through in the current fiscal environment.

 

The issue isn't that the route runs every 15 minutes. If the natural demand for the route warrants 15 minute headways, then so be it. The issue is that if the route used to run more frequently, and the frequency drastically changed over a period of years. (I can't think of any examples offhand. I heard the B2 used to run every 2 minutes during rush hour, but those cuts were probably over a period of a couple of decades)

And personally, I've always thought that the coverage/policy headway should be 60 minutes rather than 30.

 

I've wondered about that myself. Is it possible that the guidelines depend on headways? That is, might the guideline for an express bus on a 30 minute headway allow more passengers per bus than at a 60 minute headway? That might explain what you've seen on the X17. And it makes some sense from a scheduling perspective as well, although I don't know how many agencies do it - to improve the marketability of infrequent routes, schedule them to carry somewhat lighter loads than more frequent routes.

 

Just a wild guess.

 

They don't mention anything about different guidelines based on frequency.. They just say for express buses "They call for a seated load at all times", and for local buses "they call for standees [not specified how many] during rush hour and a seated load off-peak".

 

I have a feeling something's been miscopied (maybe they meant to put down 63% instead of 43% or something)

 

And if anything, this is the opposite of what you describe: For an express route, the X17 actually gets pretty high ridership, and has a decent farebox recovery ratio (FRR). Other than possibly the X1 & X10 for a very small portion of the route, there's no other route to "steal" the ridership.

[Threxx]

I don't know enough about them to comment. Sorry. But I like your eyes.

 

"I like your eyes?" Dafuq?

 

Wrong. The longer the running time, the more time the MTA has to pay each bus operator on the route. If a 187-minute run is replaced by a 227-minute run, the MTA has to pay a bus operator for 40 additional minutes of work (or the bus operator is unavailable for 40 minutes worth of a second run).

 

A limited is cheaper to operate than a local covering the same distance, because the running time is shorter on a limited. But this limited covers a greater distance than the local, and the running time is significantly longer.

 

I understand that, but if the were to then cut the M103, that's even more money saved.

 

The B6 already covers that corridor a few blocks to the north (Glenwood and H). To a lesser extent, so does the B103. I don't even see what the B82 has to do with it. Am I missing something?

 

Read Checkmate's post.

 

Begging the question.

 

Please translate that college scholar language into English, please. All I got was that I'm saying that my personal experiences mark another truth...

 

I've seen no evidence of manipulated data, but if you're suspicious, then please file a FOIL request for the underlying data and see for yourself. If you catch data tampering, you'll probably get a lot of people fired (and they'll deserve it).

 

That was the service pattern before 1995. I've seen no indication of any intent to switch back to that service pattern. Have you?

 

Cutting any service on the M103 indicates that.

 

I said that "its loads were accommodated by fairly infrequent service" - in other words, that buses weren't overcrowded even at fairly low frequencies - not that its riders were thrilled by infrequent service. Nobody likes infrequent service, but operating funding is not unlimited. If some people want to shift from the B4 to the B1, they're quite welcome to do that. What's the problem?

 

See my reply below.

 

I'm truly puzzled now. If people want to ride the subway, why shouldn't they ride the subway? Whenever I have a choice between bus and subway, I typically ride the subway, because it gets me where I'm going much faster, and I'm hardly alone. Is that somehow a problem? Am I doing someone a disservice by riding the subway instead of the bus?

 

That's not my point. The point is people aren't choosing what route/service they ride, they are forced onto it to get where they are going because of service cuts on the 's part.

 

The M101 is a limited. It proceeds along the route faster than the M102 and M103 locals. An M101 can't always be directly ahead of an M103!

 

Yes, it can, by the time one M101 gains ground over the M103, another M101 passes in front of it.

 

I do apologize for that - I'm not sure why IPBoard did that to my post. It looked fine until I posted it - hopefully it won't do that again.

 

This software has glitches, probably a glitch with the BB coding...

 

My actual employer would be very surprised to hear that.

 

 

Replies in red, as usual.

[B35 via Church]

Yes, I know how to use a dictionary. But what do you mean in the context of bus scheduling or planning? I've read a good number of articles and read a few books on transit planning and I haven't come across the term (I think checkmatechamp13 answered my question - you seem to be referring to markets. But it's still not clear to me where you're going with the idea.)

 

You were the one that questioned the word duties like you didn't know what the word meant.....

I don't care if you know how to use a dictionary......

 

Never remotely implicated the term is an actual one used in the field....

 

And no I'm not referring to markets when I make reference to what I dub a "superroute".... A market refers to the actual people riding some route.... a "superroute" is in reference to the physical route itself.....

 

 

Did I recommend that anything be elongated?

 

Did I say you did?

 

 

Pardon me for not being familiar with terminology that you coined! Transit planning is a well established field. Why don't you read some articles or even take some courses and learn the terms and concepts and issues that transit planners deal with? I don't have any formal training in the field, but I've read up on it, and it's helped me understand why transit agencies do the things they do.

 

Again with the straw man of bringing up the transit planning field..... Look, I don't have to read anymore articles or take any courses to learn terms I already know of because you're unfamiliar with a certain terminology that is used on a forum you decided to join & post at..... I didn't expect you (or any other newcomer here) to be familiar with the term...... You asked what it meant, and a definition was given..... You don't approve of, or find sense in the term, whatever..... You want to be disagreeable for the sake of doing so, whatever.....

 

No one here has to conform to the likes of you.

[Threxx]

Again with the straw man of bringing up the transit planning field..... Look, I don't have to read anymore articles or take any courses to learn terms I already know of because you're unfamiliar with a certain terminology that is used on a forum you decided to join & post at..... I didn't expect you (or any other newcomer here) to be familiar with the term...... You asked what it meant, and a definition was given..... You don't approve of, or find sense in the term, whatever..... You want to be disagreeable for the sake of doing so, whatever.....

 

No one here has to conform to the likes of you.

 

Bravo!

[checkmatechamp13]

"I like your eyes?" Dafuq?

 

 

He's referring to the eyes on this guy. ------>

 

Cutting any service on the M103 indicates that.

 

 

We don't necessarily know that these cuts are an attempt to try and eliminate the M103. A lot of routes run on 15 minute headways and they do fine.

[Threxx]

We don't necessarily know that these cuts are an attempt to try and eliminate the M103. A lot of routes run on 15 minute headways and they do fine.

 

 

The M103 isn't doing fine on current headways, that was the point of this whole thing!

[AndrewJC]

Well, doesn't it make sense that more infrequent routes would bunch less? Based on what other transit systems experience?

 

 

Yes, it makes sense to me. But if the B4 still has a bunching problem even though it's relatively in frequent, that points to a serious problem unrelated to frequency. Merely adding more buses wouldn't solve the problem; it would just make the bunches larger.

 

The issue isn't that the route runs every 15 minutes. If the natural demand for the route warrants 15 minute headways, then so be it. The issue is that if the route used to run more frequently, and the frequency drastically changed over a period of years. (I can't think of any examples offhand. I heard the B2 used to run every 2 minutes during rush hour, but those cuts were probably over a period of a couple of decades)

And personally, I've always thought that the coverage/policy headway should be 60 minutes rather than 30.

 

 

If a formerly busy route loses a lot of riders over time, that might indicate that it's worth considering redrawing the bus map in that area. But that requires a lot of planners' time, and it risks upsetting the (perhaps relatively few) riders who are satisfied with the existing service patterns, who then contact their elected officials, who go to the media with accusations that the MTA is all sorts of horrible adjectives.

 

Don't believe me? In the late 90's, NYCT was planning to simplify train operations through the East 180th Street area. The Dyre branch, which has comparatively low ridership, feeds into the local tracks at East 180th, while the White Plains branch has crossovers to the express track north of the Dyre turnoff. Rather than run all 5 trains express and all 2 trains local, which creates a conflict between the 2 local and the Dyre 5 express, the plan was for Dyre trains to go local and White Plains trains (2 and 5) to go express. Aside from giving the quicker (express) service to the busier branch, this would have reduced delays and improved reliability for all 2 and 5 riders, in Manhattan and Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. The plan was all ready to go when an elected official on the Dyre branch heard about it. How dare the MTA force his constituents to ride a local! And that was the end of the plan.

 

They don't mention anything about different guidelines based on frequency.. They just say for express buses "They call for a seated load at all times", and for local buses "they call for standees [not specified how many] during rush hour and a seated load off-peak".

 

I have a feeling something's been miscopied (maybe they meant to put down 63% instead of 43% or something)

 

And if anything, this is the opposite of what you describe: For an express route, the X17 actually gets pretty high ridership, and has a decent farebox recovery ratio (FRR). Other than possibly the X1 & X10 for a very small portion of the route, there's no other route to "steal" the ridership.

 

 

That footnote is just a basic summary. A seated load on an express bus might mean 57 people or it might mean 40 people or even less. The full guidelines may call for 57 riders per bus if service is very frequent but fewer riders per bus if service is less frequent.

 

As I said, I don't know if NYCT does this, but I asked a friend who used to work in the transportation field (in the private sector, as a consultant) if this approach was used. He didn't know about NYCT specifically, but he did say that some agencies do use guidelines that vary by frequency.

 

I don't know what the exact numbers are for NYCT, but just to show you how this might work, let's say that the guideline is 40 passengers at 1 bph and 51 passengers at 2 bph. At the lower frequency, if the average load is 44, the average bus is at 110% of guideline (close enough to 109%). Double the frequency and the average load becomes 22, which is 43% of the new guideline of 51.

 

That looks like a straight printout of a spreadsheet. The numbers are probably calculated automatically based on the observed load per hour. I don't think there are typos.

 

This sort of shifting guideline wouldn't be specific to certain routes. It would be the systemwide standard.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yes, it makes sense to me. But if the B4 still has a bunching problem even though it's relatively in frequent, that points to a serious problem unrelated to frequency. Merely adding more buses wouldn't solve the problem; it would just make the bunches larger.

 

 

They aren't saying to add buses. They're saying to run better service. There's a difference.

 

If a formerly busy route loses a lot of riders over time, that might indicate that it's worth considering redrawing the bus map in that area. But that requires a lot of planners' time, and it risks upsetting the (perhaps relatively few) riders who are satisfied with the existing service patterns, who then contact their elected officials, who go to the media with accusations that the MTA is all sorts of horrible adjectives.

 

Don't believe me? In the late 90's, NYCT was planning to simplify train operations through the East 180th Street area. The Dyre branch, which has comparatively low ridership, feeds into the local tracks at East 180th, while the White Plains branch has crossovers to the express track north of the Dyre turnoff. Rather than run all 5 trains express and all 2 trains local, which creates a conflict between the 2 local and the Dyre 5 express, the plan was for Dyre trains to go local and White Plains trains (2 and 5) to go express. Aside from giving the quicker (express) service to the busier branch, this would have reduced delays and improved reliability for all 2 and 5 riders, in Manhattan and Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. The plan was all ready to go when an elected official on the Dyre branch heard about it. How dare the MTA force his constituents to ride a local! And that was the end of the plan.

 

 

Well, it's just one of the things they have to deal with as a public agency. The whole Q21/52 restructuring makes perfect sense and yet there are still people complaining.

 

As for the (2)/(5) swap, there are a few issues with that:

 

* Since the only trains that would be serving the South Bronx local stations would be Dyre Avenue (5)s, that would mean a decrease in frequency for those riders. Having all trains serve them yields a better frequency than half of the trains serving them.

 

* If South Bronx riders want service to 7th Avenue rather than Lexington Avenue, they would prefer the current pattern (and I think that was the case here)

 

* Riders along White Plains Road wouldn't care because they already have express service.

 

* I don't think the riders really get wrapped up in the technicality of the switching and delays, so they wouldn't use that as a reason to support the plan.

 

Now, does the plan have its merits? Of course, and some variation of it probably should be implemented, but it's not like it's a perfect plan.

 

That footnote is just a basic summary. A seated load on an express bus might mean 57 people or it might mean 40 people or even less. The full guidelines may call for 57 riders per bus if service is very frequent but fewer riders per bus if service is less frequent.

 

As I said, I don't know if NYCT does this, but I asked a friend who used to work in the transportation field (in the private sector, as a consultant) if this approach was used. He didn't know about NYCT specifically, but he did say that some agencies do use guidelines that vary by frequency.

 

I don't know what the exact numbers are for NYCT, but just to show you how this might work, let's say that the guideline is 40 passengers at 1 bph and 51 passengers at 2 bph. At the lower frequency, if the average load is 44, the average bus is at 110% of guideline (close enough to 109%). Double the frequency and the average load becomes 22, which is 43% of the new guideline of 51.

 

That looks like a straight printout of a spreadsheet. The numbers are probably calculated automatically based on the observed load per hour. I don't think there are typos.

 

This sort of shifting guideline wouldn't be specific to certain routes. It would be the systemwide standard.

 

 

All express buses carry 57 people . If they're doing the standard based on the headway, they should make a note of it (aside from that, it's less confusing to just use the same standard and make a note of anything out of the ordinary. For instance, if they added service when the bus reached 85% of a seated load, they should say that it's because they wanted more frequent service at that particular level of crowding).

[BrooklynIRT]

Don't believe me? In the late 90's, NYCT was planning to simplify train operations through the East 180th Street area. The Dyre branch, which has comparatively low ridership, feeds into the local tracks at East 180th, while the White Plains branch has crossovers to the express track north of the Dyre turnoff. Rather than run all 5 trains express and all 2 trains local, which creates a conflict between the 2 local and the Dyre 5 express, the plan was for Dyre trains to go local and White Plains trains (2 and 5) to go express. Aside from giving the quicker (express) service to the busier branch, this would have reduced delays and improved reliability for all 2 and 5 riders, in Manhattan and Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. The plan was all ready to go when an elected official on the Dyre branch heard about it. How dare the MTA force his constituents to ride a local! And that was the end of the plan.

 

But the other problem is that I think most of the people at the local stops on the lower WPR line work on the West Side or close to Lenox Ave, so they need the during rush hours. More people along the WPR line (upper and lower with lower being the upper Southern Blvd/lower Westchester Ave els) want the than the which is why the is "a slow Bronx local"