Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
JubaionBx12+SBS

Connecting the dots to better commutes

Recommended Posts

I am about to post an anecdotal statement which can be discussed from whatever angle you choose to take it. 

 

I have a sister who takes the Q50 LTD bus as a part of her commute to high school. She doesn't have any real complaints regarding her commute but it's far from perfect. I say this because she usually has to time herself to a specific Q50 (which usually arrives at her stop at 7:15 am) to get to school on time in the morning. While she is almost always able to time this bus there can be instances where she does not and there was one time where she did not make that bus and ended up waiting for the next.

 

There were a few times where my sister and I happened to embark on our AM commutes at the same time so we walked towards our stop together. My commute allows me to take either the Bx12 +SBS, Bx23 or Q50 from the same stop my sister waits for the Q50. During these instances where my sister and I started off our commutes at the same time I always ended up getting a bus right away while my sister stayed behind for a Q50. I don't know about my sister but I personally get annoyed with long waits and wouldn't stand to use a route with high headways like the Q50 on a regular basis. I was thinking about ways to commute to her school which would involve minimal wait times and I found a pretty nice alternative. One in her position could follow me by picking either of the three buses I use, then use the <6> followed by a transfer to the Q44 at Parkchester. When compared to the 15-20 minute AM Rush headway of the Q50 LTD, the alternative commute offers much shorter wait times. The combined AM Rush headway of Bx12+SBS, Bx23 and Q50 is about 2 minutes, the <6> runs about every 5-6 minutes and the Q44 runs about every 4-5 minutes. This alternative commutes sounds so good that it really should be her primary commute with the Q50 as an alternative but there's always a catch. The thing is that the only free transfer allowed would be the one from the first bus to the subway which means that this pretty nice commute becomes a 2 fare ride. Who on earth would and should pay twice for a commute that's not even 35 minutes?

 

The MTA is able to get away which this because of the mentality that the vast majority of commuters have. They see commuting as simply a connet-the-dots game. In the case of my sister and the Q50, the Q50 stops at her point A and her point B so she feels content with confining herself to the Q50. I would not be comfortable confining my commute to a route or routes with shitty headways. Being honest, very few people outside of frequency conscious Jubai would have thought of an alternative commute to the one discussed here. To me a commute is about avoiding severe delays and finding a surefire quick way to get from point A to B even if that way is not the most direct (or best connector of the dots). 

 

I'll end on this note... The way in which most commuters interact with the transit network allows many of the flaws of it to persist and go unaddressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see why frequencies would be a big deal in her case because the Q50 has Bus Time so she can track the bus accordingly.  Many New Yorkers don't have bus service with high frequencies unless they're taking buses like the M15SBS or Bx12SBS.... You should consider yourself lucky....  I do just fine with 30 minute and hourly frequencies for my commutes... Not sure why you can't.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't see why frequencies would be a big deal in her case because the Q50 has Bus Time so she can track the bus accordingly.  Many New Yorkers don't have bus service with high frequencies unless they're taking buses like the M15SBS or Bx12SBS.... You should consider yourself lucky....  I do just fine with 30 minute and hourly frequencies for my commutes... Not sure why you can't.

 

==========================================================

 

Ooooh, because BusTime is the end-be-all solution to everything. :rolleyes:

 

There are tons of people who can't deal with 15 minute service. Gorgor says "Oh, the (insert Manhattan crosstown here) has crummy 5 minute headways". There are a bunch of people who complain "Oh, the (insert subway line here) runs every 10 minutes". Some people want instant, on-demand service. He's not unique in his complaints.

 

And no, 15 minute headways during rush hour is worse than most local lines in the system. With most lines, the headways are 10 minutes tops during rush hour.

 

It's all relative. Somebody who's used to getting in their car, or using the Lexington Avenue with its 2 minute rush hour headways might complain about waiting 5 minutes for a bus. Other people who are used to 60 minute headways might think that 15 minute headways are great.

 

I just realized: Is her school in Queens or The Bronx? (For some reason, I thought it was on Bruckner Blvd, but otherwise, she wouldn't have the option of the Bx5).

Edited by checkmatechamp13
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To respond to B35 being that the quoting may still be messed up, I am not complaining about any routes. The initial post just poses two different commuting mentalities where there is the mentality of commuters like my sister who is fine with the route she takes and commuters like me who would try to find a better alternative even if it is not as direct and involves transferring. From my observations I conclude that more commuters would share my sister's mentality then mine. However I just feel that from a logistical standpoint my commuting mentality is superior and it would be ideal for the MTA if the majority of commuters shared my mentality. The commuting mentality of folks is what I am trying to put up for discussion rather than individual routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand? What are you questioning, if people would transfer or not?

 

Correct... He's questioning if people would make multiple transfers due to the fact that they would have higher frequencies... 

 

To respond to B35 being that the quoting may still be messed up, I am not complaining about any routes. The initial post just poses two different commuting mentalities where there is the mentality of commuters like my sister who is fine with the route she takes and commuters like me who would try to find a better alternative even if it is not as direct and involves transferring. From my observations I conclude that more commuters would share my sister's mentality then mine. However I just feel that from a logistical standpoint my commuting mentality is superior and it would be ideal for the MTA if the majority of commuters shared my mentality. The commuting mentality of folks is what I am trying to put up for discussion rather than individual routes.

Well me personally I'm not big on making tons of transfers unless there's a reason why I need to.  If I need to stop off somewhere then I can justify additional transfers, but other than that I would probably stick with taking fewer transfers, provided that the bus is generally reliable.  As I said before, if she uses Bus Time, her wait can be relatively short so that if the bus is coming she can simply time it accordingly and get there a few minutes before it comes.

 

The other I forgot to mention is that things happen... The more transfers you have to make, the better chance there is of something happening to cause delays.  High frequency or not often times on those sorts of lines (high frequency lines) it doesn't take much for buses to get back up.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to add this last night, but my post wasn't going through. Anyway, the Q50 should be fairly reliable, so it's only a matter of arriving 5 minutes or so before the bus is scheduled to arrive. If you make the transfers, you're adding more time spent waiting (even if it's only a couple of minutes for each connection), and then increased travel time for a more indirect route. (Because taking the (6) to Parkchester and then the Q44 involves a backtrack if you're going to Queens). Of course, if that bus goes missing, or if you just missed the Q50 you intended to catch, then yeah, it might make sense to take the backup route, but otherwise, it's better to just time yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To respond to B35 being that the quoting may still be messed up, I am not complaining about any routes. The initial post just poses two different commuting mentalities where there is the mentality of commuters like my sister who is fine with the route she takes and commuters like me who would try to find a better alternative even if it is not as direct and involves transferring. From my observations I conclude that more commuters would share my sister's mentality then mine. However I just feel that from a logistical standpoint my commuting mentality is superior and it would be ideal for the MTA if the majority of commuters shared my mentality. The commuting mentality of folks is what I am trying to put up for discussion rather than individual routes.

 

 

If it's not about the infrequency of the Q50, I don't see the crux of what you're really complaining about.... The commuting mentality of folks? You are making this an issue of frequency when you're comparing the commute of your sister waiting for a Q50 because it stops at  points A & B for her or w/e, compared to w/e commute you're talking about that allows you to take the Bx12/23/50.....

 

If the Q50 (in this particular case) was more frequent, what argument would you really have regarding your sister's commute.....

 

People in general are gonna take the most direct route to their destination, and that's not an MTA thing, nor is it really a problem if you're not talking about that initial route being infrequent..... You aint gettin too many people to take 2+ modes when-or-if they can take 1, regardless if every single one of those modes have a higher frequency than the 1 route w/ the lower frequency.....

 

I don't blame your sister one bit for waiting for the Q50, compared to your suggestion of what she could do

(A bus to Pelham Bay Park, then the subway to the Q44).....

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's not about the infrequency of the Q50, I don't see the crux of what you're really complaining about.... The commuting mentality of folks? You are making this an issue of frequency when you're comparing the commute of your sister waiting for a Q50 (which is an infrequent route) because it stops at her point A & B or w/e, compared to w/e commute you're talking about that allows you to take the Bx12/23/50.....

 

If the Q50 (in this particular case) was more frequent, what argument would you really have regarding your sister's commute.....

 

People in general are gonna take the most direct route to their destination, and that's not an MTA thing, nor is it really a problem if you're not talking about that initial route being infrequent..... You aint gettin too many people to take 2+ modes when-or-if they can take 1, regardless if every single one of those modes have a higher frequency than the 1 route w/ the lower frequency......

 

lol.. He says he isn't complaining but he's made comments before about how he couldn't ride certain lines because they don't have "high frequencies".  In other words if they don't have the frequencies of the Bx12SBS, he doesn't think they have good frequencies... There are a lot of buses in the city that have 8 - 10 minute frequencies so an extra 5 - 7 minutes is not going to make that big of a difference.  I mean I don't care about the frequencies too much as long as they are within reason, the bus is relatively reliable and I can get to where I'm going without riding on a sardine can.  For example on routes with buses that cover the same streets, 10 minute headways are fine if the buses are relatively reliable.  Not all local buses can have 4 - 5 minute frequencies because they just don't have the demand for it.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol.. He says he isn't complaining but he's made comments before about how he couldn't ride certain lines because they don't have "high frequencies".  In other words if they don't have the frequencies of the Bx12SBS, he doesn't think they have good frequencies... There are a lot of buses in the city that have 8 - 10 minute frequencies so an extra 5 - 7 minutes is not going to make that big of a difference.  I mean I don't care about the frequencies too much as long as they are within reason, the bus is relatively reliable and I can get to where I'm going without riding on a sardine can.  For example on routes with buses that cover the same streets, 10 minute headways are fine if the buses are relatively reliable.  Not all local buses can have 4 - 5 minute frequencies because they just don't have the demand for it.

 

I was going to make that very exact point (in bold) last night, but this thread was the last one I checked out before I left the forum..... Aint feel like posting as much last night as much as I am now; that's why my initial post in here reads what it does......

 

Anyway, That's what I'm getting out of all this... it isn't about "commuting habits", it's about mode/route frequencies....

 

The real irony is, I could argue commuting habits if folks in general were taking (local) bus-subway-bus commutes, compared to "confining" themselves to one (local) bus or subway if they could..... In other words, deliberately choosing indirect commutes over direct commutes.... It's one reason why I favor modified grid bus routes (which is a whole 'nother discussion)....

 

aye, Lemme bottomline what I'm saying here.....

It's cliche for us on here to say that everyone cannot have a 1 seat ride - But the instance in which a commuter is actually getting the 1 seat ride, an issue of commuting habits is being made out of that?

 

I'm not buying what's being sold..... This is a frequency issue & nothing more.

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to make that very exact point (in bold) last night, but this thread was the last one I checked out before I left the forum.....

Aint feel like posting as much last night as much as I am now; that's why my initial post in here reads what it does......

 

Anyway, That's what I'm getting out of all this... it isn't about "commuting habits", it's about mode/route frequencies....

 

The real irony is, I could argue commuting habits if folks in general were taking (local) bus-subway-bus commutes, compared to "confining" themselves to one (local) bus or subway if they could..... In other words, indirect commutes over direct commutes if they don't have to take that indirect commute..... It's one reason why I favor modified grids (which is a whole 'nother discussion).... It's cliche for us to say that everyone cannot have a 1 seat ride....

 

....but the person in question is actually getting the 1 seat ride, and an issue of "commuting habits" is being made out of that....

I'm not buying what's being sold..... This is a frequency issue & nothing more.

 

Exactly... The (MTA) understands this too... The whole point about transfers making commutes longer... That's why people who have to take say a three modes of transportation can have long commutes (Staten Island comes to mind with the bus to the ferry to the subway)... It's not so much the commute itself but the transfers and waiting that makes the commute long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bingo and if you commute everyday the monthly is cheaper so 2 fare senario is not a problem. Here is an instafix add more Q50s make a petition to add more Q50 buses done problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the comparison of a one-seat Q50 ride to what I suggest in the OP makes too much of a point about the frequency of the Q50. So i'll turn things more towards my end as a commuter. If I followed the connect-the-dots mentality that leads people to favor one seat rides I would walk to the (5) to start off my commute as it is the closet subway to me. The thing is that I don't do that on a regular basis because the (5) is not the most reliable line in the world and should be avoided if possible. Being that the (6) is a better performing line and still relatively close to me I choose to use that to get me out of the Bronx. There are people I know (I won't give names) in my area who use the Lex to commute into Manhattan and will still walk to the slower, more unreliable (5) over the (6). My issue is that many commuters seem to ignore performance schematics of the network (speed, frequency, reliability) and just go with what looks easiest on a map. I point out the frequency issue in the OP because the alternative commute offers a clear frequency advantage although it is less direct. I am one that plans commutes solely on performance metrics unless I am in no rush whatsoever. During AM Rush Hour it can be assumed that the majority of commuters have somewhere important to be at a certain time so wouldn't evaluating the performance metrics lead to the best possible commute ( for those who have more than 1 commuting option present)? It seems like the answer is no for most folks when that doesn't make much sense. Given the case a <6> and (5) (running WPR express) both embark from their Bronx terminals at the same time the <6> will almost always make 125 a few minutes ahead of the (5) and I figured this out having used both routes during AM Rush. It seems that people who live around the Dyre Av line would rather ride the (5) and get into a hissy fit when it runs ineffectively rather then expend a little effort to reach the better performing <6> line.  While a great thing, a one-seat ride is not automatically the fastest and most reliable way for one to reach a given destination yet it will always be assumed as such which is something the MTA should work to mention to commuters because i'm sure people would benefit if exposed to different alternatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the comparison of a one-seat Q50 ride to what I suggest in the OP makes too much of a point about the frequency of the Q50. So i'll turn things more towards my end as a commuter. If I followed the connect-the-dots mentality that leads people to favor one seat rides I would walk to the (5) to start off my commute as it is the closet subway to me. The thing is that I don't do that on a regular basis because the (5) is not the most reliable line in the world and should be avoided if possible. Being that the (6) is a better performing line and still relatively close to me I choose to use that to get me out of the Bronx. There are people I know (I won't give names) in my area who use the Lex to commute into Manhattan and will still walk to the slower, more unreliable (5) over the (6). My issue is that many commuters seem to ignore performance schematics of the network (speed, frequency, reliability) and just go with what looks easiest on a map. I point out the frequency issue in the OP because the alternative commute offers a clear frequency advantage although it is less direct. I am one that plans commutes solely on performance metrics unless I am in no rush whatsoever. During AM Rush Hour it can be assumed that the majority of commuters have somewhere important to be at a certain time so wouldn't evaluating the performance metrics lead to the best possible commute ( for those who have more than 1 commuting option present)? It seems like the answer is no for most folks when that doesn't make much sense. Given the case a <6> and (5) (running WPR express) both embark from their Bronx terminals at the same time the <6> will almost always make 125 a few minutes ahead of the (5) and I figured this out having used both routes during AM Rush. It seems that people who live around the Dyre Av line would rather ride the (5) and get into a hissy fit when it runs ineffectively rather then expend a little effort to reach the better performing <6> line.  While a great thing, a one-seat ride is not automatically the fastest and most reliable way for one to reach a given destination yet it will always be assumed as such which is something the MTA should work to mention to commuters because i'm sure people would benefit if exposed to different alternatives. 

 

Oh believe me... People DO pay attention to things like frequencies, reliability and how quick they get to their destination.  However, people generally don't like walking any more than they have to so all of those things have to be considered.  There's also something else that you have to deal with when you have lines with high frequencies... More crowded trains or buses and generally speaking folks don't like standing so that is another thing that comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the comparison of a one-seat Q50 ride to what I suggest in the OP makes too much of a point about the frequency of the Q50. So i'll turn things more towards my end as a commuter. If I followed the connect-the-dots mentality that leads people to favor one seat rides I would walk to the (5) to start off my commute as it is the closet subway to me. The thing is that I don't do that on a regular basis because the (5) is not the most reliable line in the world and should be avoided if possible.

 

Being that the (6) is a better performing line and still relatively close to me I choose to use that to get me out of the Bronx. There are people I know (I won't give names) in my area who use the Lex to commute into Manhattan and will still walk to the slower, more unreliable (5) over the (6).

 

My issue is that many commuters seem to ignore performance schematics of the network (speed, frequency, reliability) and just go with what looks easiest on a map. I point out the frequency issue in the OP because the alternative commute offers a clear frequency advantage although it is less direct. I am one that plans commutes solely on performance metrics unless I am in no rush whatsoever.

 

During AM Rush Hour it can be assumed that the majority of commuters have somewhere important to be at a certain time so wouldn't evaluating the performance metrics lead to the best possible commute ( for those who have more than 1 commuting option present)? It seems like the answer is no for most folks when that doesn't make much sense. Given the case a <6> and (5) (running WPR express) both embark from their Bronx terminals at the same time the <6> will almost always make 125 a few minutes ahead of the (5) and I figured this out having used both routes during AM Rush. It seems that people who live around the Dyre Av line would rather ride the (5) and get into a hissy fit when it runs ineffectively rather then expend a little effort to reach the better performing <6> line.  

 

While a great thing, a one-seat ride is not automatically the fastest and most reliable way for one to reach a given destination yet it will always be assumed as such which is something the MTA should work to mention to commuters because i'm sure people would benefit if exposed to different alternatives. 

The closest subway to someone & the most direct commute for someone are two different things....

 

You are advocating (or, arguing for) people to take multiple modes to get from point A & point B when they don't necessarily have to, due to the individual modes themselves being more frequent & more reliable than the one mode that's direct.... Which is bad logic, considering a daily commute..... I mean, If it's anything that's ignored, it's time between transfers... Transfers are not as instantaneous as some like to think/consider that they are..... I find it quite odd when you hear as many people complain about wait times/high headways and delays & not even mention the time they spend transferring (if they're infact taking more than one mode), as if that factors into nothing as far as a commute goes......

 

A "little effort" to you might be an outright hassle for someone else.... I'm telling you now, the older you get, the more you are not going to want to transfer from this mode to that mode as part of a daily commute.... Get back to me in about 30 years with this whole bit & I can almost guarantee your tune will change.....

 

Furthermore, the MTA is there to provide these services, not dictate who should ride which mode(s) as it benefits them.... This is not an MTA issue, nor one they should get involved in.... The MTA is not gonna sit there & work to mention riders taking multiple modes to get from one place to another like that, and it would be senseless for them to do so IMO.....

 

With increased modes comes increased variables...

You don't (or shouldn't) want riders being exposed to anymore variables than what they have to......

 

 

Oh believe me... People DO pay attention to things like frequencies, reliability and how quick they get to their destination.  However, people generally don't like walking any more than they have to so all of those things have to be considered.  There's also something else that you have to deal with when you have lines with high frequencies... More crowded trains or buses and generally speaking folks don't like standing so that is another thing that comes into play.

 

It's funny to me.... I don't know where he's getting the inkling that people actually ignore speed, reliability, and frequency (for instance, I direct anyone that believes that to check out the transportation forums on SILive).... If people did, then you would have MORE people taking indirect commutes....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I got from the first post is that she's mad about long waiting times for the Q50, nothing more.

 

It's all supply and demand.  I presume that there isn't that many riders traveling between the Bronx and Queens using the Q50, so not that many buses run.  Responding to whoever was talking about me before, yes, I get mad when there's a bus running only once every 5 minutes during rush hour.  In that time 20+ people could come from the subway to make the connection to a bus that barely has any standing room on it, and it becomes so crowded that there are people standing until the 2nd to last stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

---
The Quote function is screwed up...
 
@B35

Exactly... Now I have the option of the BxM1, BxM2 and MetroNorth and the BxM18 depending on my schedule.  With the BxM2, the buses are less crowded, but the frequencies are generally every half hour most of the morning.  With MetroNorth I'm required to take the shuttle bus to the train so that commute is still a good 45 minutes, if there are no delays, and that doesn't include the walk from the station, plus I have to make an additional transfer.  The BxM1 is the most frequent and direct and is quicker than the BxM2 usually since the BxM2 has to make its way to the West Side which means more opportunities to get stuck in traffic so for the most part it's wise to take the BxM1, as the travel time and walking time is pretty similar.  Comfort level is something that is also considered by many passengers, so if I have to be on a crowded bus or train and can't get a seat and have to make transfers on top of that it becomes a rather exhausting commute, hence why I hate MetroNorth.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 It seems that people who live around the Dyre Av line would rather ride the (5) and get into a hissy fit when it runs ineffectively rather then expend a little effort to reach the better performing <6> line.  

 

I assume you're only referring to riders in and around Co-Op City, right? Because if you live in say, Baychester and have to walk the extra distance and then take the bus to the <6> train, that cancels out the potential time savings from taking the <6> over the (5). (And if you go with the closest bus in your neighborhood, like say, the Bx31, well, that's not particularly frequent either).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I got from the first post is that she's mad about long waiting times for the Q50, nothing more.

 

It's all supply and demand.  I presume that there isn't that many riders traveling between the Bronx and Queens using the Q50, so not that many buses run.  Responding to whoever was talking about me before, yes, I get mad when there's a bus running only once every 5 minutes during rush hour.  In that time 20+ people could come from the subway to make the connection to a bus that barely has any standing room on it, and it becomes so crowded that there are people standing until the 2nd to last stop.

@gorgor obviously you need to take Q50 for yourself and see that is indeed does carry well usually full seated load at rush hour SRO as in ask anybody who uses that bus you will get your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we think in general then i'm just typing nonsense. However, I don't feel there's any nonsense in just questioning the habits of commuters like those I mention (even if it ends up working for them). I would like to bring up the fact that although my sister and I both commute to different places (my commute being longer and more delay prone than hers) I end up making it to my destination on time more often then she does. I believe the reason for this has little to do with the amount of time we allow for our commutes because she does allow sufficient time for her commute on an everyday basis. I believe the reason has more to do with how we go about or commutes. My sister times her bus in the morning and essentially depends on the reliable arrival of that bus where I simply leave whenever* and just move along my way. 

 

My sister's commuting strategy sets her up for potential failure before she has even began her commute. Not only may the bus be delayed (or in a worst-case scenario early) there is the possibility she could be late for the bus. Life happens and it is very tough to always be leaving home at the same 5 minute interval to make a bus every morning. When she has been late it's been because of her rather than the bus. 

 

My commuting strategy is one that doesn't constrain my start time leaving home and allows me to move away from my point A rather quickly. Because of this if any delays occur they are usually closer to my destination than my starting point which is okay with me because my progress from point A leaves me with time to spare. 

 

As important as ease and comfort may be in a commute, the key to assuring a timely arrival at point B is moving away from point A. I bolded the word moving above because that's where I want to place emphasis. By choosing to wait for an infrequent service or time a bus/train where either you or the bus/train can be late, a situation is set up where lots of time could pass with little to no movement from the starting point. That is not smart for any commuter who needs to be somewhere on time. 

 

I say that this is a relevant issue for the MTA because most commuters like to blame their lack of timeliness on the MTA's unreliable service. Many times the individual commuter is more at fault then the MTA  meaning that some of the negative PR surrounding the agency's service is unjustified. The MTA, I feel needs to deflect that negative PR in any way it possibly can.

 

P.S.- I don't exactly start my commute whenever, I just use the word to point out that I don't shoot for an exact time to start rather than any time that allows me to get moving without being late off the bat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we think in general then i'm just typing nonsense. However, I don't feel there's any nonsense in just questioning the habits of commuters like those I mention (even if it ends up working for them). I would like to bring up the fact that although my sister and I both commute to different places (my commute being longer and more delay prone than hers) I end up making it to my destination on time more often then she does. I believe the reason for this has little to do with the amount of time we allow for our commutes because she does allow sufficient time for her commute on an everyday basis. I believe the reason has more to do with how we go about or commutes. My sister times her bus in the morning and essentially depends on the reliable arrival of that bus where I simply leave whenever* and just move along my way. 

 

My sister's commuting strategy sets her up for potential failure before she has even began her commute. Not only may the bus be delayed (or in a worst-case scenario early) there is the possibility she could be late for the bus. Life happens and it is very tough to always be leaving home at the same 5 minute interval to make a bus every morning. When she has been late it's been because of her rather than the bus. 

 

My commuting strategy is one that doesn't constrain my start time leaving home and allows me to move away from my point A rather quickly. Because of this if any delays occur they are usually closer to my destination than my starting point which is okay with me because my progress from point A leaves me with time to spare. 

 

As important as ease and comfort may be in a commute, the key to assuring a timely arrival at point B is moving away from point A. I bolded the word moving above because that's where I want to place emphasis. By choosing to wait for an infrequent service or time a bus/train where either you or the bus/train can be late, a situation is set up where lots of time could pass with little to no movement from the starting point. That is not smart for any commuter who needs to be somewhere on time. 

 

I say that this is a relevant issue for the MTA because most commuters like to blame their lack of timeliness on the MTA's unreliable service. Many times the individual commuter is more at fault then the MTA  meaning that some of the negative PR surrounding the agency's service is unjustified. The MTA, I feel needs to deflect that negative PR in any way it possibly can.

 

P.S.- I don't exactly start my commute whenever, I just use the word to point out that I don't shoot for an exact time to start rather than any time that allows me to get moving without being late off the bat. 

Bingo it's people not using ALL THEIR OPTIONS!!!!! Like this dumb babe mouthing off about the (7) when she lived infront of the QM2 she was such a twit she thought express bus card was $300 a month for use on subways and local buses what a fool. She ignored me when I showed her that expressbus plus works on local buses and subways. Welcome to my world. she commutes to manhattan.

Edited by qjtransitmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we think in general then i'm just typing nonsense. However, I don't feel there's any nonsense in just questioning the habits of commuters like those I mention (even if it ends up working for them). I would like to bring up the fact that although my sister and I both commute to different places (my commute being longer and more delay prone than hers) I end up making it to my destination on time more often then she does. I believe the reason for this has little to do with the amount of time we allow for our commutes because she does allow sufficient time for her commute on an everyday basis. I believe the reason has more to do with how we go about or commutes. My sister times her bus in the morning and essentially depends on the reliable arrival of that bus where I simply leave whenever* and just move along my way. 

 

My sister's commuting strategy sets her up for potential failure before she has even began her commute. Not only may the bus be delayed (or in a worst-case scenario early) there is the possibility she could be late for the bus. Life happens and it is very tough to always be leaving home at the same 5 minute interval to make a bus every morning. When she has been late it's been because of her rather than the bus. 

 

My commuting strategy is one that doesn't constrain my start time leaving home and allows me to move away from my point A rather quickly. Because of this if any delays occur they are usually closer to my destination than my starting point which is okay with me because my progress from point A leaves me with time to spare. 

 

As important as ease and comfort may be in a commute, the key to assuring a timely arrival at point B is moving away from point A. I bolded the word moving above because that's where I want to place emphasis. By choosing to wait for an infrequent service or time a bus/train where either you or the bus/train can be late, a situation is set up where lots of time could pass with little to no movement from the starting point. That is not smart for any commuter who needs to be somewhere on time. 

 

I say that this is a relevant issue for the MTA because most commuters like to blame their lack of timeliness on the MTA's unreliable service. Many times the individual commuter is more at fault then the MTA  meaning that some of the negative PR surrounding the agency's service is unjustified. The MTA, I feel needs to deflect that negative PR in any way it possibly can.

 

P.S.- I don't exactly start my commute whenever, I just use the word to point out that I don't shoot for an exact time to start rather than any time that allows me to get moving without being late off the bat. 

I think I understand what you're saying to an extent.

 

You mention that your sister seems to depend on the reliability in the schedule of the Q50, more specifically a certain trip. In my opinion, I see nothing wrong with that. The way I see it, the question should be, should commuters (like your sister) depart excessively early from their origin to reach their destination early? I don't think anyone should be required to do that, though it could be beneficial in some cases. For the most part, passengers should be able to rely on a certain route and not have to alter their trip around it due to it's (ir)reliability.

 

When it is her being late in the morning, at this point it becomes an individual situation. There is no one lse to blame.

 

In regard to your commuting strategy, I know what you are saying about delays, but in the event that your alternate trip plan involves one transfer, the amount of delays you could get stuck in just double. If you still find the alternate way faster, or it actually is faster then it would be up to personal descision for passengers to use it. Many are admant about transferring.

 

At the end of your post, you type: "I say that this is a relevant issue for the MTA because most commuters like to blame their lack of timeliness on the MTA's unreliable service. Many times the individual commuter is more at fault then the MTA". I don't feel the passenger is to blame in this situation at all. Why should passengers be required to change their commuting habits due to poor service on a certain route or line? If the Q50 doesn't adhere to it's timetables, than the passengers shouldn't be blamed for relying on it, the MTA should be blamed for its unreliabilty, and perhaps its inferquent service.

 

The one point I agree with you on is having the option to transfer. While I don't feel passengers should be required to have an itinerary that involves multiple transfers, they should have the option. As of now, only the people with the weekly and the monthly MetoCard can do that. Those confined to the one way fare/transfer or student MetroCard essentially don't have that option unfortunately.

 

At this point a question is presented. Should the MTA give people the flexibility to transfer and would passengers be willing to pay for it? Recall back when the fare was $2.00, a 1-day pass (coined the fun pass) was avaliable for $8.25. So in essence, the cost of one was at least four fares or up to eight trips. Now that the fare is soon to be $2.50 the question is, would passengers be willing to pay around $10.00 a day to have the option to make multiple transfers in a day? It is quite clear that this wouldn't be a viable option for many.

 

My concluding statement, I feel that passengers are just trying to make due with what the MTA gives them, which to be quite honest isn't much at all, but I assume that varies on an individual basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like to me this goes back to frequency more than anything else.  When you are using a less frequent route you're forced to time it or wait.  As for you surely you know that even with you using frequent routes, there is still a time that you have to be out by if you expect to make it to your destination on time, but you're essentially stating that you have to be less on a fixed schedule than she does, which makes sense.  If you leave roughly around the same time every morning and have access to a route that runs every 5 minutes, having to wait 5-10 isn't going to make a huge difference as opposed to waiting 30 minutes.

 

@qjtransit:

 

 

lol... How is she a fool exactly?? The card is $50.00 a week and if there are 5 weeks in the month then it is $250.00 for the month.  Come March it will be $55.00 a week, so it'll be $220.00 - $275.00 a month... Not exactly that far off....

 

 

 

 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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