MTA to Tweak East Side Bus Service Schedules

[AndrewJC]

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

 

 

I was responding to this claim by Via Garibaldi 8: "Rolling out more M101s and cutting back on M103s could indeed save them money as well since that could mean shorter run times." That claim makes no sense, since replacing M103's by M101's costs more money, not less.

 

As I said before, there was no M103 until 1995, and I've seen no indication of a plan to restore the pre-1995 service pattern.

 

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

 

 

As the link says, begging the question is "a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion." Although perhaps I should have cited circular reasoning instead.

 

You complained about a 40 minute wait for the M103 and brought that as proof that the M103 was unreliable. I rejected that as anectodal, and presented a 30 minute wait for the M15 as a counter-anecdote. You responded that your anecdote proves that the M103 is unreliable because you already know the M103 is unreliable, but my anecdote doesn't prove that the M15 is unreliable because you already know the M15 isn't unreliable. (Or at least that's how I interpreted your comments.) That's circular - your proof that the M103 is unreliable is that the M103 is unreliable!

 

I apologize for having gone to college (although I actually learned this stuff in high school). I didn't realize there was something wrong with being educated.

 

Cutting any service on the M103 indicates that.

 

 

I still don't think you understand the process taking place here. The number of riders per hour is counted at the most crowded point on the line. A simple mathematical formula determines how many buses should run during that hour to accommodate those riders, based on predetermined systemwide guidelines. That determines the new headway.

 

It's a completely thoughtless process. The counts are entered into a spreadsheet and the target headways pop out. It doesn't matter if it's the M103 or the Q234 or the B987 - it's entirely based on ridership at the peak load point.

 

Any sort of restructuring is a much more complicated process, involving a lot of data gathering and analysis and thought and discussion (within NYCT and among stakeholders). That isn't what's going on here.

 

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.

 

 

In a constrained budgetary environment, it's not always possible to maintain multiple options. If people can't get where they're going at all on transit, then they have a legitimate gripe. If they can still get there by subway, even if they prefer the bus, they're still better off than many.

 

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

 

 

The M101 isn't that frequent! It runs every 7 minutes (soon to be 8 minutes) at best.

[Threxx]

I was responding to this claim by Via Garibaldi 8: "Rolling out more M101s and cutting back on M103s could indeed save them money as well since that could mean shorter run times." That claim makes no sense, since replacing M103's by M101's costs more money, not less.

 

As I said before, there was no M103 until 1995, and I've seen no indication of a plan to restore the pre-1995 service pattern.

 

As the link says, begging the question is "a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion." Although perhaps I should have cited circular reasoning instead.

 

You complained about a 40 minute wait for the M103 and brought that as proof that the M103 was unreliable. I rejected that as anectodal, and presented a 30 minute wait for the M15 as a counter-anecdote. You responded that your anecdote proves that the M103 is unreliable because you already know the M103 is unreliable, but my anecdote doesn't prove that the M15 is unreliable because you already know the M15 isn't unreliable. (Or at least that's how I interpreted your comments.) That's circular - your proof that the M103 is unreliable is that the M103 is unreliable!

 

I apologize for having gone to college (although I actually learned this stuff in high school). I didn't realize there was something wrong with being educated.

 

I still don't think you understand the process taking place here. The number of riders per hour is counted at the most crowded point on the line. A simple mathematical formula determines how many buses should run during that hour to accommodate those riders, based on predetermined systemwide guidelines. That determines the new headway.

 

It's a completely thoughtless process. The counts are entered into a spreadsheet and the target headways pop out. It doesn't matter if it's the M103 or the Q234 or the B987 - it's entirely based on ridership at the peak load point.

 

Any sort of restructuring is a much more complicated process, involving a lot of data gathering and analysis and thought and discussion (within NYCT and among stakeholders). That isn't what's going on here.

 

In a constrained budgetary environment, it's not always possible to maintain multiple options. If people can't get where they're going at all on transit, then they have a legitimate gripe. If they can still get there by subway, even if they prefer the bus, they're still better off than many.

 

The M101 isn't that frequent! It runs every 7 minutes (soon to be 8 minutes) at best.

 

 

I'm 13, look at my profile.

 

As a general reply to the rest of this, my statements stand, I have nothing more to say.

[AndrewJC]

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 I didn't know what the word meant in the context of buses. So I asked. What's the problem?

 

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.....

 

 

I asked what you meant by a superroute and you answered. I never said that a market was a superroute! I said that a market was a "duty" (in the sense used here).

 

Did I say you did?

 

 

You certainly implied it!

 

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.

 

 

If you're going to coin new terms, don't be offended when people ask you what they mean.

[AndrewJC]

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

 

 

If only it were so easy! I agree completely, but cracking the nut of unreliable or bunched service is a major challenge.

 

Here are nearly 5,000 articles on Google Scholar about bus bunching.

 

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.

 

 

That's probably a better example, if only because it's so recent.

 

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.

 

 

South Bronx local riders would have suffered more than Dyre riders, but it was the Dyre elected officials who complained. Go figure.

 

Most White Plains Road trains are locals - and all White Plains Road trains to the West Side are locals. This change would have given them 100% express service (during rush hours), to the West Side as well as the East Side.

 

Riders don't care about switching, but riders most certainly care about reliable service. Eliminating the conflicting moves at East 180th would have made for more reliable 2 and 5 service in three boroughs. Any service change hurts some riders, but this one would have been beneficial to many more. But none of that matters to a politician who's narrowly focused on his own constituents, who then makes the MTA out to be the villain for attempting to improve service!

 

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).

 

 

I agree that there should be a bit more detail in the footnote, but if the guideline is as complex as I think it may be, the full level of detail requires multiple pages, not just a footnote. (Oh, how I wish those pages were on the MTA website!)

 

And my point is that it's not something out of the ordinary - it's a basic guideline that's used to determine service levels systemwide. (Anything out of the ordinary suggests favoritism, and the whole point of systemwide guidelines is to strenuously avoid all allegations of favoritism.)

 

I'm 13, look at my profile.

 

As a general reply to the rest of this, my statements stand, I have nothing more to say.

 

 

I usually don't look at profiles - I'm happy to debate someone a fraction my age or several times my age. But I apologize for accusing you of being uneducated, and I thank you for engaging me in a vigorous discussion.

[Threxx]

If you're going to coin new terms, don't be offended when people ask you what they mean.

 

 

He's not offended because you asked him. He's offended because you seem to expect that he will somehow drop the term because of you.

[AndrewJC]

He's not offended because you asked him. He's offended because you seem to expect that he will somehow drop the term because of you.

 

 

I couldn't care less what terms he uses! I simply wanted to know what he meant.

[checkmatechamp13]

I agree that there should be a bit more detail in the footnote, but if the guideline is as complex as I think it may be, the full level of detail requires multiple pages, not just a footnote. (Oh, how I wish those pages were on the MTA website!)

 

And my point is that it's not something out of the ordinary - it's a basic guideline that's used to determine service levels systemwide. (Anything out of the ordinary suggests favoritism, and the whole point of systemwide guidelines is to strenuously avoid all allegations of favoritism.)

 

 

Well, that's a problem with them in general: They don't put the crap out there. Amtrak7 filed a FOIL request asking for the guidelines they use when layout out routes and it's been like what 6 months? And they still haven't responded. I mean, if it's a complicated issue then fine, make a seperate booklet, but you shouldn't have to go through all the trouble of filing a FOIL request (which shouldn't be that much trouble except they make it hard for no reason) just to get the information.

[AndrewJC]

Well, that's a problem with them in general: They don't put the crap out there. Amtrak7 filed a FOIL request asking for the guidelines they use when layout out routes and it's been like what 6 months? And they still haven't responded. I mean, if it's a complicated issue then fine, make a seperate booklet, but you shouldn't have to go through all the trouble of filing a FOIL request (which shouldn't be that much trouble except they make it hard for no reason) just to get the information.

 

 

I am in complete agreement! This should be on the website.

 

(But I'm pretty sure that every government agency makes FOIL requests painful - it's certainly not unique to the MTA.)

[Trainmaster5]

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"

 

That's exactly why the ridership on those lines were against that plan and went to the politicians in the first place. The "so-called" planners took a plan which looked good on paper and decided to foist it on the public. The planners obviously never looked at the origin/destination part of the equation when coming up with that plan, a plan that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could see was fundamentally flawed from the rider's perspective. That's the problem with many of the agency's planners. They appear to have relied on some sort of computer generated guidelines instead of actually going out into the field and using their eyes and ears for a 6-12 month period before making these decisions. I can recall a post I made in a subway thread where Operations Planning had traffic checkers at the Bowling Green IRT station checking ridership on a Federal holiday where Wall Street was essentially deserted. They probably check bus routes when schools are closed or on religious holidays when the observant people aren't riding at all. IMO if you're going to do a job, ie. scheduling bus routes, don't come to the task at hand with preconceived outcomes, and then try to justify the results using some mystical formula that flies in the face of reality. As far as some of the stats go it's a case of garbage in/garbage out and the results could be used as ticker tape or bird cage liner . Just my opinion. Carry on.

[AndrewJC]

That's exactly why the ridership on those lines were against that plan and went to the politicians in the first place. The "so-called" planners took a plan which looked good on paper and decided to foist it on the public. The planners obviously never looked at the origin/destination part of the equation when coming up with that plan, a plan that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could see was fundamentally flawed from the rider's perspective. That's the problem with many of the agency's planners. They appear to have relied on some sort of computer generated guidelines instead of actually going out into the field and using their eyes and ears for a 6-12 month period before making these decisions. I can recall a post I made in a subway thread where Operations Planning had traffic checkers at the Bowling Green IRT station checking ridership on a Federal holiday where Wall Street was essentially deserted. They probably check bus routes when schools are closed or on religious holidays when the observant people aren't riding at all. IMO if you're going to do a job, ie. scheduling bus routes, don't come to the task at hand with preconceived outcomes, and then try to justify the results using some mystical formula that flies in the face of reality. As far as some of the stats go it's a case of garbage in/garbage out and the results could be used as ticker tape or bird cage liner . Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

 

As I said, the complaints that killed the plan came from the Dyre end, not from the local stations:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2000-09-26/local/18148512_1_mta-officials-commute-metropolitan-transportation-authority

 

(Note that the express run doesn't save anywhere close to the 15 to 20 minutes that Klein claimed, and that anybody who didn't want a local ride could have still transferred to the express, as thousands of other subway riders around the city already do.)

 

But you've made my exact point. The plan would have netted more reliable service to everybody on the 2 and 5 lines, in three boroughs. It would have also provided faster service to the busier branch north of East 180th. Like any service change, though, some people would have been hurt - and this is what happened. So, if this is the response they get, why (outside of budget crises) would the MTA jump to make changes to bus routes that might help the majority but hurt a vocal minority?

 

As for getting checks on a holiday - how else are they supposed to decide what sort of schedule to run on a holiday? Some lines now have slightly reduced weekday service on minor holidays, and I certainly hope that change is based on actual ridership data.

[B35 via Church]

And I didn't know what the word meant in the context of buses. So I asked.

 

What's the problem?

That's what I'd like to know....

 

For whatever reason, you resorted to bringing up the transit planning field as if we're all transit planners here & have to use industry terminology..... I mean, get real.....

 

 

I asked what you meant by a superroute and you answered. I never said that a market was a superroute! I said that a market was a "duty" (in the sense used here).

Well, the market of a route isn't the "duty" of the route either....

 

The duty/purpose/function of a bus route is where (and how) it travels to from point A to point B & everything in-between it.....

Again, the market of a bus route has to do with how many people won't/will opt to take said bus route.....

 

 

You certainly implied it!

I certainly didn't say you DID recommend that anything be elongated....

 

 

If you're going to coin new terms, don't be offended when people ask you what they mean.

Not terms, term... singular....

 

.....as for offended? wtf...... I'm the one that decided to give an answer to what a "superroute" was; you didn't ask any particular person..... and "duties" isn't a new term I coined; I just used that word as part of a definition (by implication) to what constitutes a superroute - that is, after your "long routes aren't necessarily good or bad" remark....

 

I don't understand what is so difficult about comprehending what the duty of something is.......

 

 

He's not offended because you asked him. He's offended because you seem to expect that he will somehow drop the term because of you.

It aint that either.... fact of the matter is, being offended has squat to do with anything here......

 

I couldn't care less what terms he uses! I simply wanted to know what he meant.

More like wanted to be disagreeable.....

 

People that are truly interested in wanting to know what something means don't make snide remarks such as:

 

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

- "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?"

 

None of that BS was necessary.

[B35 via Church]

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

 

I wouldn't say it's a headway problem w/ the 103..... It doesn't need much (if any) more service w/ the 101 & the 102 there.....

Just sucks that the delays south of Houston compromises matters w/ the route.....

 

 

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"

 

Good point.... riders along WPR that aren't traveling w/i the bronx from what I notice do tend to take the 2 moreso than the 5..... I would also side with the notion that these are people going to work (or school) on the west side.....

[Trainmaster5]

As I said, the complaints that killed the plan came from the Dyre end, not from the local stations:

http://articles.nyda...ation-authority

 

(Note that the express run doesn't save anywhere close to the 15 to 20 minutes that Klein claimed, and that anybody who didn't want a local ride could have still transferred to the express, as thousands of other subway riders around the city already do.)

 

But you've made my exact point. The plan would have netted more reliable service to everybody on the 2 and 5 lines, in three boroughs. It would have also provided faster service to the busier branch north of East 180th. Like any service change, though, some people would have been hurt - and this is what happened. So, if this is the response they get, why (outside of budget crises) would the MTA jump to make changes to bus routes that might help the majority but hurt a vocal minority?

 

As for getting checks on a holiday - how else are they supposed to decide what sort of schedule to run on a holiday? Some lines now have slightly reduced weekday service on minor holidays, and I certainly hope that change is based on actual ridership data.

 

Two points

Your more reliable service to everybody sentence should have read "streamline our operations through East 180th St" and it would have been correct. I worked the 2 and 5 lines for almost 30 years(23+ on the 5 alone) so I believe I know what the mindset was at the time the proposal was floated.. I also worked the WPR Thru express so I know the riding habits of the clientele up there.

Your second point about "minor" holidays and supplemental schedules I can agree with to a point. What is the point that differentiates these holidays? What I'm getting at is it appears that New Years, MLK day, President's Day, Memorial Day, 7/4, Labor Day, Columbus, Veteran's, Thanksgiving, and Christmas days are not treated the same way by Surface and RTO. Weekday ,Saturday, or Sunday schedule used to be the 3 main ones, with a weekday modification thrown in sometimes. It doesn't appear that Surface, or LIRR or MN adhere to those same guidlelines and neither does Wall St or Uncle Sam always follow. If you're going to run a modified or holiday schedule shouldn't there be some parameters that the average riders would be aware of?

BTW, you ask why should the MTA jump to make changes to bus routes (outside of a budget crisis)? I was under the impression that the OP-Planning was a full-time department and that was the reason for them getting paid. It's part of the job.

[B35 via Church]

BTW, you ask why should the MTA jump to make changes to bus routes (outside of a budget crisis)? I was under the impression that the OP-Planning was a full-time department and that was the reason for them getting paid. It's part of the job.

 

Exactly.... being hesitant to changing anything, even if it's minor, even if said change benefits riders a little more, is part of the problem now.....

[BrooklynIRT]

Actually I doubt that changing the situation in the Bronx would really make a difference with respect to service along the lengths of both lines because when the Dyre trains have to cross in front of upper WPR trains to go express through the southern Bronx, they are doing this only during AM rush when most people are not traveling from Manhattan to BK at the other end. If Dyre trains crossing WPR local trains (without staying on a common track from Unionport to 149) were a problem, FB terminal would be abandoning intervals like there were no tomorrow and/or there would be a lot more battery runs along the Nostrand Ave subway than there are now. Mind you battery runs are more prevalent during PM rush not only along the Nostrand Ave subway, but in other parts of the system as well. Northbound during PM rush trains crossing each other at Unionport does not make much of a difference because at that point trains are almost at the terminals and there is not much more ground to cover. And again if a train is in danger of missing its next interval they just do battery runs. If that happens it is not really the end of the world as there will be another train soon since IRT trains are all on top of each other during rush hours.

 

Anyway with respect to the original topic just remember that the limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. One can either live with the status quo and perhaps look forward to getting out of it at some point, or become politically active in an attempt to improve things. (One could also attempt to fix things later on in life, after a change of living situation and residence.)