Jump to content

M5/M55 Split January 8, 2017


Union Tpke

Recommended Posts

Both operator's and passengers are complaining a LOT about the unreliability of this line.

 

From what I've been told, this schedule is based of the M5 LIMITED

 

Not local. So of course MTA shot themselves in the toe with this one.

 

South of 14 st there's no other routes... And when guys are instructed to turn around earlier, that leaves customers stranded....

 

They have to make changes. Soon

 

You've been told wrong. The old M5 schedule gave the buses an around 45 minutes from 42nd Street to South Ferry for most of the day. These M55 buses get a little over 30 minutes and have to travel a few blocks further. Heck, I just put the route into Google Transit, and it said that it takes 35 minutes by driving up 6th Avenue at this time of the evening. 

 

Well weren't you the one saying that the delays weren't a big deal?  I was the one saying that people weren't going to be waiting for buses that were delayed like that.  A bus scheduled every 15 minutes most of the day that is 10 - 15 minutes late... Even if the person isn't waiting the entire 25 - 30 minutes, it's still unlikely that they will wait unless they have no other options.  I don't think they did this to save money either.  They did this so that they can cut more service from the M55 portion citing poor ridership.  Just watch.

 

lol... The line was set up to fail and you don't need to look at a thousand figures like RailRunRob insisted.  If you actually ride buses like I do, it's a no brainer.

 

Re-read my post because that's not what I said.

 

And you're on a transit fan community for crying out loud. You don't get a special medal for riding buses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You've been told wrong. The old M5 schedule gave the buses an around 45 minutes from 42nd Street to South Ferry for most of the day. These M55 buses get a little over 30 minutes and have to travel a few blocks further. Heck, I just put the route into Google Transit, and it said that it takes 35 minutes by driving up 6th Avenue at this time of the evening.

 

 

 

Re-read my post because that's not what I said.

 

And you're on a transit fan community for crying out loud. You don't get a special medal for riding buses.

Oh how we have select memory. I'm referring to this:

 

"They won't be waiting the full 20 minutes unless they just missed the first bus. The average passenger would be waiting half the gap (10 minutes).

 

If a 20 minute gap on a 12 minute headway is the largest gap you can find, then if anything, the split was a success as far as the M5 is concerned."

 

Regarding your other snide remark if that's the case then the questions posed were completely stupid and unnecessary from the start, but then again the person asking them rarely uses buses. It's funny how other posters in here agreed with my assessment yet you had no problem with them. What a surprise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh how we have select memory. I'm referring to this:

 

"They won't be waiting the full 20 minutes unless they just missed the first bus. The average passenger would be waiting half the gap (10 minutes).

 

If a 20 minute gap on a 12 minute headway is the largest gap you can find, then if anything, the split was a success as far as the M5 is concerned."

 

Regarding your other snide remark if that's the case then the questions posed were completely stupid and unnecessary from the start, but then again the person asking them rarely uses buses. It's funny how other posters in here agreed with my assessment yet you had no problem with them. What a surprise...

 

So do you see the M55 mentioned anywhere in that comment? That comment specifically referred to the M5 in that particular situation, and yes, I stand by that comment. A Manhattan bus running 8 minutes late in the PM rush hour....oooohhhhh...aaahhhh.... :rolleyes:

 

And I looked throughout this thread, and didn't see anything from RailRunRob in this thread, so I'm not sure which questions you're referring to.

 

And yes, I have no problem with the posters who agreed with your assessment. That's not exactly shocking.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you see the M55 mentioned anywhere in that comment? That comment specifically referred to the M5 in that particular situation, and yes, I stand by that comment. A Manhattan bus running 8 minutes late in the PM rush hour....oooohhhhh...aaahhhh.... :rolleyes:

 

And I looked throughout this thread, and didn't see anything from RailRunRob in this thread, so I'm not sure which questions you're referring to.

 

And yes, I have no problem with the posters who agreed with your assessment. That's not exactly shocking.  :D

I was talking about the M55 specifically with 20 minutes waits, not the M5. As for your second comment, your agenda isn't surprising. I just wanted you to confirm it yourself. So another poster can say that the lines are a mess but you take issue with me saying it. Sick individual....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the M55 specifically with 20 minutes waits, not the M5. As for your second comment, your agenda isn't surprising. I just wanted you to confirm it yourself. So another poster can say that the lines are a mess but you take issue with me saying it. Sick individual....

 

So if you're talking about the M55, why did you bring up my quote which specifically mentions the M5?

 

And no, I'm referring to the way you worded this "It's funny how other posters in here agreed with my assessment yet you had no problem with them. What a surprise..."

 

I never said anything about the assessment. I was referring to the posters. I don't have a problem with anybody here. Why do you think I put that smilie at the end?

 

In any case, my actual stance on the matter is that the headways aren't a problem, but the runtime and recovery time at the end of the line is. (And if anything, the recovery time is the more pressing issue. If all buses run 10 minutes late, and you still have a consistent 15 minute headway, that's one thing. If one bus runs 5 minutes late, one bus runs 15 minutes late, one bus runs 10 minutes late, and those delays spill into the other direction because of the lack of recovery time, that's another thing) You're saying that both the headways and the runtime/recovery time are a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you're talking about the M55, why did you bring up my quote which specifically mentions the M5?

 

And no, I'm referring to the way you worded this "It's funny how other posters in here agreed with my assessment yet you had no problem with them. What a surprise..."

 

I never said anything about the assessment. I was referring to the posters. I don't have a problem with anybody here. Why do you think I put that smilie at the end?

 

In any case, my actual stance on the matter is that the headways aren't a problem, but the runtime and recovery time at the end of the line is. (And if anything, the recovery time is the more pressing issue. If all buses run 10 minutes late, and you still have a consistent 15 minute headway, that's one thing. If one bus runs 5 minutes late, one bus runs 15 minutes late, one bus runs 10 minutes late, and those delays spill into the other direction because of the lack of recovery time, that's another thing) You're saying that both the headways and the runtime/recovery time are a problem. 

20 minute waits was specifically dealing with the M55, not the M5. I'm not sure what isn't clear about that. And yes the whole set up is a mess. The point of creating the M55 was to improve reliability, which in my mind should mean that buses are prompt as well. I don't find it "okay" for buses to run late because it is rush hour, something you alluded to previously. That's a big reason why bus service is a mess across the city, and an afterthought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of late but....

And so we continue to see that people think that the M6 should just be re-instated... lol That's basically what she's looking for.

We already know the M55 was just a half-ass cut, but putting that aside...

I bet that person was one who rode the M5 regularly, maybe the M7 too. To me, I feel an extension of the M55 is greatly needed. I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of the M6 or anything. If there are only about 13 blocks to serve on an avenue directly below central park, it should be used.

 

When the M10 was cut the first time, they knew to have the M20 go to 66 St. This should be almost the same thing. To me, any north-south route on the west side that connects to 14 Street should be going to 57th Street, simply because of how busy midtown is, even if more people are heading to the subway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minute waits was specifically dealing with the M55, not the M5. I'm not sure what isn't clear about that. And yes the whole set up is a mess. The point of creating the M55 was to improve reliability, which in my mind should mean that buses are prompt as well. I don't find it "okay" for buses to run late because it is rush hour, something you alluded to previously. That's a big reason why bus service is a mess across the city, and an afterthought.

 

Nope. Nice try. You brought up that the split didn't do anything as far as the M5 was concerned. You said "The M5 isn't doing much better.  Huge gaps in service Southbound... One bus by 160th street and then the next bus by 100th street. "

 

My response to that was that it represented a 20 minute gap on a 12 minute headway, and that was the largest gap you found (or it must've been since that's the one you brought up). So on the M5 portion, yes, it did improve reliability, because those gaps would be larger and more numerous if the M5 were still running down to South Ferry.

 

Considering the fact that traffic varies from day to day in that part of Manhattan, and there aren't strictly-enforced bus lanes up and down the route (not to mention variables such as wheelchair passengers, rookie drivers, etc), it's virtually impossible to write a schedule that is accurate for every weekday. You could double the runtime between all timepoints, but the vast majority of B/Os would have to either drive slow or hold at all the timepoints and slow service for everybody on the bus. So if the result of a reasonable schedule is that occasionally, buses run 8 minutes late, that's something I would consider acceptable.

 

Kind of late but....We already know the M55 was just a half-ass cut, but putting that aside...

I bet that person was one who rode the M5 regularly, maybe the M7 too. To me, I feel an extension of the M55 is greatly needed. I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of the M6 or anything. If there are only about 13 blocks to serve on an avenue directly below central park, it should be used.

 

When the M10 was cut the first time, they knew to have the M20 go to 66 St. This should be almost the same thing. To me, any north-south route on the west side that connects to 14 Street should be going to 57th Street, simply because of how busy midtown is, even if more people are heading to the subway.

 

I can see your logic (especially since both the M20 & M55 share part of their routing with the M7), but on the flip side, there's two routes on 6th Avenue and six routes on 5th Avenue that passengers can use to cover that same distance for passengers who need to transfer. The M7 already offers a one-seat ride for anybody north of 14th Street, and the M1/2/3 offer a one-seat ride down to 8th Street. Even if you want to justify it on 6th Avenue (since 7th Avenue also has 3 routes), that means one extra route going down 5th Avenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Nice try. You brought up that the split didn't do anything as far as the M5 was concerned. You said "The M5 isn't doing much better.  Huge gaps in service Southbound... One bus by 160th street and then the next bus by 100th street. "

 

My response to that was that it represented a 20 minute gap on a 12 minute headway, and that was the largest gap you found (or it must've been since that's the one you brought up). So on the M5 portion, yes, it did improve reliability, because those gaps would be larger and more numerous if the M5 were still running down to South Ferry.

 

Considering the fact that traffic varies from day to day in that part of Manhattan, and there aren't strictly-enforced bus lanes up and down the route (not to mention variables such as wheelchair passengers, rookie drivers, etc), it's virtually impossible to write a schedule that is accurate for every weekday. You could double the runtime between all timepoints, but the vast majority of B/Os would have to either drive slow or hold at all the timepoints and slow service for everybody on the bus. So if the result of a reasonable schedule is that occasionally, buses run 8 minutes late, that's something I would consider acceptable.

 

How nice of you to quote part of what I was talking about.  That original quote started off talking about the M55 and then the M5, to which you responded:

 

 

160th to 100th Street is a little over 3 miles. There's barely any traffic along that part of Broadway, so you're talking about maybe a 20 minute gap tops (and buses are scheduled every 12 minutes heading southbound).

 

For the 17:15 bus, that bus actually left around 17:25, so some of those 17:30 riders might've caught that bus. (So there's definitely plenty of gaps longer than 15 minutes, but so far nothing that's 30+ minutes wide)

 

Not saying it's good, but I honestly expected it to be worse on the M55.

 Either way your comments clearly show how you downplayed the whole split, and I both lines are still atrocious and will continue to be.   Having buses be "consistently" 8 minutes late is not "ok" in my book.  There's no point of having a schedule if none of the buses are going to adhere to it.

Kind of late but....We already know the M55 was just a half-ass cut, but putting that aside...

I bet that person was one who rode the M5 regularly, maybe the M7 too. To me, I feel an extension of the M55 is greatly needed. I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of the M6 or anything. If there are only about 13 blocks to serve on an avenue directly below central park, it should be used.

 

When the M10 was cut the first time, they knew to have the M20 go to 66 St. This should be almost the same thing. To me, any north-south route on the west side that connects to 14 Street should be going to 57th Street, simply because of how busy midtown is, even if more people are heading to the subway.

What will happen is what happened with the M10.  When it was first cut back to Columbus Circle, people would got off annoyed and would then transfer to continue their trip.  That is less likely now.  People adjust their trips and change them accordingly, as they don't like transferring unnecessarily unless they have to, so I predict more people finding other means over time, meaning less riders, which will then lead to more cuts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of late but....We already know the M55 was just a half-ass cut, but putting that aside...

I bet that person was one who rode the M5 regularly, maybe the M7 too. To me, I feel an extension of the M55 is greatly needed. I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of the M6 or anything. If there are only about 13 blocks to serve on an avenue directly below central park, it should be used.

 

She was a regular, in fact she told me how she used to take her son to school which was easier since the M5 would take her directly there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of late but....We already know the M55 was just a half-ass cut, but putting that aside...

I bet that person was one who rode the M5 regularly, maybe the M7 too. To me, I feel an extension of the M55 is greatly needed. I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of the M6 or anything. If there are only about 13 blocks to serve on an avenue directly below central park, it should be used.

 

When the M10 was cut the first time, they knew to have the M20 go to 66 St. This should be almost the same thing. To me, any north-south route on the west side that connects to 14 Street should be going to 57th Street, simply because of how busy midtown is, even if more people are heading to the subway.

You don't have to clamor for the M6 to believe that this M55 should be extended northward past Bryant Park (area); as 59th/Columbus Circle is where there has always been a substantial riderbase of its own has emanated for service due southward - Even after the M6 got cut... Even after the M10 got cut back... Even after the creation of the M12... and yes, after this split of the M5!

 

This won't happen, but I would love for the M104 to run down to around 14th; even if it meant cutting the route back on the northern end somewhere.... To hell with the M12 & far west side service - use those resources to have the M104 terminate at Abingdon Sq to take the place of the M20 as "the" 7th/8th av route.... As for the (remnant of the) M20, I would combine it with the M21 - with service south of Spring only existing for coverage reasons.....

 

Manhattan's bus network south of 14th & west of 6th I never cared for, from jump... And it begins with the M20.

 

What will happen is what happened with the M10.  When it was first cut back to Columbus Circle, people would got off annoyed and would then transfer to continue their trip.  That is less likely now.  People adjust their trips and change them accordingly, as they don't like transferring unnecessarily unless they have to, so I predict more people finding other means over time, meaning less riders, which will then lead to more cuts.  

I found that most riders that boarded along CPW generally rode it no further than Columbus Circle anyway..... It wasn't/isn't like the 5th/Madison av routes where you have riders up on the East side there riding well past 57th.... You take the 5th/Madison routes, you know this.... But w/ the M10, people really only took it b/w Penn & Columbus Circle (and definitely no further north than 66th) because it was a far better alternative than the M20....

 

Far as service on the West side goes, I strongly believe the M20 in & of itself is the problem, on so many levels.....

I'm not quite sure if I want to deem the route as antiquated exactly, but it does not reflect what (or how) the riders want/need....

 

Be there as it may, we have riders faced with the splitting of a route that should've never been extended in the first place (M5), while the M20 continues to exist/perform as it is.... Goes to show ya that it's not about the riders....

 

My point? They're making routes that had (and still) have high ridership levels less attractive....

The MTA has a history of justifying route extinctions by purposely dicking around with service spans and/or frequencies right before they pull the damn plug on 'em....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How nice of you to quote part of what I was talking about.  That original quote started off talking about the M55 and then the M5, to which you responded:

 

 Either way your comments clearly show how you downplayed the whole split, and I both lines are still atrocious and will continue to be.   Having buses be "consistently" 8 minutes late is not "ok" in my book.  There's no point of having a schedule if none of the buses are going to adhere to it.

 

The part you quoted specifically mentioned the M5. You don't mention the M55 at all in Post #102. If you wanted to refer to my comment about the M55, you should've included it in your post. Simple as that. 

 

And I never said anything about "consistently". I said the word occasionally. Don't start throwing your own BS into my posts and passing it off as my words. If buses were consistently 8 minutes late, I would say to either address the problem area with bus lanes/enforcement or at least rewrite the schedule to allow 8 more minutes of travel time. An occasional delay due to some wheelchair passengers or having to miss a light because some pedestrian ran out at the last minute, I mean what do you want to do, have the B/O put on a cape and pick the bus up and fly it to the next stop?

 

My point? They're making routes that had (and still) have high ridership levels less attractive....

The MTA has a history of justifying route extinctions by purposely dicking around with service spans and/or frequencies right before they pull the damn plug on 'em....

 

Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure the M6 was supposed to be completely eliminated in the 2009 service reductions. They revised the proposal in 2010 to have the M5 cover the part south of Houston Street, but I guess it goes to show their attitude about providing service in that area.

 

Ironically enough, that corridor along Church Street/Broadway has some of the highest ridership in the entire express bus system. "Yeah, there's no demand for bus service in that area...."(**Looks at crowds waiting for X27/28, Downtown Loop QM/BM buses, and of course, all the SI expresses**). Wouldn't it be ironic if people started using the X10 for intra-Manhattan travel the way people use it for intra-SI travel? (Well, unless the MTA goes through with a plan to truncate all SI express buses downtown).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part you quoted specifically mentioned the M5. You don't mention the M55 at all in Post #102. If you wanted to refer to my comment about the M55, you should've included it in your post. Simple as that. 

 

And I never said anything about "consistently". I said the word occasionally. Don't start throwing your own BS into my posts and passing it off as my words. If buses were consistently 8 minutes late, I would say to either address the problem area with bus lanes/enforcement or at least rewrite the schedule to allow 8 more minutes of travel time. An occasional delay due to some wheelchair passengers or having to miss a light because some pedestrian ran out at the last minute, I mean what do you want to do, have the B/O put on a cape and pick the bus up and fly it to the next stop?

 

 

Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure the M6 was supposed to be completely eliminated in the 2009 service reductions. They revised the proposal in 2010 to have the M5 cover the part south of Houston Street, but I guess it goes to show their attitude about providing service in that area.

 

Ironically enough, that corridor along Church Street/Broadway has some of the highest ridership in the entire express bus system. "Yeah, there's no demand for bus service in that area...."(**Looks at crowds waiting for X27/28, Downtown Loop QM/BM buses, and of course, all the SI expresses**). Wouldn't it be ironic if people started using the X10 for intra-Manhattan travel the way people use it for intra-SI travel? (Well, unless the MTA goes through with a plan to truncate all SI express buses downtown).

Since you have a hard time following, I'll repeat myself again. I want buses to adhere to their schedules as opposed to a thousand reasons why they should "occasionally" run late. They split up the M5 for that purpose (supposedly) so if service still is unreliable then they need to use their resources and identity where the problems are and not wait until the next pick (months later to address them). They have BusTime to give them REAL TIME data. They're raising the fare yet again, and yet the passengers continue to receive the same crummy service, not just on this line but across the city. Stop trying to excuse their poor planning. They have yet to implement other initiatives that could improve bus service, and dispatching continues to be atrocious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you have a hard time following, I'll repeat myself again. I want buses to adhere to their schedules as opposed to a thousand reasons why they should "occasionally" run late. They split up the M5 for that purpose (supposedly) so if service still is unreliable then they need to use their resources and identity where the problems are and not wait until the next pick (months later to address them). They have BusTime to give them REAL TIME data. They're raising the fare yet again, and yet the passengers continue to receive the same crummy service, not just on this line but across the city. Stop trying to excuse their poor planning. They have yet to implement other initiatives that could improve bus service, and dispatching continues to be atrocious.

 

Like I said, the gaps on the M5 used to be larger and more numerous. Now they're fewer and smaller. I consider that an improvement. Tell me one way to achieve 100% OTP on a local bus passing through Midtown Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, the gaps on the M5 used to be larger and more numerous. Now they're fewer and smaller. I consider that an improvement. Tell me one way to achieve 100% OTP on a local bus passing through Midtown Manhattan.

Like I said, I already said how you can have better OTP.  They've done it with various express bus lines, but that was only after B/Os raised hell about not having enough run time.  In any event, it's January when traffic usually isn't that bad.  If there are still this many gaps, I would expect the situation to worsen as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I already said how you can have better OTP.  They've done it with various express bus lines, but that was only after B/Os raised hell about not having enough run time.  In any event, it's January when traffic usually isn't that bad.  If there are still this many gaps, I would expect the situation to worsen as time goes on.

 

You'll get it better, but you're not going to get it to 100%.

 

And "this many". You found one gap and it wasn't even that large.  <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looked now and there's a nice gap southbound and quite a few buses running in packs of two, so it doesn't seem like much has changed to me.  <_<

 

Quite a few? I see a pair of buses bunched southbound and a pair of buses bunched northbound (both on Riverside Drive). Again, before the split, you probably would've had some threesomes or foursomes mixed into that as well, and that gap would be larger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looked now and there's a nice gap southbound and quite a few buses running in packs of two, so it doesn't seem like much has changed to me.  <_<

I see the gap you're talking about (Riverside Drive & 96 to 59 and 5th). However, remember that M5's typically breeze through Riverside Drive, so while it may look like a big gap, it is not a big gap in between buses as you would think it is. Now the gap from 135th to 172 Street is a different story, as there are more stops, and longer to get between said points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few? I see a pair of buses bunched southbound and a pair of buses bunched northbound (both on Riverside Drive). Again, before the split, you probably would've had some threesomes or foursomes mixed into that as well, and that gap would be larger. 

You checked after I did.  There were at least four instances of two buses running together.  Two southbound that finished and two northbound and two others in between.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You checked after I did.  There were at least four instances of two buses running together.  Two southbound that finished and two northbound and two others in between.  

Sometimes, buses that are not in service for whatever reason appear on bustime as in service (I've seen that myself a few times). Sometimes a bus arrives while another bus is still on scheduled layover, so that should be taken into account. Now, if there were three buses (which there were at 31 Street a few minutes), then that's likely a case of bunching, since the headway is every 10 minutes (unless there was a bus that takes a lunch break at 31 Street or something).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, buses that are not in service for whatever reason appear on bustime as in service (I've seen that myself a few times). Sometimes a bus arrives while another bus is still on scheduled layover, so that should be taken into account. Now, if there were three buses (which there were at 31 Street a few minutes), then that's likely a case of bunching, since the headway is every 10 minutes (unless there was a bus that takes a lunch break at 31 Street or something).

I'm aware of that.  I'm a frequent user of BusTime, probably more than anyone else on here. I guess their goal was to get bunching in line to what you usually see on other lines.  It's troubling when we're saying that various occurrences of buses running together in twos on 10 minute headways is better than having packs of three or four buses together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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