Why do we still have the deadhead?

[MHV9218]

Obviously, when you pull out of the depot to go to your route, there's some distance to be traveled to the start point of that route. The driver is paid for this travel, and buses often run along the path of another route on the way. This seems like a relic of old service patterns to me. Why aren't buses sent out of the depot along current routes put into service with a short turn or two on the way to the original route? If an M86 pulls out of Tuskegee, for example, it heads down Lex before hooking a right or a left onto 86th Street. Why not run that bus as an M102/M103 with a short turn at 86th from the time it leaves the depot? If an M96 pulls out, it heads down Lex to 96th and will head either east or west NIS to the terminal: why not make that bus a put-in on the way to the terminal? There's money to be made and service to be added if we just thought a little outside of the box when it comes to service patterns. 

[Vistausss]

I have no answer to your question but what I can say is that this happens almost everywhere in the world and I do agree that those trips should be revenue instead of deadhead.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

perfect example is the s40. madd buses return to the ferry or start at the ferry going down richmond terrace. so I say to myself why make us wait for a 35 min bus when your going that same direction?

[Around the Horn]

Obviously, when you pull out of the depot to go to your route, there's some distance to be traveled to the start point of that route. The driver is paid for this travel, and buses often run along the path of another route on the way. This seems like a relic of old service patterns to me. Why aren't buses sent out of the depot along current routes put into service with a short turn or two on the way to the original route? If an M86 pulls out of Tuskegee, for example, it heads down Lex before hooking a right or a left onto 86th Street. Why not run that bus as an M102/M103 with a short turn at 86th from the time it leaves the depot? If an M96 pulls out, it heads down Lex to 96th and will head either east or west NIS to the terminal: why not make that bus a put-in on the way to the terminal? There's money to be made and service to be added if we just thought a little outside of the box when it comes to service patterns. 

Well Chicago did exactly what your suggesting:Have buses run to the depot and carry passengers.The B64 before the CI section got reinstated was somewhat like this because some B1s would go down 86th to Shore and over to Mackay to become a 64.

[peacemak3r]

B44's coming down from Avenue U to Nostrand could prove revenue use as a B3, but ridership would be low as there are a lot of B3's already.

[trainfan22]

perfect example is the s40. madd buses return to the ferry or start at the ferry going down richmond terrace. so I say to myself why make us wait for a 35 min bus when your going that same direction?

Maybe the bus gets to the Ferry much quicker by deadheading there vs picking people up which takes more time... I would imagine this is reason most buses don't pick up riders on deadheads.

 

 

With that being said, its crazy that the B8 deadheads almost the entire length of the B70 route

 

Same goes for the B35... I always seen JG buses deadheading down Linden in Flatbush heading Brownsville to either start a run on the B8 or 35.

[Around the Horn]

Maybe the bus gets to the Ferry much quicker by deadheading there vs picking people up which takes more time... I would imagine this is reason most buses don't pick up riders on deadheads.

 

 

With that being said, its crazy that the B8 deadheads almost the entire length of the B70 route

 

Same goes for the B35... I always seen JG buses deadheading down Linden in Flatbush heading Brownsville to either start a run on the B8 or 35.

They take 7th to 92nd to 4th to 39th which is VERY different from the B70.

[trainfan22]

They take 7th to 92nd to 4th to 39th which is VERY different from the B70.

I meant distance. The B70 ends not too far from the JG depot, and the terminal on the other end is shared with the B8.

 

They also used the BQE to deadhead at times as well, I use to see them getting off the highway on to the local streets to get to the Terminal.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Sounds like a bad idea unless picking up passengers wouldn't affect the bus making its next scheduled run.  

[Acela Express]

You guys have to remember, it costs more for a bus to operate in service, meaning they'd have to have to give us more running time for passenger service vs. deadheading which is a straight shot, and save a few minutes. Also inserting these buses for service would be suitable if service demands it, but likely not.

 

As for someone who mentioned the 44 doing a trip on the 3 between Flatbush Avenue and Gerritsen / Nostrand Avenues - it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You guys have to remember, it costs more for a bus to operate in service, meaning they'd have to have to give us more running time for passenger service vs. deadheading which is a straight shot, and save a few minutes. Also inserting these buses for service would be suitable if service demands it, but likely not.

 

As for someone who mentioned the 44 doing a trip on the 3 between Flatbush Avenue and Gerritsen / Nostrand Avenues - it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That's something I don't get though. Why would it cost so much more to operate in service than to pick up passengers at ALL times?  I mean obviously sometimes I can see why deadheading would be cheaper, but if your explanation is solely based on the time it takes to deadhead vs picking up passengers, then I wouldn't agree with that assessment. 

[SevenEleven]

The more time you are on the road = the more money coming out of someone's pocket.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The more time you are on the road = the more money coming out of someone's pocket.

Of course but if that's how they justify whether a bus is in service vs deadheading I think they should re-evaluate that because sometimes it may be worth putting a bus in service.  They have to realize how pissed passengers get seeing several empty buses pass by while they wait and wait and wait for a bus that never comes or shows up extremely late.  These are all reasons why people are taking buses less and less.  It comes down to two things with buses... Reliability and wait times.  The longer you have to wait in between buses, the less likely you are to use the service, especially if alternatives are available, and the more unreliable the service is, the less likely you are to wait as well.

 

Now I'm not saying go crazy with service here, but I mean seriously sometimes I wonder what in the hell they pay dispatchers for because they seem to just stand there and stare into space.  Pretty useless if you ask me.  If anything sometimes I think they make service worse.

 

The way I look at it is, is it worth seeing ridership on a line deteriorate because of poor service, or are they better off putting a bus in service to make sure that people get to where they're going in a reasonable amount of time?  These are all things that they don't think about when they talk about why ridership is declining on buses.  Instead they continue to cut service without examining the causes for the declines in ridership.

[Vistausss]

If operating time is such a problem they could simply run the deadheads as Limiteds on lines that warrant it, such as the aforementioned S40 for example. I figure most people would wanna take it to the ferry. Just make it a limited to the ferry and it doesn't add much more time but it does increase revenue and commuter happiness. And there are probably more lines (around the world) where that would warrant.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If operating time is such a problem they could simply run the deadheads as Limiteds on lines that warrant it, such as the aforementioned S40 for example. I figure most people would wanna take it to the ferry. Just make it a limited to the ferry and it doesn't add much more time but it does increase revenue and commuter happiness. And there are probably more lines (around the world) where that would warrant.

In fact I think they've done that here and there on occasion on a few SI lines.

[MHV9218]

You guys have to remember, it costs more for a bus to operate in service, meaning they'd have to have to give us more running time for passenger service vs. deadheading which is a straight shot, and save a few minutes. Also inserting these buses for service would be suitable if service demands it, but likely not.

 

 

The more time you are on the road = the more money coming out of someone's pocket.

 

I think the cost argument is moot when it comes to routes where there's demand. The morning rush sees a ton of deadheading buses, and there are a lot of deadhead routes that could bring in more than enough in fares to pay for the extra amount paid to B/Os. After all (as I'm sure Acela is aware), B/Os are not paid all that much considering the work they do, and all it takes is a relatively full bus to break even or profit. Even with an empty bus, since the deadhead is currently just money spent without service, putting fares into the equation would reduce the losses.

[petabread]

However if you have buses running on all other routes you still have to remember these buses deadheading have to be somewhere at a certain time, if you have that bus in service on a line, how will he/she run his route? You now have to hire another bus operator and pay for their health and pension. It costs a lot more than using deadheading. That's why using operators on more than one route in his run is efficient.

[bobtehpanda]

I think the cost argument is moot when it comes to routes where there's demand. The morning rush sees a ton of deadheading buses, and there are a lot of deadhead routes that could bring in more than enough in fares to pay for the extra amount paid to B/Os. After all (as I'm sure Acela is aware), B/Os are not paid all that much considering the work they do, and all it takes is a relatively full bus to break even or profit. Even with an empty bus, since the deadhead is currently just money spent without service, putting fares into the equation would reduce the losses.

 

The flip side of this is that making stops definitely adds time (especially in more congested areas), and that time could be the difference between someone ending their shift and someone making overtime pay. The MTA is already aggressively cutting overtime, so DHs may be the preferred option in some cases.

[Vistausss]

However if you have buses running on all other routes you still have to remember these buses deadheading have to be somewhere at a certain time, if you have that bus in service on a line, how will he/she run his route? You now have to hire another bus operator and pay for their health and pension. It costs a lot more than using deadheading. That's why using operators on more than one route in his run is efficient.

 

Which is why I launched the idea of running them LTD.

The flip side of this is that making stops definitely adds time (especially in more congested areas), and that time could be the difference between someone ending their shift and someone making overtime pay. The MTA is already aggressively cutting overtime, so DHs may be the preferred option in some cases.

 

True, but they could look at it per area. There are probably some less congested areas which do see a lot of bus commuters where this could help. Otherwise, like I said, you could still run them LTD.

[Gorgor]

I have a question.  When deadheading is there one set route that the driver must take or are they given some leeway to take an alternate route if there's traffic? 

 

The one main thing that I think of about this topic is that if they run the bus on a route then it's subject to whatever traffic it gets hit with and pretty much doubles the amount of time it takes because of stopping for passengers.  For example the M15SBS says it takes 29 minutes to get from 14th St to 96th St on 1st Av, but I've driven from 14th to 92nd along 1st Av in under 15 minutes.  The fastest bus route takes twice as long to go the distance 4 miles, making 10 stops, than it would to just drive through without stopping.  The M15 local takes about 45 minutes, three times longer than just driving without stopping.  This probably isn't a deadhead route, but driving up 1st Avenue is the only instance where I ever drive along a bus route for a while so I have something to compare it to.

 

Also keep in mind that any delay along the route such as traffic, an accident, or construction, would make the bus late for its next run.  If a bus is deadheading and one of those incidents occurs along the route then the bus could just be diverted to another street or take a completely different route that avoids the traffic that will build up in that area, but if it's on that bus route it has to keep making the stops along that traffic infested route.

[Vistausss]

I have a question.  When deadheading is there one set route that the driver must take or are they given some leeway to take an alternate route if there's traffic? 

 

The one main thing that I think of about this topic is that if they run the bus on a route then it's subject to whatever traffic it gets hit with and pretty much doubles the amount of time it takes because of stopping for passengers.  For example the M15SBS says it takes 29 minutes to get from 14th St to 96th St on 1st Av, but I've driven from 14th to 92nd along 1st Av in under 15 minutes.  The fastest bus route takes twice as long to go the distance 4 miles, making 10 stops, than it would to just drive through without stopping.  The M15 local takes about 45 minutes, three times longer than just driving without stopping.  This probably isn't a deadhead route, but driving up 1st Avenue is the only instance where I ever drive along a bus route for a while so I have something to compare it to.

 

Also keep in mind that any delay along the route such as traffic, an accident, or construction, would make the bus late for its next run.  If a bus is deadheading and one of those incidents occurs along the route then the bus could just be diverted to another street or take a completely different route that avoids the traffic that will build up in that area, but if it's on that bus route it has to keep making the stops along that traffic infested route.

 

Depends on the route. I know routes, like in my city for example, take 15 minutes by bus and 20 minutes (excluding entering a parking garage) by car. That also is the case for NICE on Long Island. NICE actually made some deadhead trips revenue trips because it was a waste of money to run them empty and the terminals are usually close to the depot so what gives.

[QM1to6Ave]

I see this problem on main street in queens a lot--there can be 3 or 4 OOS/deadheading artics for the Q44 bypassing packed stops, which seems silly. 

 

While it may make sense on certain routes to turn some deadheading buses into revenue buses, it would only work with those deadheading buses that have leeway built in until the B/O's next scheduled run. It would probably take a whole lot of analysis by the MTA and each depot to figure out how to do that well and is probably not worth that time. 

 

Sometimes I do wish that deadheading/OOS buses had the authority to turn into a revenue bus if, in the B/O's opinion, he has enough time to finish before the next scheduled run, but I'm sure that's too complex and there is too much liability involved. 

[Vistausss]

If NICE can do it then can do it too.

[bobtehpanda]

WhiTrue, but they could look at it per area. There are probably some less congested areas which do see a lot of bus commuters where this could help. Otherwise, like I said, you could still run them LTD.

 

The problem is that LTD service only exists on the busiest segments of the busiest routes at the busiest times, for a reason. The limited segments don't save that much time, and unless buses are coming frequently enough, it's not worth having Limited Service.

 

The other problem is that, by adding buses where there are deadhead runs, instead of at set intervals, you run the risk of bunching up service even more than it already is, and from a public relations and service utilization standpoint, erratically bunched service is worse than sparser, scheduled service. If you end up doing it for less congested areas, you're bunching where ridership is sparsest, which cuts into revenue even more (and leads to unnecessary service on the least congested section of the route).

If NICE can do it then can do it too.

 

NICE is a suburban transit agency where traffic conditions are more forgiving, and ridership loads not nearly as high. (The N6, N22, and other routes are extremely congested, but they're no B46 or M15.)

[Around the Horn]

The problem is that LTD service only exists on the busiest segments of the busiest routes at the busiest times, for a reason. The limited segments don't save that much time, and unless buses are coming frequently enough, it's not worth having Limited Service.

 

The other problem is that, by adding buses where there are deadhead runs, instead of at set intervals, you run the risk of bunching up service even more than it already is, and from a public relations and service utilization standpoint, erratically bunched service is worse than sparser, scheduled service. If you end up doing it for less congested areas, you're bunching where ridership is sparsest, which cuts into revenue even more (and leads to unnecessary service on the least congested section of the route).

 

 

NICE is a suburban transit agency where traffic conditions are more forgiving, and ridership loads not nearly as high. (The N6, N22, and other routes are extremely congested, but they're no B46 or M15.)

That is true maybe deadheads should be revenue trips on lower volume lines