Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

MTA Records Largest Single-Year Ridership Decline in 15 Years

Recommended Posts

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah it says Midtown to Kings Plaza... :D

Amazingly, since July 2017. Wonder how many committees and bureaucrats it takes for someone to approve that error, and then fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 11:06 PM, aemoreira81 said:

It's interesting that a picture of the M15 is shown. With the partial opening of the SAS to 96 Street, and the subsequent relief on the Lexington Avenue line, ridership on the M15 has to have dropped significantly now that the subway is an alternative. I would also expect major ridership declines on the M66 and M31 as well (which serve the hospital and college corridor on York Avenue). That ridership has likely transferred to the (Q) (72 Street-2 Avenue is a madhouse on weekdays), whereas it would have been previously on buses. The relief on Lexington Avenue has likely also opened up space on the (6), which in turn reduces ridership on the 3 and Lexington Avenue buses as well.

While some M15 riders have probably switched to the subway, I can't imagine ridership has gone down too much. People living in East Harlem can now take the M15 down to 96 St to the (Q). And hopefully with construction having ended (for now) and the stops that were moved due to construction back in more convenient locations that'll  hopefully draw some people to the route.

As for the whole discussion on advocacy groups, as somebody who's a member of Riders Alliance, most of the members (not counting the staff) are just volunteers who are ordinary riders pissed off about the state of NYCT. Most of the people there generally are coming from the perspective of a rider. I sure wish somebody with an agenda was secretly paying us to lobby. Riders Alliance members aren't really that different from the users on this site (who are fanners and not MTA employees) in terms of objectives except that users on this forum focus more on operations (generally) while advocacy groups focus more on the underlying politics that influence funding and operations.

@checkmatechamp13 Although Transportation Alternatives does advocate for public transportation, their advocacy focuses more on cycling/pedestrianism. These groups are all on the same side more-or-less but I would say there isn't that much overlap in terms of membership. Transportation Alternatives mainly draws the cycling crowd while Riders Alliance obviously includes subway/bus riders (unsurprisingly, I haven't seen many members from Staten Island). It wouldn't surprise me if the Transportation Alternatives members you saw were totally clueless about Staten Island's bus network. 

Edited by Mysterious2train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Amazingly, since July 2017. Wonder how many committees and bureaucrats it takes for someone to approve that error, and then fix it.

Years ago there was a run sheet error on the Northbound BxM18.  I learned that this error had been ongoing for maybe a few years prior to me moving to Riverdale.  We had an older lady that would ride the BxM18 from Yonkers Depot who I guess would train the rookies and she commented about the error.  Prior to this, me and another guy would get the bus at 44th and Madison in front of the (MTA) building.  Well for almost a week a new guy took over and suddenly he would bypass us EVERY NIGHT.  We lost it. 

He at the time (an engineer) was actually working for Joe Lhota upstairs, and I knew of a few people in that building at 347 Madison.  We both raised hell, and a dispatcher was sent out to roam up and down Madison looking for the actual bus stop. I had already heard via the Department of Buses that there were no changes scheduled for removing the BxM18 bus stop from Madison and 44th to Madison and 43rd, which is where the bus had started stopping every night at a bus stop that had no timetable OR actual bus stop destination.  So our bus comes.  We tell the dispatcher waiting with us that there's the bus pulling into a stop that doesn't even exist at 43rd and Madison. The bus sits there and picks up no one, then pulls to the light at Madison and 44th ready to keep going. The dispatcher steps out into the street and literally blocks the B/O from continuing, orders him to stop for us and pick us up.  Well the B/O was livid.  He was an old-timer (another driver that was alternating with the other driver bypassing our stop) and he had called himself "warning" me about the stop being moved going forward and he was pissed to see that me and the other guy had a dispatcher ordering him to stop there.  He reluctantly opens the doors and lets us on. When my stop comes I gave it to him.  I asked to see the run sheet and told him the error would be fixed and that I would be making more phone calls because this was ridiculous and I was tired of my stop being skipped.  Eventually the error was fixed, but it took something like several months for them to fix it internally.  In the meantime they must've given the B/Os a heads up about the error on the run sheet.  

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No, I'm saying that service was destroyed due to service cuts.  You admitted it yourself.  That said, what makes you think that an extension would do anything more than make service worse and more unreliable?

It would make service worse onlynif the route were extended with fewer buses. As far as not lengthening it because that would lessen reliability, just look at those B42 complaints. They can't even operate a short route like that reliably. By your logic no existing route should ever be lengthened because it worsens reliability. In fact if you propose to lengthen any route, that is the exact reason the MTA will give you why they can't due it. But when they created the new B47 by combining by two routes or did the same with the B13, all of a sudden the length of the route was not an issue. Just total hypocrisy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Amazingly, since July 2017. Wonder how many committees and bureaucrats it takes for someone to approve that error, and then fix it.

When I started at the MTA as Director of Bus Planning, the MTA was about to release its 1981 Brooklyn Bus Map which was the first one to add neighborhoods and points of interest. It was scheduled to go to the printer the next morning. I immediately told my boss to hold the presses. I was there until 10 PM finding and correcting 96 errors. There were a many bus route errors but most had to do with other things. I remember they had Brooklyn Botanic Garden as Brooklyn Botanical Gardens and showed it where the zoo is and the zoo where the garden was. I wish I could remember some of the other errors. What an embarrassment if it went out like that. Only six errors managed to get through that I found later. Do you think they even cared or said good work? No, they couldn't care less. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

It would make service worse onlynif the route were extended with fewer buses. As far as not lengthening it because that would lessen reliability, just look at those B42 complaints. They can't even operate a short route like that reliably. By your logic no existing route should ever be lengthened because it worsens reliability. In fact if you propose to lengthen any route, that is the exact reason the MTA will give you why they can't due it. But when they created the new B47 by combining by two routes or did the same with the B13, all of a sudden the length of the route was not an issue. Just total hypocrisy.  

Not by my logic.  It's been shown that the (MTA) is incompetent when it comes to extending routes and doing so without the line becoming extremely unreliable.  Just look at past history:

-M5 was a disaster

-X14: disaster - They said run time would be extended by something like 15 minutes combining the X13 and X14 into one route.  Well it was more like 30+ minutes.

-B61: disaster.

-B82: disaster. You've been extremely critical of the B82 (B5 and B50 combo), but yet you expect me to believe that extending the B2 or B31 west wouldn't make service less reliable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Not by my logic.  It's been shown that the (MTA) is incompetent when it comes to extending routes and doing so without the line becoming extremely unreliable.  Just look at past history:

-M5 was a disaster

-X14: disaster - They said run time would be extended by something like 15 minutes combining the X13 and X14 into one route.  Well it was more like 30+ minutes.

-B61: disaster.

-B82: disaster. You've been extremely critical of the B82 (B5 and B50 combo), but yet you expect me to believe that extending the B2 or B31 west wouldn't make service less reliable?

The routes are unreliable because the MTA does not devote nearly enough resources to road supervision and who knows how much use they are making of the new technology. All they do is put out fires when there are many complaints. There needs to be regular supervision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Not by my logic.  It's been shown that the (MTA) is incompetent when it comes to extending routes and doing so without the line becoming extremely unreliable.  Just look at past history:

-M5 was a disaster

-X14: disaster - They said run time would be extended by something like 15 minutes combining the X13 and X14 into one route.  Well it was more like 30+ minutes.

-B61: disaster.

-B82: disaster. You've been extremely critical of the B82 (B5 and B50 combo), but yet you expect me to believe that extending the B2 or B31 west wouldn't make service less reliable?

As a B82 rider. My issue with the route isn't that its not on time or whatever. My issue is that its way overcrowded and often goes through streets that are congested. Its an MTA problem and a DOT problem they need to fix. If anything I feel that they should for start giving people who hold up traffic tickets. Its beyond ridiculous. Overcrowding is a major issue. If a route is overcrowded the MTA needs to look into what is causing it. If its buses not on time via caught in traffic, ridership growth, or just plain out not sending out enough buses. They need to assess it. 

I think if the city could tackle congestion and decrease it by 10 to 20% we could judge these routes differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mysterious2train said:

While some M15 riders have probably switched to the subway, I can't imagine ridership has gone down too much. People living in East Harlem can now take the M15 down to 96 St to the (Q). And hopefully with construction having ended (for now) and the stops that were moved due to construction back in more convenient locations that'll  hopefully draw some people to the route.

As for the whole discussion on advocacy groups, as somebody who's a member of Riders Alliance, most of the members (not counting the staff) are just volunteers who are ordinary riders pissed off about the state of NYCT. Most of the people there generally are coming from the perspective of a rider. I sure wish somebody with an agenda was secretly paying us to lobby. Riders Alliance members aren't really that different from the users on this site (who are fanners and not MTA employees) in terms of objectives except that users on this forum focus more on operations (generally) while advocacy groups focus more on the underlying politics that influence funding and operations.

@checkmatechamp13 Although Transportation Alternatives does advocate for public transportation, their advocacy focuses more on cycling/pedestrianism. These groups are all on the same side more-or-less but I would say there isn't that much overlap in terms of membership. Transportation Alternatives mainly draws the cycling crowd while Riders Alliance obviously includes subway/bus riders (unsurprisingly, I haven't seen many members from Staten Island). It wouldn't surprise me if the Transportation Alternatives members you saw were totally clueless about Staten Island's bus network. 

Except the BBQ was in Stapleton, so essentially everybody there (including the woman who organized the BBQ) were from Staten Island. I actually met her at a meeting regarding the SI bus study, so she does use and have an interest in public transportation, but damn....living on the North Shore and not having an idea of how the S53/93 reach Brooklyn....

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Not by my logic.  It's been shown that the (MTA) is incompetent when it comes to extending routes and doing so without the line becoming extremely unreliable.  Just look at past history:

-M5 was a disaster

-X14: disaster - They said run time would be extended by something like 15 minutes combining the X13 and X14 into one route.  Well it was more like 30+ minutes.

-B61: disaster.

-B82: disaster. You've been extremely critical of the B82 (B5 and B50 combo), but yet you expect me to believe that extending the B2 or B31 west wouldn't make service less reliable?

Are you referring to the old B61 from LIC to Red Hook or the new B61 from Downtown to Park Slope?

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I suppose this adds to your point, but in any case, I don't care much for any advocacy of a "one size fits all" level of frequency of bus service for every bus route in a network.... Also, this notion that the existence of a coverage route can never be optimal in an ideal network...... All areas don't have the same amounts of people funneling in & out of them.... Also, there is such a thing as over-serving some line/route on some a mode of transportation (much as people don't like to think about it or believe it, with comments such as "well, you can never have enough bus/train service).....

....the hell you can't.

Yes, it's all about their own selfish motives; which is why I'm not putting stock into these "grades"....

But you having been to these types of meetings/hearings of the sort in the past, why would you sign (or even print) your name on... anything.... that you aren't sure of what it's for? And why would there even be a sign-in sheet to begin with? Then again, I don't bother wasting time or energy going to these pow-wow's, so it's all alien to me....

Of course not.... and quite frankly, I'm not convinced they want to see better bus service at all.... They just want to be seen & heard - much like the kid in the class sticking crayons up their nose & throwing snack packs on the wall all day....

8

Well, there's always the NIMBYs who would think otherwise. I remember when the Bx14 was first eliminated and the Bx8 was rerouted through Country Club, one of the complaints was that the Bx8 was more frequent than the Bx14.

I actually haven't been to too many meetings specifically related to transportation advocacy groups or anything. I've been to community board meetings (where it specifically says sign-in sheet), I've been to some civic association meetings (I was never asked to sign any attendance sheet), and of course, I've been to MTA meetings where they ask you to sign in. But for advocacy groups...I've never been to another Transportation Alternatives meeting, and I've never been to a Riders' Alliance meeting. So I've been to a "depth" of meetings as opposed to a "breadth" of meetings if that makes sense (I've been to a few types of meetings many times, as opposed to many types of meetings)

But yeah, the format of the sheet was the same as the sign-in sheet for community board meetings (which was "Name, Affiliation, Address, Email") so I just signed (I think the woman told me to sign in, and then later, she announced that they're working on a petition to get the bike lane installed and people should sign if they haven't already). 

11 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Someone should tell them their metrics are deficient. In general, I don't support shorter more manageable routes. People think shorter more manageable routes mean cutting routes in half. That is not the solution except in the case of the ok'd B61 where few were traveling through Downtown Brooklyn. The solution is shorter but more overlapping routes with more short services. Cutting routes in half increases the need to transfer and more three bus trips and under the current fare system it increases the necessity to pay double fares so it actually discourages bus travel.

2

The fare system is a separate issue. Even if they ignored the amount of revenue they would gain from increased ridership, there's costs that are saved relating to dispatching (less overtime because there's less of a chance for B/Os to run late). Then there's the more sinister way which is by reducing service on the lower-ridership portion (the M5 runs on similar headways compared to the way it used to, but the M55 runs a lot less frequently than the old M5).

And off the top of my head, the S74 is a perfect candidate for a clean split at the ETC. I've literally been on buses where every single passenger on the bus got off at the ETC, and a bunch of new riders got on to take their place. The M101 could see a clean split at 125th & Lexington (though as we discussed in another thread, the southern portion could be used to beef up the M98 instead of creating a bunch of M103 short-turns or something)

11 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I think routes need to have more than a single purpose to be successful. They can be feeder routes and line haul routes as well. As I said, unless you are going to operate feeder routes only in the rush hour, without another purpose they tend to run nearly empty the rest of the day and are therefore very inefficient. 

 

By that logic, the B42, B74, and Q64 should be empty outside of rush hour. 

11 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You mean that all three ARE important.  I would argue that for as much as these advocacy groups complain about bus lines needing to be redone, many of them still serve the riding public of terms of going where they need to go.  The main issue as to why ridership has plummeted is really reliability and how slow buses have become.  We could re-do several lines tomorrow.  Unless those buses move faster and come as they are scheduled, no one will really care.  You talk to any rider who stopped using buses or doesn't want to use them and ask them why they don't use them, and the first they'll say is they're SLOW and don't come as scheduled.  Rarely have I heard anyone say that they don't go where I need them to go.  

You still didn't answer my question as to why both routes lost so much ridership?

1

You rarely hear it, but it doesn't mean it has no impact. Look at routes like the QM16 (which was extended from Rockaway Park to Neponsit and eventually to Riis Park) and Q19 (which was extended from East Elmhurst to Flushing). Ridership growth on these routes is primarily due to them being extended to these new markets. And then look at the M55 where the reverse happened. 

And before you say anything, I'm saying it has more of an impact than you're implying.

5 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

It would make service worse onlynif the route were extended with fewer buses. As far as not lengthening it because that would lessen reliability, just look at those B42 complaints. They can't even operate a short route like that reliably. By your logic no existing route should ever be lengthened because it worsens reliability. In fact if you propose to lengthen any route, that is the exact reason the MTA will give you why they can't due it. But when they created the new B47 by combining by two routes or did the same with the B13, all of a sudden the length of the route was not an issue. Just total hypocrisy.  

4

Yes and no. It depends on how much traffic is on the segment that the route is being extended down, and how variable that traffic is. If an extension adds 30 minutes of runtime to a route, but there's a standard deviation of 15 minutes, then assuming travel time is normally distributed, you need to budget enough extra buses for 60 minutes worth of runtime (30+15*2 since in a normal distribution, 95% of the data points are within 2 standard deviations of the mean), and half the time, those buses are just going to be dragging the line on that portion of the route (or running early). Then you're back to the issue of slow, unreliable buses.

Yes, if there's relatively little traffic (or if there's some protection against the traffic, like a good bus lane), then yes, reliability should still remain good.

The issue is that (to quote a phrase from @B35 via Church ), there's too many super-routes and dinky shuttles. The average route in the city is about 6.8 miles long, and travels at 7.1 miles per hour (so that's around an hour of runtime), which is right around where the B1 is at. The issue is that there's too many routes on both ends of the spectrum. Sure, long routes like the Q44 and Q52/53 have their place in the system, as do short routes like the B42 and B74, but the system's routes overall should be of a similar length/runtime as the B1, or the Staten Island and Eastern Queens feeder routes.

Since we're talking about the B2/31, we have the perfect example of an imbalance: The B82 all the way from Starrett City continues further west, but the B2 & B31 from nearby Marine Park/Gerritsen Beach end at the subway station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The priorities of the MTA at this point should be to 

1. Stop the bleeding. - Take the routes seeing ridership losses of 10% or greater (most of which are in Manhattan and Brooklyn) and make any necessary improvements to them on a route by route basis. I would not recommend SBS anywhere but I would definitely go for increased short turns, better frequencies and in the odd case a restructuring of the route.

2. Avoid future bleeding. - Look at routes that are not losing big but still get tons of complaints (your Bx36, B82 and others of similar vein) and follow step 1 with those. I would recommend a split in the case of the Bx36 but that can be discussed another time. These routes are where your future bleeding will occur if left unaddressed 

3. Maximize potential ridership - Take a serious look at travel patterns in 2018 and reorganize the network as a whole around them. This is where we dive into the weeds of feeder routes and coverage routes and actually make sure that these routes satisfy the demand of our lower density neighborhoods and thus we’re maximizing ridership overall. The problem is that extensive origin and destination data is necessary (even for other modes) is necessary to determine good ideas for improvements here. 

All three should be done simultaneously but since I only trust the MTA to address one at a time they should start with #1 first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JubaionBx12+SBS said:

The priorities of the MTA at this point should be to 

1. Stop the bleeding. - Take the routes seeing ridership losses of 10% or greater (most of which are in Manhattan and Brooklyn) and make any necessary improvements to them on a route by route basis. I would not recommend SBS anywhere but I would definitely go for increased short turns, better frequencies and in the odd case a restructuring of the route.

2. Avoid future bleeding. - Look at routes that are not losing big but still get tons of complaints (your Bx36, B82 and others of similar vein) and follow step 1 with those. I would recommend a split in the case of the Bx36 but that can be discussed another time. These routes are where your future bleeding will occur if left unaddressed 

3. Maximize potential ridership - Take a serious look at travel patterns in 2018 and reorganize the network as a whole around them. This is where we dive into the weeds of feeder routes and coverage routes and actually make sure that these routes satisfy the demand of our lower density neighborhoods and thus we’re maximizing ridership overall. The problem is that extensive origin and destination data is necessary (even for other modes) is necessary to determine good ideas for improvements here. 

All three should be done simultaneously but since I only trust the MTA to address one at a time they should start with #1 first. 

I wouldn’t suggest splitting routes. I would suggest short turns more. If routes have been merged in the past 20 years you can’t just split them like that because demographics might have changed since then. So people might rely on that route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

1.  Are you referring to the old B61 from LIC to Red Hook or the new B61 from Downtown to Park Slope?

2.  You rarely hear it, but it doesn't mean it has no impact. Look at routes like the QM16 (which was extended from Rockaway Park to Neponsit and eventually to Riis Park) and Q19 (which was extended from East Elmhurst to Flushing). Ridership growth on these routes is primarily due to them being extended to these new markets. And then look at the M55 where the reverse happened. 

And before you say anything, I'm saying it has more of an impact than you're implying.

1. Hmm which one am I referring to? <_<

2.  I'm not implying anything.  I simply gave examples of routes that were too long and were a disaster.  Route extensions can work on a case-by-case basis, but that doesn't mean that an extension is needed simply because ridership is lost.  If the route is losing ridership, it would make sense to understand why before immediately extending the route.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

By that logic, the B42, B74, and Q64 should be empty outside of rush hour. 

I don't know about the Q64, but I believe the B42 and B74 are pretty lightly utilized outside of rush hour with the possible exception of school dismissal time. 

As far as runtimes and keeping buses on schedule. I venue evthe problem is unrealistic scheduling. On the B1 for example, not enough time is allotted for the traffic conditions so buses are consistently behind schedule. That's why there is the problem of buses skipping stops when they have room because they are desperately trying to stay on schedule. Garibaldi was complaining how slow the B1 is. Many times I get off at Brighton 12 and walk to the subway, because the buses are often stuck for up to seven minutes just going two short blocks. The problem is double parked trucks which are unloading their entire truck over a three hour period and this is considered legal. The traffic lights are also screwed up there. I am sure the MTA is allowing about one or the most two minutes of travel time. So the bus is now five minutes late. One wheelchair on an RTS and the bus is now ten minutes late and still has the majority of the route to go. 

Look at the Q53 where they just put in SBS. DOT was promising trips of 30 minutes quicker during rush hours because buses were consistently 30 minutes late during rush hours because of traffic. If that was the case every day, why weren't those 30 minutes put into the schedule? Without it buses are going to be messed up the entire day. And to answer my own question, they were not put in the schedule because on paper it would appear to be much more expensive to operate the route. But in actuality with the overtime needed because of the traffic delays, it actually costs more to have inadequate schedules. So why is the MTA more interested in what happens on paper than what happens realistically? For that answer you have to  look at what the incentive is for the scheduler to have it appear to operate at a lower cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. Hmm which one am I referring to? <_<

2.  I'm not implying anything.  I simply gave examples of routes that were too long and were a disaster.  Route extensions can work on a case-by-case basis, but that doesn't mean that an extension is needed simply because ridership is lost.  If the route is losing ridership, it would make sense to understand why before immediately extending the route.  

Losing ridership has nothing to do if an extension is needed. The two are separate issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Losing ridership has nothing to do if an extension is needed. The two are separate issues.

Well then why do you insist on saying that the B2 and B31 need to be extended as if that is going to be the saving grace? If reliable service was run then you wouldn't see the high losses of ridership in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JubaionBx12+SBS said:

The priorities of the MTA at this point should be to 

1. Stop the bleeding. - Take the routes seeing ridership losses of 10% or greater (most of which are in Manhattan and Brooklyn) and make any necessary improvements to them on a route by route basis. I would not recommend SBS anywhere but I would definitely go for increased short turns, better frequencies and in the odd case a restructuring of the route.

2. Avoid future bleeding. - Look at routes that are not losing big but still get tons of complaints (your Bx36, B82 and others of similar vein) and follow step 1 with those. I would recommend a split in the case of the Bx36 but that can be discussed another time. These routes are where your future bleeding will occur if left unaddressed 

3. Maximize potential ridership - Take a serious look at travel patterns in 2018 and reorganize the network as a whole around them. This is where we dive into the weeds of feeder routes and coverage routes and actually make sure that these routes satisfy the demand of our lower density neighborhoods and thus we’re maximizing ridership overall. The problem is that extensive origin and destination data is necessary (even for other modes) is necessary to determine good ideas for improvements here. 

All three should be done simultaneously but since I only trust the MTA to address one at a time they should start with #1 first. 

Which is the exact opposite of the MTA's philosophy which is why we are in the state we are now in.

1. Their philosophy: on routes with losses of greater than 10 percent, cut service the most to match the ridership loss to save on operating expenses while assuming riders will just wait longer for the bus or switch to other routes with capacity so that no ridership is list. Of course this has been proven wrong time and time again. Yet they continue to practice this. 

2. Routes with tons of complaints. Put all your Road Operations resources there until riders complain about other routes, then move all your resources there. 

3. Reorganize the network by looking at your most heavily used limited routes and turn them into SBS routes which cost more to operate and may have greater fare evasion rates so paid ridership will continue to drop further. Don't investigate if any other routes need to be changed or if the SBS should connect new neighborhoods because that would require public hearings and may jeopardize you from jamming the route down the public' throat. Forget about origin an destination data because that is just too much work and may show a need to increase bus service and since we lose money on every new mile provided, let's give them a few new dinky 30 minute shuttles to give the appearance we care about about service when our objective really is to provide the least amount of service we can get away with politically so that Uber and dollar vans can fill the gap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 11:06 PM, aemoreira81 said:

It's interesting that a picture of the M15 is shown. With the partial opening of the SAS to 96 Street, and the subsequent relief on the Lexington Avenue line, ridership on the M15 has to have dropped significantly now that the subway is an alternative. I would also expect major ridership declines on the M66 and M31 as well (which serve the hospital and college corridor on York Avenue). That ridership has likely transferred to the (Q) (72 Street-2 Avenue is a madhouse on weekdays), whereas it would have been previously on buses. The relief on Lexington Avenue has likely also opened up space on the (6), which in turn reduces ridership on the 3 and Lexington Avenue buses as well.

They actually cut (6) service during the PM rush, so that route is still crowded at least at that hour. I'm sure the M101/102/103 still has healthy ridership during the week.

On 2/10/2018 at 3:07 AM, N6 Limited said:

Padded running time is an issue as well. When you have B/O's driving like they're powering the bus with their legs like the Flintstones and purposely waiting at green traffic signals, you can't put all the blame on traffic, and double parked vehicles.

With B/O's driving 15mph in a 25mph zone and stopping at green lights, I'm surprised that (MTA) buses don't get rear ended by other drivers that are  actually doing 25, let alone all the ones that are speeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well then why do you insist on saying that the B2 and B31 need to be extended as if that is going to be the saving grace? If reliable service was run then you wouldn't see the high losses of ridership in the first place.

As I already pointed out, the B31 is not losing ridership and went into great detail why the B2 lost so much ridership.  Also pointed out that running routes strictly as feeders insures they run nearly empty outside of rush hours and perhaps school dismissal times. That makes for very inefficient operations. Routes need to connect to many other routes to be successful because a high number of trips require transfers due to the high number of different destinations that have to be reached. (I believe like 50 percent of the riders transfer at least once.) Both routes have very limited transfers. Successful routes have medium to high ridership outside of rush hours. If you are going to operate feeders only during rush hours, then it wouldn't matter. We don't do that here and we shouldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

As I already pointed out, the B31 is not losing ridership and went into great detail why the B2 lost so much ridership.  Also pointed out that running routes strictly as feeders insures they run nearly empty outside of rush hours and perhaps school dismissal times. That makes for very inefficient operations. Routes need to connect to many other routes to be successful because a high number of trips require transfers due to the high number of different destinations that have to be reached. (I believe like 50 percent of the riders transfer at least once.) Both routes have very limited transfers. Successful routes have medium to high ridership outside of rush hours. If you are going to operate feeders only during rush hours, then it wouldn't matter. We don't do that here and we shouldn't. 

I still don't understand what makes you so certain that extending this routes west will mean more ridership. I personally don't see it.  

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I don't know about the Q64, but I believe the B42 and B74 are pretty lightly utilized outside of rush hour with the possible exception of school dismissal time. 

As far as runtimes and keeping buses on schedule. I venue evthe problem is unrealistic scheduling. On the B1 for example, not enough time is allotted for the traffic conditions so buses are consistently behind schedule. That's why there is the problem of buses skipping stops when they have room because they are desperately trying to stay on schedule. Garibaldi was complaining how slow the B1 is. Many times I get off at Brighton 12 and walk to the subway, because the buses are often stuck for up to seven minutes just going two short blocks. The problem is double parked trucks which are unloading their entire truck over a three hour period and this is considered legal. The traffic lights are also screwed up there. I am sure the MTA is allowing about one or the most two minutes of travel time. So the bus is now five minutes late. One wheelchair on an RTS and the bus is now ten minutes late and still has the majority of the route to go. 

Look at the Q53 where they just put in SBS. DOT was promising trips of 30 minutes quicker during rush hours because buses were consistently 30 minutes late during rush hours because of traffic. If that was the case every day, why weren't those 30 minutes put into the schedule? Without it buses are going to be messed up the entire day. And to answer my own question, they were not put in the schedule because on paper it would appear to be much more expensive to operate the route. But in actuality with the overtime needed because of the traffic delays, it actually costs more to have inadequate schedules. So why is the MTA more interested in what happens on paper than what happens realistically? For that answer you have to  look at what the incentive is for the scheduler to have it appear to operate at a lower cost

The B42 is well used outside of rush hour, I ride the line regularly. I was once on an RTS B42 that was crushloaded to the white line... on a Saturday afternoon!

 

I usually get on at the 3rd stop Rock Park bound and at that point most of the seats are taken.

Edited by trainfan22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

....Also pointed out that running routes strictly as feeders insures they run nearly empty outside of rush hours and perhaps school dismissal times. That makes for very inefficient operations. Routes need to connect to many other routes to be successful because a high number of trips require transfers due to the high number of different destinations that have to be reached. (I believe like 50 percent of the riders transfer at least once.) Both routes have very limited transfers. Successful routes have medium to high ridership outside of rush hours. If you are going to operate feeders only during rush hours, then it wouldn't matter. We don't do that here and we shouldn't. 

I don't think anyone here (at least) is advocating running feeder routes only during the rush.... The city's bus network doesn't need a bunch of Bx20's within it & the general consensus around here has been to either [get rid of that route] or to [have its service span expanded].....

It's as if you're speaking from the vantage point that the feeder routes we have in our system all resemble/have the (same issues as the) B2 or something..... All feeder routes are certainly not created equal; you cannot honestly tell me that the Flushing feeders & Jamaica feeders are inefficient operations that run almost empty outside of the rush...

14 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The issue is that (to quote a phrase from @B35 via Church ), there's too many super-routes and dinky shuttles. The average route in the city is about 6.8 miles long, and travels at 7.1 miles per hour (so that's around an hour of runtime), which is right around where the B1 is at. The issue is that there's too many routes on both ends of the spectrum. Sure, long routes like the Q44 and Q52/53 have their place in the system, as do short routes like the B42 and B74, but the system's routes overall should be of a similar length/runtime as the B1, or the Staten Island and Eastern Queens feeder routes.....

The B12 I'd also put in that category with the B1 (route length-wise; for the amt. of riders is carries).... Robust, would be a good word to use here.

I get the point you're making & the B1 example is one that I often used on these forums (as being a/being the quintessential route)... However, I don't think we have too many superroutes & dinky shuttles (yet)... I actually think we have a good amount of (I suppose what you'd call) intermediate routes in the network - the problem is that, for whatever their particular/individual reasons, you have as many of these routes that aren't akin to a route like the B1.....

14 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Well, there's always the NIMBYs who would think otherwise. I remember when the Bx14 was first eliminated and the Bx8 was rerouted through Country Club, one of the complaints was that the Bx8 was more frequent than the Bx14.

I actually haven't been to too many meetings specifically related to transportation advocacy groups or anything. I've been to community board meetings (where it specifically says sign-in sheet), I've been to some civic association meetings (I was never asked to sign any attendance sheet), and of course, I've been to MTA meetings where they ask you to sign in. But for advocacy groups...I've never been to another Transportation Alternatives meeting, and I've never been to a Riders' Alliance meeting. So I've been to a "depth" of meetings as opposed to a "breadth" of meetings if that makes sense (I've been to a few types of meetings many times, as opposed to many types of meetings)

But yeah, the format of the sheet was the same as the sign-in sheet for community board meetings (which was "Name, Affiliation, Address, Email") so I just signed (I think the woman told me to sign in, and then later, she announced that they're working on a petition to get the bike lane installed and people should sign if they haven't already). 

If the Bx8 was a route that ran to Parkchester, I seriously doubt any concerns would have been raised about too many buses.... Funny how you didn't hear a peep out of them before the Bx14 cuts..... They weren't (and still aren't) going to be satisfied until "their" route was going to have service restored to Parkchester again.....

NIMBY's, generally speaking, don't want the buses to begin with, so that's something else altogether.... I'm referring to the people that want bus service, that you'll never really hear about service being too plentiful.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I don't think anyone here (at least) is advocating running feeder routes only during the rush.... The city's bus network doesn't need a bunch of Bx20's within it & the general consensus around here has been to either [get rid of that route] or to [have its service span expanded].....

It's as if you're speaking from the vantage point that the feeder routes we have in our system all resemble/have the (same issues as the) B2 or something..... All feeder routes are certainly not created equal; you cannot honestly tell me that the Flushing feeders & Jamaica feeders are inefficient operations that run almost empty outside of the rush...

The B12 I'd also put in that category with the B1 (route length-wise; for the amt. of riders is carries).... Robust, would be a good word to use here.

I get the point you're making & the B1 example is one that I often used on these forums (as being a/being the quintessential route)... However, I don't think we have too many superroutes & dinky shuttles (yet)... I actually think we have a good amount of (I suppose what you'd call) intermediate routes in the network - the problem is that, for whatever their particular/individual reasons, you have as many of these routes that aren't akin to a route like the B1.....

If the Bx8 was a route that ran to Parkchester, I seriously doubt any concerns would have been raised about too many buses.... Funny how you didn't hear a peep out of them before the Bx14 cuts..... They weren't (and still aren't) going to be satisfied until "their" route was going to have service restored to Parkchester again.....

NIMBY's, generally speaking, don't want the buses to begin with, so that's something else altogether.... I'm referring to the people that want bus service, that you'll never really hear about service being too plentiful.....

When I was speaking about feeder routes, I was talking about short routes where like  at least 75 percent of the riders are bound for the subway and the route only transfers to like two or three other routes. The Queens feeders do not fall into that category because although many are going to the subway during rush hour, they make numerous connections and are used throughout the day for a number of other purposes to get across the borough. I would bet that during the day half the riders are not going or coming from the subway. That can't be said about routes like  the B2 and B31. 

Also, please remember that I created the B1 one Saturday morning while lying in bed when it hit me. Before then I was simply thinking of running it from 86 Street and Fourth Avenue and combining the remainder of the B34 and the very old B1 through Sheepshead Bay as the B86. If I didn't do that, the most the MTA would have done on their own would have been to combine the B34 with the B1 with every other bus still terminating at 25 Avenue and 20 minute service the rest of the way as the B1 has at that time. It never would have been as successful as operating it on Ocean Parkway incorporating the B21 as I did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

The B42 is well used outside of rush hour, I ride the line regularly. I was once on an RTS B42 that was crushloaded to the white line... on a Saturday afternoon!

 

I usually get on at the 3rd stop Rock Park bound and at that point most of the seats are taken.

The day it was crushloaded, how late was it? I often used it as a kid on Saturdays and Sundays and they only ran two buses and I never saw more than a handful of riders on them. By the time we got to the pier, there only were about two or three other passengers left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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