Why the not-in-service bus won't stop for you

[BrooklynBus]

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

A B/O mentioned that there's some College Point runs that deadhead down the Van Wyck to Jamaica (which at least has some semblance of logic, bypassing traffic in Flushing and all the stops and turns and so on) and even some B46 runs that deadhead to WBP.

The Van Wyck makes some sense as does deadhead on the B1 from Fourth Avenue to Ulmer Park via the Belt. But there is no quick way for the B46 to get from The WB to Flatbush Depot. That's insane. 

[BrooklynBus]

Byford responds: 

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/bus-boss-checking-nyct-service-signs/article_2d586073-1fbd-5037-b67c-fb31fe49aa90.html

[Deucey]

On 3/29/2018 at 4:31 PM, BrooklynBus said:

Byford responds: 

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/bus-boss-checking-nyct-service-signs/article_2d586073-1fbd-5037-b67c-fb31fe49aa90.html

All his “I’ll look into this” is nice and all, but it also seems like Byford is loathe to rock the boat by saying “Dammit, get it done.”

On this alone, I feel like asking staff “why do we do this” isn’t a question that requires weeks for an answer before more weeks go by to figure out how to get it done. But, it being , that’s how it’ll go before a fix is watered down.

Which is why I hope that he’s saying “I’ll look into it” is public PR speak and that inside the offices, his emails and verbal directives are akin to”What you arseholes are gonna do is...”

[BrooklynBus]

7 hours ago, Deucey said:

All his “I’ll look into this” is nice and all, but it also seems like Byford is loathe to rock the boat by saying “Dammit, get it done.”

On this alone, I feel like asking staff “why do we do this” isn’t a question that requires weeks for an answer before more weeks go by to figure out how to get it done. But, it being , that’s how it’ll go before a fix is watered down.

Which is why I hope that he’s saying “I’ll look into it” is public PR speak and that inside the offices, his emails and verbal directives are akin to”What you arseholes are gonna do is...”

I have given him enough to chew on in a series of e-mails I sent him that he also promised to look into. We will see how long it takes and if he is willing to accept nonsense answers or replace a few people who aren't willing to respond to him in an appropriate manner. What he says privately to his staff doesn't interest me. It's the results that matter and I will have my answer in about a month as to if he is serious about rocking the boat or if it will be business as usual. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

On 3/23/2018 at 10:14 PM, azspeedbullet said:

i hate this, i wish mta force bus drivers to take action. i lost count on how many bus bypass my stop due to the lazy folks not moving the rear. The rear of the bus is complexity empty.. The bus could of stopped and let people board using the rear door. At least this is allowable on the SBS routes

The reason why this was implemented was to have b/o's avoid conflict which could potentially lead to an assault, which will lead to a comp case. I personally have told customers over the years that it's against federal law for me to operate a bus with anyone over the white line and especially if my vision is blocked where i can't see my right side mirrors. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

On 3/25/2018 at 3:02 PM, B35 via Church said:

Which sparks the question....

Just what are some of the longest DH's we have in the system anyway?

Jackie Gleason Depot to Brownsville for the B8/35 has to be up there. I know the SBS Q53 still has am deadheads from La Guardia to Beach 116 Station. B100 from Spring Creek to Mill Basin is one deadhead I've always considered ridiculous. Idk if it's one of the highest in the system, but i guarantee it doesn't help matters

[BrooklynBus]

4 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

Jackie Gleason Depot to Brownsville for the B8/35 has to be up there. I know the SBS Q53 still has am deadheads from La Guardia to Beach 116 Station. B100 from Spring Creek to Mill Basin is one deadhead I've always considered ridiculous. Idk if it's one of the highest in the system, but i guarantee it doesn't help matters

Especially when the B100 passes right in front of Flatbush depot.

[EastFlatbushLarry]

4 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Especially when the B100 passes right in front of Flatbush depot.

Agreed. And i understand that it's a union issue that management may not want to rock the boat with, but at the end of the day, if transit management is about cutting costs, the runs & lines belong to transit, NOT to the unions. So just like the CP/La Guardia swap, some lines could easily be placed in depots where it makes more logistical sense. 

[BrooklynBus]

On March 23, 2018 at 10:14 PM, azspeedbullet said:

i hate this, i wish mta force bus drivers to take action. i lost count on how many bus bypass my stop due to the lazy folks not moving the rear. The rear of the bus is complexity empty.. The bus could of stopped and let people board using the rear door. At least this is allowable on the SBS routes

Once a driver stopped and pointed for me to go in the back door so he wouldn't have to pass me up. That should be policy. Another driver who was not in service at 9:30 PM stopped to pick me up for a few blocks because he realized how ridiculous it is for him to operate not in service at that hour when service is so infrequent. 

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

Agreed. And i understand that it's a union issue that management may not want to rock the boat with, but at the end of the day, if transit management is about cutting costs, the runs & lines belong to transit, NOT to the unions. So just like the CP/La Guardia swap, some lines could easily be placed in depots where it makes more logistical sense. 

Also, at the end of the day, there's plenty of service gaps that need to be addressed (both frequency and routing-wise). IMO the smart thing for the unions to do would be to figure out ways to get the extra runs/hours back in a more productive way (Whether it's a longer span/more frequent service, routing extensions, more people available to cover missing trips, etc)

[BrooklynBus]

On 4/1/2018 at 11:23 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Also, at the end of the day, there's plenty of service gaps that need to be addressed (both frequency and routing-wise). IMO the smart thing for the unions to do would be to figure out ways to get the extra runs/hours back in a more productive way (Whether it's a longer span/more frequent service, routing extensions, more people available to cover missing trips, etc)

The problem with addressing service gaps are not the unions. It's the MTA who doesn't want to spend money to fill them because they assume the buses will operate without any riders when they do their budget calculations. 

[JeremiahC99]

4 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

The problem with addressing service gaps are not the unions. It's the MTA who doesn't want to spend money to fill them because they assume the buses will operate without any riders when they do their budget calculations. 

Why would they assume that the buses would have no passengers on them? Wouldn't it be logical to do their budget calculations assuming that the buses would carry at least 53 passengers?

[BrooklynBus]

They usually never relate operating expenses to revenue. When we were in discussions with them in 1976 for the southwest Brooklyn changes, they claimed all the changes would cost over $1 million extra in operating costs each year and they couldn't afford it. They were only willing to spend $250,000 extra so they only did a quarter of what we asked. I asked them how they arrived at that number and they figured out the additional bus miles which they claimed cost something like $2 or $3 per mile extra. When I asked what about the cost being offset by additional patronage, they said we assume we won't get any extra riders because if the changes when we d our calculations and if we do it is just "gravy". 

Now that was 40 years ago before Operations Planning. In 2004, when I formally resubmitted many of the proposals you see on my website, they were all rejected. By then they weren't even willing to spend an extra quarter million on changes and declared all new routes and extensions had to be cost neutral meaning service would have to be taken away elsewhere. Many were rejected because they weren't cost  neutral. One was rejected because they claimed it would cost an extra $50,000 per year. I showed that if each trip attracted two additional passengers because of the improvement, it would be zero cost. But they refused to consider to possibility of added patronage. 

The onl time I saw them consider new patronage was when they rerouted a bus route adding five minutes to serve Resorts World. They were ordered to make the change and it wasn't cost neutral. So they just added a statement in the staff summary claiming that they would attract x amount of new passengers to offset the added cost. There was zero basis given for their estimate of new passengers. It just happen to be a coincidence I guess that the revenue from their claimed analysis which I am sure was never undertaken jus happened to match the dollars they needed to make their proposal cost neutral

[JeremiahC99]

23 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

They usually never relate operating expenses to revenue. When we were in discussions with them in 1976 for the southwest Brooklyn changes, they claimed all the changes would cost over $1 million extra in operating costs each year and they couldn't afford it. They were only willing to spend $250,000 extra so they only did a quarter of what we asked. I asked them how they arrived at that number and they figured out the additional bus miles which they claimed cost something like $2 or $3 per mile extra. When I asked what about the cost being offset by additional patronage, they said we assume we won't get any extra riders because if the changes when we d our calculations and if we do it is just "gravy". 

Now that was 40 years ago before Operations Planning. In 2004, when I formally resubmitted many of the proposals you see on my website, they were all rejected. By then they weren't even willing to spend an extra quarter million on changes and declared all new routes and extensions had to be cost neutral meaning service would have to be taken away elsewhere. Many were rejected because they weren't cost  neutral. One was rejected because they claimed it would cost an extra $50,000 per year. I showed that if each trip attracted two additional passengers because of the improvement, it would be zero cost. But they refused to consider to possibility of added patronage. 

The onl time I saw them consider new patronage was when they rerouted a bus route adding five minutes to serve Resorts World. They were ordered to make the change and it wasn't cost neutral. So they just added a statement in the staff summary claiming that they would attract x amount of new passengers to offset the added cost. There was zero basis given for their estimate of new passengers. It just happen to be a coincidence I guess that the revenue from their claimed analysis which I am sure was never undertaken jus happened to match the dollars they needed to make their proposal cost neutral

Do you think that a revamp of one boroughs bus system will also be rejected by these "accountants" for not being cost neutral? How much do you think a redesign of the Brooklyn Bus Network will cost to operate?

 

Also, it is just me, or is Operations Planning being run by "accountants" instead of people who know how to plan a transit system (someone like you comes to mind)?

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Do you think that a revamp of one boroughs bus system will also be rejected by these "accountants" for not being cost neutral? How much do you think a redesign of the Brooklyn Bus Network will cost to operate?

 

Also, it is just me, or is Operations Planning being run by "accountants" instead of people who know how to plan a transit system (someone like you comes to mind)?

As far as I know they are still insisting on this cost neutral nonsense. Imagine what would happen to any successful company that used this philosophy and refused to ever make investments in service? Operations Planning is not run by accountants. They are "Planners" who have to answer to accountants. It has been this way since the early 80s when they placed Operations Planning under what was then called "Planning and Budget". Now it's the Office of Management and Budget that decides what is allocated to each department and they are the ones who decreed this neutral cost planning that Operations Planning must follow. 

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, BrooklynBus said:

As far as I know they are still insisting on this cost neutral nonsense. Imagine what would happen to any successful company that used this philosophy and refused to ever make investments in service? Operations Planning is not run by accountants. They are "Planners" who have to answer to accountants. It has been this way since the early 80s when they placed Operations Planning under what was then called "Planning and Budget". Now it's the Office of Management and Budget that decides what is allocated to each department and they are the ones who decreed this neutral cost planning that Operations Planning must follow. 

And do these guys care about serving the passengers?

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And do these guys care about serving the passengers?

Not the planners or those above them. They want to provide the least possible amount of service they can get away with politically. That goes for subways as well as buses. They believe for each mile of vehicular travel, they lose x dollars, so for every mile less they operate service, they wil like that much fewer dollars. All they care about are the buses. Those in charge of keeping the buses and trains reliable do care and want to provide good service, but I believe they are so I adequately staffed, all they can do is put out fires by moving staff to wherever the complaints are the loudest. It's hard to generalize about the MTA because some are very dedicated and try their damnest to do the right thing and then there are those who do the minimum amount of work possible and are just waiting for their pension. 

 

[Deucey]

@BrooklynBus, I’m curious. After you left , what did you do for work?

Cuz you seem too good at analysis and planning to have not been recruited to do so for other organizations.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

@BrooklynBus, I’m curious. After you left , what did you do for work?

Cuz you seem too good at analysis and planning to have not been recruited to do so for other organizations.

I spent 2 1/2 years in Planning, and 22 1/4 years in other departments of the MTA including Contracts, Car Equipment, working in the Executive VP's office and the last 12 years at the Central Electronics Shop where I processed insurance claims for disasters, prepared procedures manuals and put together a monthly departmental newsletter, and other assorted stuff. Then I retired in 2005. After that I wrote a weekly transportation column for a local blog for five years which is still on line at Bklyner.com without pay. So I really didn't work anywhere else after the MTA, but did  Transportation planning for seven years at the Department of City Planning before starting at the MTA. So I did Planning for a total of 9 1/2 years. 

[checkmatechamp13]

12 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

The problem with addressing service gaps are not the unions. It's the MTA who doesn't want to spend money to fill them because they assume the buses will operate without any riders when they do their budget calculations. 

I'm not saying the unions are an obstacle to addressing service gaps. What I'm saying is that instead of blindly fighting against proposals that reduce costs, they should advocate that MTA use the money saved by those proposals and reinvest it in the system. For example, all the money saved by not having to deadhead between Mill Basin & Spring Creek could at the very least be used for extra service on the B100. That way, at the very least, it benefits the MTA and its passengers (It gives the passengers more frequent service and hopefully attracts a few more riders to the MTA system, or at least retains existing riders that would've otherwise shifted to alternate modes) while still maintaining a similar amount of work for the union members.

There was another thread where a union leader supported all-door boarding on the buses, and somebody commented "He's supposed to be representing the workers, not the riders" and "We get paid by the hour, so what difference does it make if the buses run faster or slower?". Of course, the big picture is, the quicker the service is, the more people will ride it, and the more runs that will be needed in the future.

I remember I asked the borough president's office for assistance in getting the S57/66 restructuring implemented, and he reached out to the ATU 726 representatives. Their response was something along the lines of "It's too complicated, the better solution is to simply restore the route". Of course, that completely ignores the issue of the fact that there was never a local route serving that corridor in the first place, and (aside from showing a complete lack of concern for the passengers), it also shows that they weren't looking at the big picture. Sure, you could restore weekend service on the S66 (which was cut in 1995), but potential for growth would be limited compared to putting weekend service on it and restructuring it with the S57 because then you can talk about increased frequencies, limited-stop service, and a longer span, which ultimately translates to more work for them in the long run.

[BrooklynBus]

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'm not saying the unions are an obstacle to addressing service gaps. What I'm saying is that instead of blindly fighting against proposals that reduce costs, they should advocate that MTA use the money saved by those proposals and reinvest it in the system. For example, all the money saved by not having to deadhead between Mill Basin & Spring Creek could at the very least be used for extra service on the B100. That way, at the very least, it benefits the MTA and its passengers (It gives the passengers more frequent service and hopefully attracts a few more riders to the MTA system, or at least retains existing riders that would've otherwise shifted to alternate modes) while still maintaining a similar amount of work for the union members.

There was another thread where a union leader supported all-door boarding on the buses, and somebody commented "He's supposed to be representing the workers, not the riders" and "We get paid by the hour, so what difference does it make if the buses run faster or slower?". Of course, the big picture is, the quicker the service is, the more people will ride it, and the more runs that will be needed in the future.

I remember I asked the borough president's office for assistance in getting the S57/66 restructuring implemented, and he reached out to the ATU 726 representatives. Their response was something along the lines of "It's too complicated, the better solution is to simply restore the route". Of course, that completely ignores the issue of the fact that there was never a local route serving that corridor in the first place, and (aside from showing a complete lack of concern for the passengers), it also shows that they weren't looking at the big picture. Sure, you could restore weekend service on the S66 (which was cut in 1995), but potential for growth would be limited compared to putting weekend service on it and restructuring it with the S57 because then you can talk about increased frequencies, limited-stop service, and a longer span, which ultimately translates to more work for them in the long run.

You are correct. But even if the unions did fight for better bus service, the MTA still has to be convinced that better service means added riders. Why is it that in every staff summary asking for approval of a new SBS route, the Board is requested for an increase in the operating budget of $2 million to $3 million? Why do they not have to follow the zero increased cost scenario that other route changes must follow? Why is their no estimate of increased patronage for new SBS routes to partially recoup some of the increased costs? Even if they do believe better service results in some added ridership, they still believe that more riders equates with a larger deficit which is why there is no push to increase ridership or improve service. Do you have any ideas of how to get the MTA to change their beliefs? 

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Do you have any ideas of how to get the MTA to change their beliefs? 

Get rid of Civil Service protection for management, and pay them based on growth and on-time performance?

(Like other industries do...)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

13 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Get rid of Civil Service protection for management, and pay them based on growth and on-time performance?

(Like other industries do...)

LMAO... In our fantasy world... I don't see the union EVER giving their arrangement up.  

[Deucey]

24 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

LMAO... In our fantasy world... I don't see the union EVER giving their arrangement up.  

I'd have to check the law on it, but I remember during one of these transit strikes - here or LA, that if the government declared it to be an essential service - like public safety, then it can change the union's role from being able to dictate positions to solely collective bargaining and disciplinary representation.

If that's the case...

[BrooklynBus]

46 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Get rid of Civil Service protection for management, and pay them based on growth and on-time performance?

(Like other industries do...)

I don't see civil service as the real problem. Virtually all management are provisional employees and did not get there by taking any civil service test. The problems are internal. Good performance is not recognized. Performance evaluations are a joke. What is important is knowing how to bs your way out of a difficult situation and finding someone else to blame when something goes wrong and to take credit for everything done right even if you had nothing to do with it. Many promotions are political. No one cares if you do something to help the customer. But if you figure out a way to save them a few bucks no matter how short sighted, you may be rewarded. Departments are not reorganized to make the MTA more efficient. They are reorganized so as to give a favored employee a big promotion. I have seen entire departments created that way and when the head of it moves on or retires, the department is abolished because for some reason it is decided it is no longer required. Just look at how many times the position of Executive Director of the MTA is created so that figurehead chairmen can be appointed like Lhota who works four hours a week for the MTA (his real job is with Langone), and Kalikow when Eliot Sander really ran the MTA. Then the position is abolished when they decide to hire real chairmen like Jay Walder and Tom Prendergast. Why do we need figurehead chairmen? It is because there was clamor for change because of Hakim's failure, but she is still really the head with Lhota just the face. And look how she messed up NJ Transit and was appointed chairman anyway after Prendergast retired. Nothing will change until you get rid of all the politics. Also, Cuomo needs to let the MTA run things without dictating his personal agenda like an LGA link that was never even studied. 

32 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

LMAO... In our fantasy world... I don't see the union EVER giving their arrangement up.  

Management is not unionized.