New Yorker: Can Andy Byford Save the Subways?

[Gotham Bus Co.]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

No one gives two shits about Straphangers Campaign.

I also find this whole notion that there would be nothing to complain about if the system starts functioning again extremely narrowminded. Beyond our system's operational issues, we still have massive problems regarding a lack of modal integration, transit deserts, high fares, stone-age service patterns, little coordination between transit and development, and inefficient transportational governance (to name a few). In short, there is so much more wrong with transit than just the way it runs today. 

 

And if all of those issues were also resolved?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

And if all of those issues were also resolved?

You wouldn't here singing your usual tune? 

[WestFarms36]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You wouldn't here singing your usual tune? 

LMFAO. Seriously, Elected officials would have been playing with their fingers all day if there was nothing wrong in the city or Subway.

[traildriver]

On 7/6/2018 at 11:01 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Policymakers came to their senses in the early eighties; they hired better leaders, who demanded adequate budgets. In the next decade, nearly all of the system’s track was improved, half the stations were renovated, and thousands of cars were replaced. Crime fell, after a crackdown on, of all things, fare evasion. Reliable air-conditioning was installed. Ridership surged. Byford likes to point to the rescue of the system from its graffiti-slathered nadir as proof that it can be done again: “We’ve been here before. We can succeed.”

This section of the quoted article does not give any credit to David Gunn, for the leader that accomplished that...

[N6 Limited]

Interesting article.  Hopefully, Byford will work on eliminating the next 10 useless timers, etc. Get the "rapid" back in Rapid transit.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 7/12/2018 at 12:10 PM, N6 Limited said:

Interesting article.  Hopefully, Byford will work on eliminating the next 10 useless timers, etc. Get the "rapid" back in Rapid transit.

Faster trains ==> less running time ==> less pay.  The TWU would never allow that.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Faster trains ==> less running time ==> less pay.  The TWU would never allow that.

Faster trains ==> higher OTP ==> more/more reliable terminal downtime for operators ==> better quality of life. 

The MTA has a lot going against it, but I don’t subscribe to the level of tin foil hattiness you espouse. 

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Faster trains ==> less running time ==> less pay.  The TWU would never allow that.

Actually the TWU has been practically imploring the MTA to get rid of unnecessary timers

[T to Dyre Avenue]

7 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Faster trains ==> less running time ==> less pay.  The TWU would never allow that.

Fewer timers ==> less running time PLUS fewer chances of running a red signal ==> T/O’s not getting jammed up by management. Yes, I think TWU would go for that. Plus better on-time performance. I think management would go for that, no? At least competent management (something that has long been in short supply at Transit) would.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 7/8/2018 at 5:43 PM, RR503 said:

I also find this whole notion that there would be nothing to complain about if the system starts functioning again extremely narrowminded. Beyond our system's operational issues, we still have massive problems regarding a lack of modal integration, transit deserts, high fares, stone-age service patterns, little coordination between transit and development, and inefficient transportational governance (to name a few). In short, there is so much more wrong with transit than just the way it runs today. 

 

It's not that there would be "nothing" to complain about.

It's that there would be less to complain about, and therefore less income for those who complain for a living.

[checkmatechamp13]

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

Faster trains ==> higher OTP ==> more/more reliable terminal downtime for operators ==> better quality of life. 

The MTA has a lot going against it, but I don’t subscribe to the level of tin foil hattiness you espouse. 

Also, higher OTP ==> more ridership ==> more justification for more runs (or more hours per run). I know there's issues with capacity and subway car shortages, but there are still corridors/time frames where more service could be added.

[RR503]

18 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Also, higher OTP ==> more ridership ==> more justification for more runs (or more hours per run). I know there's issues with capacity and subway car shortages, but there are still corridors/time frames where more service could be added.

Indeed. Not to digress too much, but not counting 3rd Ave El, we ran about 500 trains per hour into the core in 1954. Sixty or so years later — after having benefitted from improvements like the Chrystie St Connection, 63rd St, SAS, we manage only about 380 — a 25% reduction. If we learned to see beyond the circularity that is ridership-determined service levels, and thus leveraged capacity properly, we wouldn’t have nearly as many overcrowded line segments as we do at present. 

36 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

It's not that there would be "nothing" to complain about.

It's that there would be less to complain about, and therefore less income for those who complain for a living.

Honey, their complaints about all this stuff barely scratch the surface. I assure you they’d have no problem making hay even with a system with the functionality of the Tokyo metro. I also think that a lot of politics is taking credit for improvements (see Andy Byford in the article that informed this thread “my job is to make the politicians look good”), so I think that making a serious dent in these issues is not in any way some sort of political penalty. 

[Mysterious2train]

2 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

It's not that there would be "nothing" to complain about.

It's that there would be less to complain about, and therefore less income for those who complain for a living.

"Less" is still more than enough to sustain these groups. I volunteer with Riders Alliance sometimes. These 3 big campaigns/complaints (camplaints?) were "Fair Fares", "Fix the Subway" (primarily pushing for the passage of congestion pricing) and "Bus Turnarouns" (focused on all the same stuff we're familiar with). Since the city agreed to fund Fair Fares, all the people who worked on that campaign will just focus on the general subway and bus camapigns instead. The organization isn't shrinking by any means. I would say if anything, the fact that the taxi/for-hire vehicle surcharge made it into the state budget this year leaves the subway camplainers even more optimistic about campaigning for congestion pricing. And besides, on the capital side of things there's a certain number of built-in things to camplain about. Accessibility will continue to be an outstanding concern, as long as time passes and the MTA continues to move at a glacial pace (and can't meet aggressive deadlines like the ones in the Fast Forward plan) there will always be a chunk of stations/railcars, etc. needing renovation/replacement, the capital programs perennially have gaps that need filling due to reductions in dedicated city/state funding, etc. There's no shortage of things to camplain about.

[bobtehpanda]

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

Faster trains ==> higher OTP ==> more/more reliable terminal downtime for operators ==> better quality of life. 

The MTA has a lot going against it, but I don’t subscribe to the level of tin foil hattiness you espouse. 

IIRC if you poll bus operators, a lot of them actually really like features of SBS, because it makes their jobs easier. No one likes getting stuck in traffic, no one likes asking unruly people to pay the fare, no one likes constantly hitting reds, getting stuck behind cars parked in the bus stop, etc. Now imagine doing that for hours every single day.

Note: I say features of SBS because obviously not all features are popular with all people.

[bulk88]

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC if you poll bus operators, a lot of them actually really like features of SBS, because it makes their jobs easier. No one likes getting stuck in traffic, no one likes asking unruly people to pay the fare, no one likes constantly hitting reds, getting stuck behind cars parked in the bus stop, etc. Now imagine doing that for hours every single day.

Delay==OT==more $$$ for vehicle operator.

[bobtehpanda]

1 minute ago, bulk88 said:

Delay==OT==more $$$ for vehicle operator.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/how-do-you-fix-the-bus-we-asked-the-drivers/562898/

Quote

In our research, we sat down and spoke with 373 bus operators in Brooklyn. They described their experiences and helped us understand how to combine their observations and specialized knowledge with technical tweaks and improvements to tailor better solutions.

The top fix they’d like to see is off-board fare collection. Managing the farebox creates lots of opportunities for conflict with passengers. According to the Transport Workers Union Local 100, 75 Brooklyn bus operators were assaulted in 2017, in part because of disputes over payment. Relatedly, some 90 percent of the bus operators who responded to our survey said that all-door boarding, which would be made possible by off-board fare payment, would make them more effective at their jobs, the highest show of support for any change.

The second most important issue they highlighted was traffic and bus lane enforcement. The two issues that cause operators the most stress are double-parked vehicles (79 percent) and traffic (63 percent). In addition, 82 percent of operators said reduced congestion would make them more effective at their job. This finding is especially salient because New York has already rolled out camera-enforced bus lanes on some routes. Operators told us that these lanes don’t do enough to keep buses from getting trapped behind double-parked vehicles, taxis that are picking up or dropping off, and vehicles turning in front of them.

 

[checkmatechamp13]

12 hours ago, bulk88 said:

Delay==OT==more $$$ for vehicle operator.

Except that the delay has to take place at (or at least spill into) the end of the shift in order for the B/O to get overtime. Otherwise, it just cuts onto their layovers and they don'the get paid extra for it.

In any case, voluntary overtime is always better than involuntary overtime. There's still missing runs, breakdowns, and other reasons for the MTA to offer overtime, and many runs have overtime built in to begin with. At the end, the MTA still has a budget, so if they're on the fence about filling in a run, it might come down to how much money is left in the overtime budget.