Will we ever see those Select Bus Service facts?

[nuyorican]

How is the line gonna be connected to the QBL, or create connections to any other subway service at the very least? Furthermore, how are the trains gonna be routed if there's so much development that has occurred north of Metropolitan. When I used to live in Forest Hills, I remember there being a baseball field not too far from where I lived, and the area where the tracks passed are around the walking area and field, that will make it barely usable for probably even one track. On Union Turnpike, there's another baseball field and a Stop & Shop parking lot there, and on top of that, there's only one usable track at that point, until about Myrtle. Past that, it has to pass Crescent Apartments property, even more sports fields, and the Jackie Robinson Parkway. The line is disconnected from Atlantic to 97th, because a school bus company owns that property, and you're left with a huge bill, and you need to get people who own all the properties to sell parts or their entire property, which would not fly by with a a good portion of them. 

 

If there's a huge demand or need for subway in the future, that can happen, but at this point, SBS is the most efficient solution. IMO, Woodhaven needs artics on the Q52 and Q53, and some Q11/21's on weekdays. SBS would be a nice addition, however I wish they chose a different concept over the one that they chose.

 

Here is the answer to SBS reactive the Rockaway Beach Line, tons of traffic would be removed from Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvds 

 

 

 

The track are already laid out and the stations are built. Just needs a lot of work but can be done.

[BrooklynBus]

I'll say that the current Bx41 with SBS is a vast improvement over the previous operation with LTD service. In high school I had some friends who utilized the Bx41 bus and when discussing that route we used the codename shitty ass transportation because that's how they felt about the route. I've been in touch with a couple of said friends who still utilize the route but don't use the codename anymore because they tell me it's a lot less shitty now. The only negatives I hear about the Bx41 Select have to deal with farebeating which I tend to expect given the areas served by the route. There was a bus one of my friends was on (Bx41) where he said half the riders went into a panic upon seeing the Eagle Team waiting at the approaching stop. We also have to look at the fact that these SBS routes are also seeing better service with the introduction of SBS. The Bx41 LTD ran during rush hours only with 12 minute headways before SBS and now the Bx41 SBS runs with 7-8 minute headways during rush hours and runs throughout midday into the evening (although not as frequent). The Bx12 saw improvements in headways which now stand at 3-4 minutes during morning rush, 6 minutes midday, 4-5 minutes during PM Rush and runs well into the evening with low headways. Sure you'll still have bunching going on and what not that does not mean that service is not improving on these SBS lines. Even with the B44 you now have SBS service with artics running at headways that the Limited ran previously without artics so there's an improvement there in terms of added space available on the bus. There seems to be this thought process that riders will shun buses unless we can get them to fly over cars which for some riders may be true but these people are too much of 'snobs' to be a focal point of any transportation conversation. If you want to say that SBS shouldn't even exist because the actual name itself is a branding tool (none of the changes were substantive enough to warrant running buses under a special name) then I'll agree with you there. However, let's not act as if nothing at all positive has come of this and the MTA is on some conspiracy to undermine bus service across the city.

 

I am not saying SBS shoudn't exist. I am also not saying that many are not benefitting from SBS. Wat I am saying is that there needs to be a fair assessment. We need to make sure that the net results are positive. There is a big difference between an SBS route costing between 8 and $20 million and one that costs $231 million. Yet DOT and the MTA are treating these routes as if they are all equal.

 

You can't withhold the first annual assessment results from the B44 and the M60 just because the results are not favorable as the MTA and DOT have done. Before we proceed with more SBS routes we need to know for sure that existing routes are working. You can't keep using fie year old results which showed ridership initially increased on the M15 forever as justification for another 16 SBS routes as the MTA is doing while ignoring facts like the M15 was rated as the least reliable bus route in Manhattan.

 

Here is the answer to SBS reactive the Rockaway Beach Line, tons of traffic would be removed from Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvds

 

 

 

The track are already laid out and the stations are built. Just needs a lot of work but can be done.

And the Rockaway Beach Line wasn't even part of the study. And now that state funding is available to study it, the MTA won't even apply for it because they don't want to jeopardize their plans for SBS.

 

http://qptc.org/queensrailmaps.html

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Here is the answer to SBS reactive the Rockaway Beach Line, tons of traffic would be removed from Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvds 

 

 

 

The track are already laid out and the stations are built. Just needs a lot of work but can be done.

 

Few things

 

1. How will the line connect to the QBL at Rego Park? I've never actually have heard an answer to this question.

 

2. There are at least 5 property owners along the way of the old ROW, and in some of those areas, the tracks have been dismantled, or only one track remains (not on the property). Pretty sure they're not willing to give up part of their land, nor have people working on their property

 

3. I doubt that "tons" of car traffic will be removed. You'd probably be successful in getting the intra-Queens riders off the bus, in addition to riders coming from connecting service and possibly a slight percentage of car traffic. However, it doesn't serve all major stops, so there would still be a local/limited service pattern in effect. That plan also does no justice for Rockaway riders. 

 

4. I feel that the and are all bad candidates to run on that line, if that happened. The would be way too long, the would be too infrequent and short, and the would often be split into two sections due to 6 Avenue GO's. Furthermore, there is no capacity for all three during rush hours and middays on weekdays, so the is out of the question. This service will essentially be a feeder service to the QBL. You would still need to transfer to the QBL, and I don't know how attractive that will be compared to the current service. It would similar to the in Greenpoint. You'll still have a lot using the B62, partially because it's infrequent, but there's no direct ride to Manhattan, and the connections to these service are long and tedious. There would have to be a long transfer between this line and the QBL because it's not feasible to connect them, unless you redesign Rego Park, which will not fly by

 

5. Forest Hills and Rego Park residents would seriously be against having running trains (literally) in their backyard, and while I usually despise the actions of NIMBY's, with this case, I don't really blame them for being against it. The area has developed a lot in the 57 years that the ROW has been without service, to the point where it's infeasible to do this because because of community opposition, the amount of time it'll take to cut down the some humongous trees in the way, and finding a new place to replant new trees (because I believe, if you ct down a set of trees in the city, you need to replant them somewhere else, because it's a considerable amount). Cutting down those trees are also a problem, with all the houses, apartments, and other buildings in the way that one wrong move and they're liable for anything that happens. It's a very big liability, and that only increases the total cost by thousands to millions when everything's done. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree that Woodhaven traffic is insane, I don't believe there's that much traffic to have a train running along. While the maintenance of machines and eagle teams will increase the amount of time, I'm pretty sure the MTA is set to reduce the amount of trips along the corridor as a whole. For example, there's nine locals during the peak or the rush, but the MTA may want to reduce it to 6, with two Q21's per hour, and the 4 Q11's to either Howard or Hamilton Beach. If they had enough artics other than for the Q52/Q53, they could possibly run the Q11/21's as artic route during the rush, and that eliminates 3 buses per hour. Then, IDK, have a Q11 doing both branches during midday hours (running every hour), and have the Q21 as is (every 30 minutes), while still running artics. The same process would occur on weekends. This allows for more bus space for the Q52/Q53, QM15, QM16, QM17, and BM5, and I believe the Q52/Q53 might see a slight reduction.

 

For even more reductions, you could give the BM5 one extra bus per hour during the height of the rush, while it makes added stops at Liberty Avenue, 101 Avenue, 91 Avenue, possibly Jamaica Avenue and Alderton Street. The QM16 and select QM17's in the AM would run via Lindenwood, replacing the QM15, and then run express north of the Conduit to Manhattan, and in the PM, all QM16/QM17's run via Lindenwood The QM15 would originate at Pitkin Avenue, except the Howard Beach trips, which would run on the Q11 route south of Pitkin Avenue, and add a stop or two in between. This gives that area some express bus service, and they would be willingly to use it. The QM15 headway would be every 10 minutes instead of every 6 minutes in the morning. All midday express bus service would operate as is; the first QM15 from Lindenwood to Manhattan would leave at 8:45 AM.

 

During the AM rush hour, you have already cut down 6 buses per hour, not counting the Q52/Q53. It also helps fill some QM16/QM17 buses, moreso in the PM, but also in the AM, which could use some more riders. All operational savings on the QM15 would be utilized for a potential launch of Sunday service, from about 9 AM to 6 PM to Manhattan, 9:49 AM to 6:49 PM back to Lindenwood.

[Around the Horn]

Here is the answer to SBS reactive the Rockaway Beach Line, tons of traffic would be removed from Cross Bay/Woodhaven Blvds 

 

 

 

The track are already laid out and the stations are built. Just needs a lot of work but can be done.

This is what I have been saying all along...

 

And kudos to Brooklyn Bus and DETSmart45 for speaking the truth on SBS. The wool is being pulled over their eyes...

(However the point someone made about the Bx41 does hold water.That route has improved because of SBS)

5. Forest Hills and Rego Park residents would seriously be against having running trains (literally) in their backyard, and while I usually hate the actions of NIMBY's, with this case, I don't really blame them for being against it. The area has developed a lot in the 57 years that the ROW has been without service, to the point where it's infeasible to do this because because of community opposition, the amount of time it'll take to cut down the some humongous trees in the way, and finding a new place to replant new trees (because I believe, if you ct down a set of trees in the city, you need to replant them somewhere else, because it's a considerable amount).

Then explain why in the world they would flock to a town hall meeting and overwhelmingly support some kind of transit (they have discussed BRT, Light rail or subway as potential options) on that ROW...

[Fresh Pond]

Few things

 

1. How will the line connect to the QBL at Rego Park? I've never actually have heard an answer to this question.

 

2. There are at least 5 property owners along the way of the old ROW, and in some of those areas, the tracks have been dismantled, or only one track remains (not on the property). Pretty sure they're not willing to give up part of their land, nor have people working on their property

 

3. I doubt that "tons" of car traffic will be removed. You'd probably be successful in getting the intra-Queens riders off the bus, in addition to riders coming from connecting service and possibly a slight percentage of car traffic. However, it doesn't serve all major stops, so there would still be a local/limited service pattern in effect. That plan also does no justice for Rockaway riders.

 

4. I feel that the and are all bad candidates to run on that line, if that happened. The would be way too long, the would be too infrequent and short, and the would often be split into two sections due to 6 Avenue GO's. Furthermore, there is no capacity for all three during rush hours and middays on weekdays, so the is out of the question. This service will essentially be a feeder service to the QBL. You would still need to transfer to the QBL, and I don't know how attractive that will be compared to the current service. It would similar to the in Greenpoint. You'll still have a lot using the B62, partially because it's infrequent, but there's no direct ride to Manhattan, and the connections to these service are long and tedious. There would have to be a long transfer between this line and the QBL because it's not feasible to connect them, unless you redesign Rego Park, which will not fly by

 

5. Forest Hills and Rego Park residents would seriously be against having running trains (literally) in their backyard, and while I usually hate the actions of NIMBY's, with this case, I don't really blame them for being against it. The area has developed a lot in the 57 years that the ROW has been without service, to the point where it's infeasible to do this because because of community opposition, the amount of time it'll take to cut down the some humongous trees in the way, and finding a new place to replant new trees (because I believe, if you ct down a set of trees in the city, you need to replant them somewhere else, because it's a considerable amount).

1. Supposedly there's bellmouths in that area that were meant for it to connect there (see also #4)

 

2. The only real company in the way is that school bus lot near Atlantic where they LEGALLY purchased the plot. Most homeowners along the ROW illegally extended their property line into the ROW l, so it would just be a matter of reclaiming what's theirs.

 

3. Its like most people just straight forgot about the Rockaways commuters. I mean sure, they'll have more service, but this still impacts them in a way.

 

4. I've said the same thing. All of those lines are long enough, and sending one of them down there would just make it longer and more delay-prone, especially the . You're better off making it a feeder line with a platform connection to the QB local lines. Send any of the 3 lines down there, and you're just creating another chokepoint for the lines. You can always have the train end under the current 63 Dr station with track connections to QBL for yard moves and whatnot (although one would think Pitkin Yard would be a lot easier).

 

5. The trees may be the single hardest thing to get rid of along there.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Then explain why in the world they would flock to a town hall meeting and overwhelmingly support some kind of transit (they have discussed BRT, Light rail or subway as potential options) on that ROW...

That doesn't represent all of Forest Hills and Rego Park residents. Some are opposed to any type of modification to the ROW, other's would support the Queensway that's been mentioned, while others probably would support. Keep in mind though, that most of the people supporting transit on the ROW probably do not live in that intermediate area, but still live within Rego Park and Forest Hills. 

[bobtehpanda]

I'm going to point out that a good portion of the neighborhood wants neither Queensway nor the reactivation, because that would mean they lose their backyard to "undesirable characters" (which is a riot because the neighborhoods around it don't have an all-white racial composition).

[NewFlyer 230]

At this point if an activation were to take place one day I would have it ran similar to the way the will run once it's line opens. I would identify it as an just to give it some sort of name.

Currently there are several different ways it can connect to other services.

1. The at Ozone Park and Liberty Ave

2. The old Woodhaven station can be opened up again to allow some sort of transfer between the LIRR and the subway. Right now both stations are unused and could provide a good connection one day.

3. There is also the provisions between 63rd drive and 67th which can connect to the line if it were built.

I can see this line being ran between Far Rockaway Mott Ave and Woodhaven Blvd station on the Queens Blvd line. While this is only an idea which it may not be feasible perhaps the can stop at 63rd Ave and terminate at Woodhaven Blvd. The however would run on its own level under the current tracks.

Now at Woodhaven I trying to think of ways it would terminate there whether it be alone on its own separate level or with the Queens Blvd Lines. Woodhaven was suppose to be an Express station and there is a space there just in case the MTA wanted to use it as an express. I would make the and platforms an island platform and the would basically turn around the same way the and trains do at Forest Hills. The and would continue to bypass the station via the middle tracks. The wall will have to be broken down to allow the tracks to be placed but that is just my idea of how it could work.

If the was created it would run in Queens only obviously because this line is only meant to connect the Rockaways with the rest of Queens via subway.

Personally myself I don't see much wrong with the SBS Q52/Q53 because it will run with artics and the bus lanes will see decent usuage with all the lines running in it. So it wouldn't be a waste of the Q11, Q21, QM15, QM16, QM17, BM5,Q52 and Q53. The traffic can't get any worst because now you are pretty much eliminating buses from the regular traffic.

Flushing business owners and residents have to deal with it currently on Main Street because of the Q44 so it can't be that much worst.

[B35 via Church]

......There seems to be this thought process that riders will shun buses unless we can get them to fly over cars which for some riders may be true but these people are too much of 'snobs' to be a focal point of any transportation conversation. If you want to say that SBS shouldn't even exist because the actual name itself is a branding tool (none of the changes were substantive enough to warrant running buses under a special name) then I'll agree with you there. However, let's not act as if nothing at all positive has come of this and the MTA is on some conspiracy to undermine bus service across the city. 

This part of the post reeks of intellectual dishonesty in an effort to defend SBS.... You usually lay things out well in your posts, you didn't have to resort to this tactic...

 

To top it off, the illogical conflation in that very last statement is the worst of it.... It's one thing to attack the (so-called) conspiracy of the MTA using SBS as a means of undermining bus service (I'd say it's happening already), but the lie of those of us that are critical of SBS acting like nothing positive has come from SBS, and appending the two arguments as if they are part of the same claim....

 

Nah....

 

This is what I have been saying all along...

 

And kudos to Brooklyn Bus and DETSmart45 for speaking the truth on SBS. The wool is being pulled over their eyes...

(However the point someone made about the Bx41 does hold water.That route has improved because of SBS)

Sure the Bx41 has improved - It was cut short from Wakefield & the MTA turned the truncated form of the route into SBS.....

(Just wanted to take a little bit of that stray wool up from over your eyes there, bud )

 

Webster is pretty much wide open (in terms of width, I mean); it was the portion under the (White Plains rd.) that drastically made overall Bx41 service problematic).....

 

This is exactly what's fin to happen with the B46... The SBS'll run b/w Kings Plaza & Dekalb (I don't have to iterate to you what the full 46 route consists of)...

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

This part of the post reeks of intellectual dishonesty in an effort to defend SBS.... You usually lay things out well in your posts, you didn't have to resort to this tactic...

 

To top it off, the illogical conflation in that very last statement is the worst of it.... It's one thing to attack the (so-called) conspiracy of the MTA using SBS as a means of undermining bus service (I'd say it's happening already), but the lie of those of us that are critical of SBS acting like nothing positive has come from SBS, and appending the two arguments as if they are part of the same claim....

 

Nah....

 

Sure the Bx41 has improved - It was cut short from Wakefield & the MTA turned the truncated form of the route into SBS.....

(Just wanted to take a little bit of that stray wool up from over your eyes there, bud )

 

Webster is pretty much wide open (in terms of width, I mean); it was the portion under the (White Plains rd.) that drastically made overall Bx41 service problematic).....

 

This is exactly what's fin to happen with the B46... The SBS'll run b/w Kings Plaza & Dekalb (I don't have to iterate to you what the full 46 route consists of)...

I have yet to hear a positive from BrooklynBus in one of these SBS threads which happen to be started by him linking his Sheepshead Bay blog posts. Everything with him is i'm not believing crap until I see numbers and then when he gets a number he says it's fabricated to suit the MTA's interests and won't trust it. That part of my post you quoted was a subtle address to him and his comments more than a commentary on the rest of the discussion. Look at his response a few posts above where he says "We need to have a fair assessment. We need to make sure the net results are positive." without mentioning any details on what would qualify as a fair assessment and net positive results. The dude can't even respond to something that's not critical of SBS at this point. 

 

What worries me more that posters like DETSmart are already on the SBS critic train having just read the wishy-washy posts of BrooklynBus. My position is and has always been that while there have been beneficial changes along these SBS routes, the branding effort behind them and hence the SBS name is unnecessary. Your stance which makes sense is that SBS can't be a great as advertised because of an unwillingness to address the auto traffic on streets with SBS routes. If we can get a simple straight stance out of people then instead of constantly voicing criticisms we can address solutions. That last sentence of mine was made because the sentiment I'm getting from the consensus of SBS posts in this thread and others is that the MTA is on some conspiracy to undermine bus service across the city and SBS is centerpiece in it, thus there's no positive that can come out it. That's where my disagreement lies because there have been benefits for riders of these routes and I feel that SBS is not a part of the whole undermining of bus service. I would say that the changes or lack there of with non-SBS routes have undermined bus service well enough on their own. I would rather be discussing ways we can restrict auto traffic in this city to keep buses moving outside of painted bus lanes that need police enforcement (given that's where the MTA's hands are tied) but instead we want to jump on the 200 lb man rather than the 800 lb gorilla. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I have yet to hear a positive from BrooklynBus in one of these SBS threads which happen to be started by him linking his Sheepshead Bay blog posts. Everything with him is i'm not believing crap until I see numbers and then when he gets a number he says it's fabricated to suit the MTA's interests and won't trust it. That part of my post you quoted was a subtle address to him and his comments more than a commentary on the rest of the discussion. Look at his response a few posts above where he says "We need to have a fair assessment. We need to make sure the net results are positive." without mentioning any details on what would qualify as a fair assessment and net positive results. The dude can't even respond to something that's not critical of SBS at this point. 

 

What worries me more that posters like DETSmart are already on the SBS critic train having just read the wishy-washy posts of BrooklynBus. My position is and has always been that while there have been beneficial changes along these SBS routes, the branding effort behind them and hence the SBS name is unnecessary. Your stance which makes sense is that SBS can't be a great as advertised because of an unwillingness to address the auto traffic on streets with SBS routes. If we can get a simple straight stance out of people then instead of constantly voicing criticisms we can address solutions. That last sentence of mine was made because the sentiment I'm getting from the consensus of SBS posts in this thread and others is that the MTA is on some conspiracy to undermine bus service across the city and SBS is centerpiece in it, thus there's no positive that can come out it. That's where my disagreement lies because there have been benefits for riders of these routes and I feel that SBS is not a part of the whole undermining of bus service. I would say that the changes or lack there of with non-SBS routes have undermined bus service well enough on their own. I would rather be discussing ways we can restrict auto traffic in this city to keep buses moving outside of painted bus lanes that need police enforcement (given that's where the MTA's hands are tied) but instead we want to jump on the 200 lb man rather than the 800 lb gorilla. 

I partially agree with B35.  I think the in a way is indirectly undermining bus service overall not by necessarily making any statements, but because of the fact that they simply REFUSE to be proactive to address bus issues across the city unless they are turning buses into SBS routes.  They can't point to anything else that they've been doing to improve non SBS routes, and it doesn't seem as if they're concerned either. Their stance has been that we can't do anything to control traffic, and I think that's total BS to be frank.  They haven't been using BusTime at all to improve service or at least they don't use it on a daily basis.  Even with express buses, on some lines all they've done is add more run time (which in some cases they are likely looking at buses on BusTime from a planning standpoint) and perhaps have buses run down different streets, which is a start, but why can't we see other things implemented to improve bus service?  The should be working with the city to make buses more efficient with the implementation of Vision Zero, which IMO is KILLING bus service.  If you look at how horribly synced traffic lights are now versus in the past, it's almost impossible to go a few blocks without hitting a red light, and my question is why hasn't the enacted that technology by now?  What's the delay?  They talked about it years ago and now there's been nothing to make that a reality.  Additionally on lines with SBS service, you're right, there's been improvements.  They've run more frequent service, and while bunching can still be an issue, the buses that I've been on tend to move for the most part, but then again I try to avoid using local buses that much anyway, especially not during the rush and just walk where possible.  Meanwhile, lines without SBS are packed to the rafters (look at service along 5th and Madison Avenue).  It's becoming WORSE every year; the M2 had its frequencies cut back, and the other lines are as unreliable as ever.  The only thing that they've done is truncated routes or short turned more buses, which also doesn't help passengers because that means longer waits.  For example I can recall being along 5th below 42nd numerous times in the past and trying to head south and having long waits because buses were being short turned to 26th street, which led to people giving up entirely and taking a cab or whatever was easiest.  Overall the through its "efficiency" effort has made local bus service in particular far less inviting via packed buses, longer waits and more trips that require transfers for one reason or another that just turn people off, myself included.  I often times just walk now for that reason.

 

SBS has been the only bright spot despite its flaws, and given that situation, I can see why B35, BrooklynBus and others would be skeptical about bus service overall in this city.  

[BrooklynBus]

I have yet to hear a positive from BrooklynBus in one of these SBS threads which happen to be started by him linking his Sheepshead Bay blog posts. Everything with him is i'm not believing crap until I see numbers and then when he gets a number he says it's fabricated to suit the MTA's interests and won't trust it. That part of my post you quoted was a subtle address to him and his comments more than a commentary on the rest of the discussion. Look at his response a few posts above where he says "We need to have a fair assessment. We need to make sure the net results are positive." without mentioning any details on what would qualify as a fair assessment and net positive results. The dude can't even respond to something that's not critical of SBS at this point. 

 

What worries me more that posters like DETSmart are already on the SBS critic train having just read the wishy-washy posts of BrooklynBus. My position is and has always been that while there have been beneficial changes along these SBS routes, the branding effort behind them and hence the SBS name is unnecessary. Your stance which makes sense is that SBS can't be a great as advertised because of an unwillingness to address the auto traffic on streets with SBS routes. If we can get a simple straight stance out of people then instead of constantly voicing criticisms we can address solutions. That last sentence of mine was made because the sentiment I'm getting from the consensus of SBS posts in this thread and others is that the MTA is on some conspiracy to undermine bus service across the city and SBS is centerpiece in it, thus there's no positive that can come out it. That's where my disagreement lies because there have been benefits for riders of these routes and I feel that SBS is not a part of the whole undermining of bus service. I would say that the changes or lack there of with non-SBS routes have undermined bus service well enough on their own. I would rather be discussing ways we can restrict auto traffic in this city to keep buses moving outside of painted bus lanes that need police enforcement (given that's where the MTA's hands are tied) but instead we want to jump on the 200 lb man rather than the 800 lb gorilla.

 

What number have I seen that I say was fabricated? I didn't dispute the 30,000 daily bus riders on Woodhaven. What I disputed was the 60,000 other daily vehicles that DOT conveniently forgot to mention. I disputed MTA claims that 98% of SBS bus riders are satisfied with SBS. First of all the data is 5 years old and asked only of 100 or 200 M15 SBS bus riders one time how satisfied they were by rating their satisfaction from 1 to 10 with 10 being most satisfied. That is not a satisfaction survey. It is a pass fail survey. If everyone rated it a 6, which is just slightly higher than a neutral rating, the conclusion MTA comes to is that it is virtually perfect because everyone loves it. What people may be saying is that service may be just slightly better than before. But that conclusion is negated by other surveys which show the M15 is the most unreliable bus route in Manhattan.

 

It is further biased by including only SBS riders. When local riders who chose not to use SBS probably because it made their trip worse, SBS fewer riders gave it a pass and more gave it a fail. Add to that the fact that the opinions of those who chose to drive were not even solicited. So I have plenty of reasons for not believing the scant data that was published.

 

You say I don't mention what a fair assessment is and what I mean by net positive results. I have enumerated on this many times in the past. I have always stated that a net benefit means more minutes are saved than lost when everyone's trip is considered. That means if 10,000 bus riders save six minutes, that's 60,000 saved minutes. And you calculate those minutes by measuring total trip times including walking time to and from the bus, not by the bus saving 15 minutes if you get on the first stop and ride all the way to the last stop which is how the MTA has been describing time savings. Then you subtract the number of minutes lost by those who now have a longer trip because they are now consuming more minutes walking to and from the bus stop than the number of minutes the bus is saving.

 

My posts have not been wishy washy but very consistent. I never opposed the concept of SBS as B35 via Church has.

 

On top of that, you consider the before and after trip times by those in vehicles other than buses who are driving on SBS routes and calculate their total savings or loss. Finally you combine those two sets of numbers together to come up with a net result. You may be thinking that obtaining those numbers would not be possible. That is why we have computer models, to estimate what those numbers would be.

 

I am not denying that some of the SBS changes have been positive for some. Let's say you are a health care worker working at one of the nursing homes along Emmons Avenue and you live in Crown Heights. There may be 30 or 50 people who fit that category. You now save probably 15 minutes each way on the B44 SBS. But the average B44 trip according to the MTA is only 2.3 miles and there are tens of thousands of daily riders. Most riders woud not save nearly that amount of time.

 

I also disagree with you regarding the need for specialized branding. It is definitely necessary on SBS routes where paying of the fare is necessary before you board which is every SBS route except the S79. Even with the branding some riders are still confused because the machines are not always near the front of the bus stop. When I once rode the M34, I had to look for the machine placed near the rear of the stop. Add to that, the bus was not painted in the SBS scheme. Anyone not knowing the M34 who was running for the bus could easily have made the mistake thinking they coud pay on board.

[BrooklynBus]

I partially agree with B35.  I think the in a way is indirectly undermining bus service overall not by necessarily making any statements, but because of the fact that they simply REFUSE to be proactive to address bus issues across the city unless they are turning buses into SBS routes.  They can't point to anything else that they've been doing to improve non SBS routes, and it doesn't seem as if they're concerned either. Their stance has been that we can't do anything to control traffic, and I think that's total BS to be frank.  They haven't been using BusTime at all to improve service or at least they don't use it on a daily basis.  Even with express buses, on some lines all they've done is add more run time (which in some cases they are likely looking at buses on BusTime from a planning standpoint) and perhaps have buses run down different streets, which is a start, but why can't we see other things implemented to improve bus service?  The should be working with the city to make buses more efficient with the implementation of Vision Zero, which IMO is KILLING bus service.  If you look at how horribly synced traffic lights are now versus in the past, it's almost impossible to go a few blocks without hitting a red light, and my question is why hasn't the enacted that technology by now?  What's the delay?  They talked about it years ago and now there's been nothing to make that a reality.  Additionally on lines with SBS service, you're right, there's been improvements.  They've run more frequent service, and while bunching can still be an issue, the buses that I've been on tend to move for the most part, but then again I try to avoid using local buses that much anyway, especially not during the rush and just walk where possible.  Meanwhile, lines without SBS are packed to the rafters (look at service along 5th and Madison Avenue).  It's becoming WORSE every year; the M2 had its frequencies cut back, and the other lines are as unreliable as ever.  The only thing that they've done is truncated routes or short turned more buses, which also doesn't help passengers because that means longer waits.  For example I can recall being along 5th below 42nd numerous times in the past and trying to head south and having long waits because buses were being short turned to 26th street, which led to people giving up entirely and taking a cab or whatever was easiest.  Overall the through its "efficiency" effort has made local bus service in particular far less inviting via packed buses, longer waits and more trips that require transfers for one reason or another that just turn people off, myself included.  I often times just walk now for that reason.

 

SBS has been the only bright spot despite its flaws, and given that situation, I can see why B35, BrooklynBus and others would be skeptical about bus service overall in this city.

 

The only thing I disagree with you on is your statement in previous posts regarding taking steps to reduce auto congestion by making it more difficult or expensive to drive. You could only do that after you give people more alternatives to driving. You pointed out crowding on the M2 and its frequencies being cut. The MTA doesn't want people riding on the M2 which is why they cut frequencies. They want them on the subway because it's quicker and costs them less. What the MTA fails to realize is the reason most are on the M2 to begin with is they prefer comfort to time savings and don't want to be squashed like a sardine. The MTA doesn't care about pasenger comfort at all. They only view transit from a business perspective.

 

Most everytime I use the subway on a weekend or late at night I encounter rush hour crowding levels? Why? Because the MTA ignores their own service guidelines to run the least amount of service possible. People have responded to me when I make that claim that perhaps only the car I am in is crowded or that the train is late or it is crowded only for a few stops. Yes, that would be possible if I don't sometimes just miss a train and see every car jam packed on a Saturday or Sunday or I am not in a car with 40 people standing all the way from Union Square to Kings Highway. Judging from the number of times this has happened to me in the past several years, I can only conclude is that ridership is way up and the MTA is not adhering to its off-peak guidelines. Figures bear this out that show ridership is up 17% but service is only up by 3%. The MTA's contention that the ridership increase can is adequately being handled in virtually all of the cases by existing ridership is just wrong. Then they issue a big press release that in six months they will add two trips on the 42 Street shuttle as an example of how they are addressing demand.

 

People stand all day during the week. They at least want some comfort on the weekends so many choose to drive. Penalizing them for that choice by giving them the alternative of a two hour trip where they would be required to stand most of the time or charging them more than double the standard fare for an expeess bus are not viable options.

 

The inadequate MTA service is why more are choosing to walk, such as yourself, take Über, use Citibike, use other methods like skateboard, rollerblade, hoverboard, electric bike, scooter, etc should be an indication to the MTA that they need to improve their services and provide more of it. Yet they still insist on measuring demand only by considering their existing passengers and they can't even do that correctly by violating their own service guidelines.

 

Yes they won't devote resources to increase bus reliability and paint SBS as some set of panacea, while refusing to rationalize LIRR fares within the city or lower express bus fares. We are not going to make a dent in traffic congestion until we give people viable choices to driving. If we don't we will suffer the price economically with businesses and the middle class opting for greener choices. The MTA can't care less because of their own miopic views where all that counts is reducing their deficit which they think they can only achieve by proving less service.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The only thing I disagree with you on is your statement in previous posts regarding taking steps to reduce auto congestion by making it more difficult or expensive to drive. You could only do that after you give people more alternatives to driving. You pointed out crowding on the M2 and its frequencies being cut. The MTA doesn't want people riding on the M2 which is why they cut frequencies. They want them on the subway because it's quicker and costs them less. What the MTA fails to realize is the reason most are on the M2 to begin with is they prefer comfort to time savings and don't want to be squashed like a sardine. The MTA doesn't care about pasenger comfort at all. They only view transit from a business perspective.

 

Most everytime I use the subway on a weekend or late at night I encounter rush hour crowding levels? Why? Because the MTA ignores their own service guidelines to run the least amount of service possible. People have responded to me when I make that claim that perhaps only the car I am in is crowded or that the train is late or it is crowded only for a few stops. Yes, that would be possible if I don't sometimes just miss a train and see every car jam packed on a Saturday or Sunday or I am not in a car with 40 people standing all the way from Union Square to Kings Highway. Judging from the number of times this has happened to me in the past several years, I can only conclude is that ridership is way up and the MTA is not adhering to its off-peak guidelines. Figures bear this out that show ridership is up 17% but service is only up by 3%. The MTA's contention that the ridership increase can is adequately being handled in virtually all of the cases by existing ridership is just wrong. Then they issue a big press release that in six months they will add two trips on the 42 Street shuttle as an example of how they are addressing demand.

 

People stand all day during the week. They at least want some comfort on the weekends so many choose to drive. Penalizing them for that choice by giving them the alternative of a two hour trip where they would be required to stand most of the time or charging them more than double the standard fare for an expeess bus are not viable options.

 

The inadequate MTA service is why more are choosing to walk, such as yourself, take Über, use Citibike, use other methods like skateboard, rollerblade, hoverboard, electric bike, scooter, etc should be an indication to the MTA that they need to improve their services and provide more of it. Yet they still insist on measuring demand only by considering their existing passengers and they can't even do that correctly by violating their own service guidelines.

 

Yes they won't devote resources to increase bus reliability and paint SBS as some set of panacea, while refusing to rationalize LIRR fares within the city or lower express bus fares. We are not going to make a dent in traffic congestion until we give people viable choices to driving. If we don't we will suffer the price economically with businesses and the middle class opting for greener choices. The MTA can't care less because of their own miopic views where all that counts is reducing their deficit which they think they can only achieve by proving less service.

You raise a good point, which is that people are being pushed to other alternatives.  I will certainly admit that.  However, the notion that people are driving solely because of the ... That I don't buy... I strongly believe that there are people out there that would not use public transit no matter how well it ran, and as it currently stands, they just have a convenient excuse.  I still believe those people are a big part of the problem and that they need to pay up.  In turn that money should be used to improve public transportation, rather than plugging budget holes.

 

Another point about the M2... It isn't just a question of convenience.... 5th Avenue doesn't have a subway save on the east side, especially along Central Park and requires backtracking if you're along 5th or Madison.  I tutored a kid in the area and hated the set up because the local buses are packed to the rafters and having to backtrack on the subway is just a PITA not to mention how overcrowded they are.

 

Bringing this back to your Woodhaven Blvd stance, those people are car centric, no ifs and or buts about about it and the ones using those local buses are using them because they likely don't have other options.

[BrooklynBus]

You raise a good point, which is that people are being pushed to other alternatives. I will certainly admit that. However, the notion that people are driving solely because of the ... That I don't buy... I strongly believe that there are people out there that would not use public transit no matter how well it ran, and as it currently stands, they just have a convenient excuse. I still believe those people are a big part of the problem and that they need to pay up. In turn that money should be used to improve public transportation, rather than plugging budget holes.

 

Another point about the M2... It isn't just a question of convenience.... 5th Avenue doesn't have a subway save on the east side, especially along Central Park and requires backtracking if you're along 5th or Madison. I tutored a kid in the area and hated the set up because the local buses are packed to the rafters and having to backtrack on the subway is just a PITA not to mention how overcrowded they are.

 

Bringing this back to your Woodhaven Blvd stance, those people are car centric, no ifs and or buts about about it and the ones using those local buses are using them because they likely don't have other options.

 

The perecentage of people who will never use public transit under any circumstances are really very small in number when you consider that in NYC the percentage of people who use mass transit to get to work is higher than anywhere else at 85 percent.

 

Regarding Woodhaven, I would like to make you aware of what happened several weeks ago. Excuse me if I already posted this. There were so many shoppers on the buses that the Q52 and 53 were packed to the rafters. They were so full that many resorted to the local Q11 and Q21 that they were also too crowded to board at certain stops.

 

The answer is not SBS. If the MTA cared at all about comfort and meeting the demand, they would've known about the situation and rushed out extra service by providing overtime. This is a perfect example of necessary overtime since regular schedules which are set for three month periods cannot accommodate a surge in ridership for four weekends unless you want to provide too much service for the remaining two months. But the MTA's emphasis is to reduce overtime, not to look for situations where it may be needed.

 

What this does is if someone who has a car decides to take the bus instead will be so discouraged that the next time he has that choice he won't take the bus again. If the people around Woodhaven are car centric, they are so for good reason.

[Around the Horn]

Sure the Bx41 has improved - It was cut short from Wakefield & the MTA turned the truncated form of the route into SBS.....

(Just wanted to take a little bit of that stray wool up from over your eyes there, bud )

Haha! Thanks!

 

 

 

While I agree that Woodhaven traffic is insane, I don't believe there's that much traffic to have a train running along.

If city leaders had this point of view in the late 1800's we wouldn't have a subway and Queens would still be farmland...

 

Is that really better?

I mean there are some really nice shops and restaurants I'd go to (in general- mainly Jackson Heights)from Bay Ridge but the travel is a hassle...

 

If there are better options, more people would be willing to go check out whats on Woodhaven and that means more money in the business owners pocket and less traffic in front of his/her door.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The perecentage of people who will never use public transit under any circumstances are really very small in number when you consider that in NYC the percentage of people who use mass transit to get to work is higher than anywhere else at 85 percent.

 

Regarding Woodhaven, I would like to make you aware of what happened several weeks ago. Excuse me if I already posted this. There were so many shoppers on the buses that the Q52 and 53 were packed to the rafters. They were so full that many resorted to the local Q11 and Q21 that they were also too crowded to board at certain stops.

 

The answer is not SBS. If the MTA cared at all about comfort and meeting the demand, they would've known about the situation and rushed out extra service by providing overtime. This is a perfect example of necessary overtime since regular schedules which are set for three month periods cannot accommodate a surge in ridership for four weekends unless you want to provide too much service for the remaining two months. But the MTA's emphasis is to reduce overtime, not to look for situations where it may be needed.

 

What this does is if someone who has a car decides to take the bus instead will be so discouraged that the next time he has that choice he won't take the bus again. If the people around Woodhaven are car centric, they are so for good reason.

I think SBS in this case is the answer because it will mean bigger buses via artics and less waiting at the stops for people to pay.  I'm along Woodhaven Blvd weekly now via the QM15 and BM5 at times, and the lines at some stops are just crazy for the aforementioned lines.  With artics on both the Q52 and Q53, you would deal with that crowding instead of having to send an empty bus up the line, which is what they do at times.

[DetSMART45]

Just a brief stop-over, and only skimmed the latest posts.

 

For the record:  I have NOT actively read BrooklynBus' Sheepshead posts.  I am looking at information both fed out by the MTA & DOT P.R. machines, reading comments here, and doing my own research, plus using life-lessons and common-sense.  BrooklynBus presents a lot of facts to back up his positions, and just because he questions things, that alone is why some of you don't even want to entertain engaging your brain, thinking, and coming up with rational counter-arguments -- which should include proof of your own to back up your position.

 

I'm not a fan of "fixing" something with tons of investment and no return of significant improvement to show for it.  If bus travel has become sooooo much better on the current list of SBS routes, one of the prime indicators of that success is that buses run according to the schedule those planners have set out.  If SBS buses are running on-time, that means Local routes along the same streets should also be at least coming close to it as well.  SBS is nothing more than a pre-pay Limited-Stop route.  Putting bus lanes down, adjusting street fixtures, mounting gantries with signs, additional parking/traffic enforcement are pouring millions of dollars into more "efficient" bus transportation.  YET the primary MAIN PROBLEM has not been solved, that being running buses on-time.  ALL of those things are touted by MTA and DOT as the "way to make service better," yet all of those changes have done absolutely nothing except cover up their inadequacies.

 

Just noticed the Bx6 SBS post, and, once again, this route was part of their 2009 study.  Name off some improvements for Bx6 over the past 5 years DOT and MTA have done to make that route -- and the street traffic conditions the route travels on -- any better.  They had the study done and paid for, so some changes should have been done along the way, right?  My guess is that they haven't done anything noticeable to improve things.

 

For millions of dollars being spent, you guys should be demanding more accountability.  And that starts right at the bus stop when the schedule says 12:06 and the bus is there.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I think SBS in this case is the answer because it will mean bigger buses via artics and less waiting at the stops for people to pay.  I'm along Woodhaven Blvd weekly now via the QM15 and BM5 at times, and the lines at some stops are just crazy for the aforementioned lines.  With artics on both the Q52 and Q53, you would deal with that crowding instead of having to send an empty bus up the line, which is what they do at times.

I will agree with BrooklynBus on the the issue he brought concerning left-hand turns being banned at certain intersections. I don't believe they should be banned at all, especially since there aren't any alternatives at all at those intersections which are feasible.

If city leaders had this point of view in the late 1800's we wouldn't have a subway and Queens would still be farmland...

 

Is that really better?

I mean there are some really nice shops and restaurants I'd go to (in general- mainly Jackson Heights)from Bay Ridge but the travel is a hassle...

 

If there are better options, more people would be willing to go check out whats on Woodhaven and that means more money in the business owners pocket and less traffic in front of his/her door.

Well, there was more development for transit compared to other modes of transport (until the rise of the automobile and automobile usage), so they promoted subway service. There is still wants to extend the subway, but before, it was pretty common even by people of all incomes, thinking that it would promote development and their land values going up (rich people). That's not the point I'm getting at all though. I feel Woodhaven Blvd definitely needs artics on all lines, local and limited. Most car users on Woodhaven are usually going unusual distances or areas not served by subways on both ends in the first place (or even adequately). I'm pretty sure most people would stay using cars, doesn't matter if there's SBS or subway service. The only potential increase in ridership I see is from express buses, for those going to Manhattan who use their cars (but like I said, most would probably stay in their cars). Those car users use their cars for a reason, and most feel comfortable not using the bus or train, because of personal preference. North of metropolitan, Woodhaven is not as congested as the south.

[BrooklynBus]

Regarding bus relability which has been brought up numerous times in this tread, I was under the impression that BusTrek was just a pilot project based on BusTime and didn't know what happened to it.

 

According to the following article from 2013 plans were to expand it to the entire system by the end of the year. So what happened? Why did this not occur and why is the MTA still not using Bus Time/BusTrek today? They more or less admitted that to me last month by stating to me that dispatchers are very limited with the information avaiable to them on their tablets. What is the MTA covering up?

 

When Darryl Irick was questioned last year by a reporter what they are doing to increase bus reliability, he made no mention of BusTrek or BusTime. His response was that they are instituting SBS to improve reliability which didn't answer the question even if SBS does improve reliability, because SBS affects only eight of over 200 routes. What about the others?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Regarding bus relability which has been brought up numerous times in this tread, I was under the impression that BusTrek was just a pilot project based on BusTime and didn't know what happened to it.

 

According to the following article from 2013 plans were to expand it to the entire system by the end of the year. So what happened? Why did this not occur and why is the MTA still not using Bus Time/BusTrek today? They more or less admitted that to me last month by stating to me that dispatchers are very limited with the information avaiable to them on their tablets. What is the MTA covering up?

 

When Darryl Irick was questioned last year by a reporter what they are doing to increase bus reliability, he made no mention of BusTrek or BusTime. His response was that they are instituting SBS to improve reliability which didn't answer the question even if SBS does improve reliability, because SBS affects only eight of over 200 routes. What about the others?

I get the impression that BusTime is being used in some instances, though not as much as it should be.  I think they are using it to adjust schedules on some lines, but outside of that, I don't think it's being used heavily to monitor buses the way that it should be.  For a while I can recall B/Os receiving calls from dispatch telling them to wait at "X" stop and that kept buses somewhat on time for a while when they would be running hot otherwise, but that didn't last too long.  Remember that many B/Os raised a stink about BusTime, and I think that is still going on to some degree in terms of them complaining about being too anal about buses being at XY and Z stops at the exact time, and you can't blame them to some extent.  If management wants guys to be on time, then they need to revise the run sheets accordingly to show the EXACT time that "X" bus should be at each and every stop.  Instead they only have points along the route shown and the drivers have no idea what time they should be at the other stops in between, so what happens is "X" bus is running hot for several stops, then pulls into a stop listed on the run sheet and sits there for a bit and still leaves a bit early. It's something that I encounter on the QM15 almost every time I take it going towards Lindenwood and it's a problem with NUMEROUS lines across the city.  God forbid the revised the schedules based on actual data.  They only revised some schedules because drivers from certain depots were raising hell about the tight schedules and how impossible it was to meet them.

[BrooklynBus]

I get the impression that BusTime is being used in some instances, though not as much as it should be.  I think they are using it to adjust schedules on some lines, but outside of that, I don't think it's being used heavily to monitor buses the way that it should be.  For a while I can recall B/Os receiving calls from dispatch telling them to wait at "X" stop and that kept buses somewhat on time for a while when they would be running hot otherwise, but that didn't last too long.  Remember that many B/Os raised a stink about BusTime, and I think that is still going on to some degree in terms of them complaining about being too anal about buses being at XY and Z stops at the exact time, and you can't blame them to some extent.  If management wants guys to be on time, then they need to revise the run sheets accordingly to show the EXACT time that "X" bus should be at each and every stop.  Instead they only have points along the route shown and the drivers have no idea what time they should be at the other stops in between, so what happens is "X" bus is running hot for several stops, then pulls into a stop listed on the run sheet and sits there for a bit and still leaves a bit early. It's something that I encounter on the QM15 almost every time I take it going towards Lindenwood and it's a problem with NUMEROUS lines across the city.  God forbid the revised the schedules based on actual data.  They only revised some schedules because drivers from certain depots were raising hell about the tight schedules and how impossible it was to meet them.

I don't know if what you suggest about time points for every single stop is really being realistic. Right now the time points are like a quarter to half mile apart usually at a transfer point which I think is close enough and makes some sense because someone transferring wont miss a bus because he is running hot. I don't think you can be so precise to have a time point at every stop. What do you do when a wheelchair boards? You don't know when and where that will occur so you can only build it into recovery time or like every fifth time point or so not into time point at every stop. I really don't see what that really gets us.

 

As far as drivers not liking Bus Time, I remember how the unions killed the first time the MTA attempted to know where its buses were. It was 1980 and the unions feared "1984" when sensors were placed every quarter mile for all routes emanating from the Queens Village Depot which had been just completed. It wasn't GPS and it didn't give the exact location of buses, it just told management if there were buses within a quarter mile sector and how many buses were there. It was supposed to be used to help dispatchers make decisions, not to tell passengers where the buses were.

 

It was a pilot project that worked and there were plans to roll it out to other depots and eventually the entire city. But the unions nipped it in the bud and demanded the project be stopped or they would strike. Management gave in. I don't think something like that could happen today. The unions aren't nearly as powerful. The unions didn't believe that management had the right to know where their operators were because that would prevent some drivers from parking their bus and going to sleep for their shift which some drivers actually used to do at night. I've seen trip sheets for the overnight B34 before it was discontinued and it showed zero passengers over night. How do we even know the driver actually made their trip? Of course management has the right to know here its buses are. I am usually pro-union but this was one case where I think they overstepped their bounds, and shame on management for caving in to their demands.

 

That was so long ago. So why does it matter you ask? Because it set efforts for management to know where its buses are back for ten years until politicians again demanded the MTA do something about bus reliability. Before that project in 1980, the MTA kept citing it for ten years saying they can't do anything about bunching and reliability "now" meaning 1970 and 1975, but the problem will be solved in 1980 when the Queens Village proect is ready to go on line.

 

Then came three or more unsuccessful attempts starting around 1990 and over $14 million wasted on systems that failed, after ten years of doing nothing and blaming traffic. For the next 20 years the MTA cited each future project as the end to bus bunching and until they are ready, nothing can be done because they can't control traffic.

 

Now they just use SBS as the solution when questioned about reliability and bunching. Is there any reason why we should believe anything the MTA tells us when you look back at their track record?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1. I don't know if what you suggest about time points for every single stop is really being realistic. Right now the time points are like a quarter to half mile apart usually at a transfer point which I think is close enough and makes some sense because someone transferring wont miss a bus because he is running hot. I don't think you can be so precise to have a time point at every stop. What do you do when a wheelchair boards? You don't know when and where that will occur so you can only build it into recovery time or like every fifth time point or so not into time point at every stop. I really don't see what that really gets us.

 

As far as drivers not liking Bus Time, I remember how the unions killed the first time the MTA attempted to know where its buses were. It was 1980 and the unions feared "1984" when sensors were placed every quarter mile for all routes emanating from the Queens Village Depot which had been just completed. It wasn't GPS and it didn't give the exact location of buses, it just told management if there were buses within a quarter mile sector and how many buses were there. It was supposed to be used to help dispatchers make decisions, not to tell passengers where the buses were.

 

It was a pilot project that worked and there were plans to roll it out to other depots and eventually the entire city. But the unions nipped it in the bud and demanded the project be stopped or they would strike. Management gave in. I don't think something like that could happen today. The unions aren't nearly as powerful. The unions didn't believe that management had the right to know where their operators were because that would prevent some drivers from parking their bus and going to sleep for their shift which some drivers actually used to do at night. I've seen trip sheets for the overnight B34 before it was discontinued and it showed zero passengers over night. How do we even know the driver actually made their trip? Of course management has the right to know here its buses are. I am usually pro-union but this was one case where I think they overstepped their bounds, and shame on management for caving in to their demands.

 

That was so long ago. So why does it matter you ask? Because it set efforts for management to know where its buses are back for ten years until politicians again demanded the MTA do something about bus reliability. Before that project in 1980, the MTA kept citing it for ten years saying they can't do anything about bunching and reliability "now" meaning 1970 and 1975, but the problem will be solved in 1980 when the Queens Village proect is ready to go on line.

 

Then came three or more unsuccessful attempts starting around 1990 and over $14 million wasted on systems that failed, after ten years of doing nothing and blaming traffic. For the next 20 years the MTA cited each future project as the end to bus bunching and until they are ready, nothing can be done because they can't control traffic.

 

Now they just use SBS as the solution when questioned about reliability and bunching. Is there any reason why we should believe anything the MTA tells us when you look back at their track record?

1. I don't think it is realistic for local buses, but it most certainly is realistic for express buses and limited stop and SBS buses which have fewer stops.  What does it get us? It takes the guessing game out of where a bus should be.  If a bus doesn't have that many stops to begin with then I see no reason why they should given only a few time points while they are early for all of the other stops in between, sitting there picking no one up.  What good is that for the passengers? It should certainly be done for express buses, or at least have more of them put in.  Basically the current time points for most buses are the ones that are shown on the schedules (especially for express buses), which is a joke. If the guy is early at one time point and doesn't wait, that means he's running hot for several stops or more.  For a bus running every 30 minutes to an hour, that is simply unacceptable, and it's a perfect example of why some people aren't using buses.  You know very well what happens to a line with low frequencies and unpredictable service... You have unbalanced loads, and usually declining ridership unless riders have other options.  Even if a line has decent frequencies of say every 15 - 20 minutes, who is going to put up with a bus that shows up whenever?  That's precisely the kind of headways that the B4 had back in the old days, and buses showed up whenever they wanted if at all, and we saw what happened with that line back in 2010... 

 

It also makes drivers more accountable while allowing aiding them to stay on schedule.  I know several express bus drivers have told me that they wished their run sheets had ALL of the time points on them because then when a passenger complains about a bus running hot and the B/O is called in for it, they are blamed for something that they really can't control.  How can you justify writing a guy up for being early when he doesn't even have the time on his run sheet?  In fact I had one driver who would actually take down all of the times at the stops not on his run sheet to ensure that he wasn't early.  He would ask me what the schedule said at my stop and I would tell him.  Apparently from what I've heard, some lines used to have all of the time points or at least more of them than the current ones.

[DetSMART45]

1. I don't think it is realistic for local buses, but it most certainly is realistic for express buses and limited stop and SBS buses which have fewer stops.  What does it get us? It takes the guessing game out of where a bus should be.  If a bus doesn't have that many stops to begin with then I see no reason why they should given only a few time points while they are early for all of the other stops in between, sitting there picking no one up.  What good is that for the passengers? It should certainly be done for express buses, or at least have more of them put in.  Basically the current time points for most buses are the ones that are shown on the schedules (especially for express buses), which is a joke. If the guy is early at one time point and doesn't wait, that means he's running hot for several stops or more.  For a bus running every 30 minutes to an hour, that is simply unacceptable, and it's a perfect example of why some people aren't using buses.  You know very well what happens to a line with low frequencies and unpredictable service... You have unbalanced loads, and usually declining ridership unless riders have other options.  Even if a line has decent frequencies of say every 15 - 20 minutes, who is going to put up with a bus that shows up whenever?  That's precisely the kind of headways that the B4 had back in the old days, and buses showed up whenever they wanted if at all, and we saw what happened with that line back in 2010... 

 

It also makes drivers more accountable while allowing aiding them to stay on schedule.  I know several express bus drivers have told me that they wished their run sheets had ALL of the time points on them because then when a passenger complains about a bus running hot and the B/O is called in for it, they are blamed for something that they really can't control.  How can you justify writing a guy up for being early when he doesn't even have the time on his run sheet?  In fact I had one driver who would actually take down all of the times at the stops not on his run sheet to ensure that he wasn't early.  He would ask me what the schedule said at my stop and I would tell him.  Apparently from what I've heard, some lines used to have all of the time points or at least more of them than the current ones.

The Clever system does actually tell whether you're on-time or not.  NOW, whether MTA paid for that function to be enabled, that's the other question.

 

Operators -- for the most part -- are not just coming in and getting scheduled for runs which they haven't been on before, due to the pick system.  What you're almost suggesting is that they have absolutely NO idea what they're doing and they need a run sheet to tell them when to make times, and that every day is a new adventure.  Absurd.

 

Our little system has plenty of times where operators are pulled between the depots for coverage.  The Clever system downloads and tells them what to do when they're across town doing a completely unfamiliar route.

 

If your operators need an old-fashioned "run sheet" to tell them what to do on a daily basis, that's a training issue, and yet another excuse the MTA can have in its arsenal to throw out when their feet get burned by a fire asking for accountability.

[BrooklynBus]

1. I don't think it is realistic for local buses, but it most certainly is realistic for express buses and limited stop and SBS buses which have fewer stops.  What does it get us? It takes the guessing game out of where a bus should be.  If a bus doesn't have that many stops to begin with then I see no reason why they should given only a few time points while they are early for all of the other stops in between, sitting there picking no one up.  What good is that for the passengers? It should certainly be done for express buses, or at least have more of them put in.  Basically the current time points for most buses are the ones that are shown on the schedules (especially for express buses), which is a joke. If the guy is early at one time point and doesn't wait, that means he's running hot for several stops or more.  For a bus running every 30 minutes to an hour, that is simply unacceptable, and it's a perfect example of why some people aren't using buses.  You know very well what happens to a line with low frequencies and unpredictable service... You have unbalanced loads, and usually declining ridership unless riders have other options.  Even if a line has decent frequencies of say every 15 - 20 minutes, who is going to put up with a bus that shows up whenever?  That's precisely the kind of headways that the B4 had back in the old days, and buses showed up whenever they wanted if at all, and we saw what happened with that line back in 2010... 

 

It also makes drivers more accountable while allowing aiding them to stay on schedule.  I know several express bus drivers have told me that they wished their run sheets had ALL of the time points on them because then when a passenger complains about a bus running hot and the B/O is called in for it, they are blamed for something that they really can't control.  How can you justify writing a guy up for being early when he doesn't even have the time on his run sheet?  In fact I had one driver who would actually take down all of the times at the stops not on his run sheet to ensure that he wasn't early.  He would ask me what the schedule said at my stop and I would tell him.  Apparently from what I've heard, some lines used to have all of the time points or at least more of them than the current ones.

I was only talking about local buses. I am not familiar with the system used for express buses.