THE COMMUTE: I asked if that was the case back in 2010 when I documented 14 buses in a row bypassing bus stops after loading up at Kingsborough Community College. Since then I have done numerous B1 updates documenting service problems. I have written many times to the last two directors of Bus Operations over the past five years. Each time, I promptly received courteous replies and have met with a half dozen operating personnel on about four occasions, assured that the problem would be addressed and Manhattan and Brighton Beach passengers would not be ignored . Yet the problem persists.

Last Wednesday, I had a dinner date in Midtown Manhattan. The subway ride only took 30 minutes, but the wait for the bus to get to the train took another 30 minutes. That nearly doubled my trip time and, as a result, I was 20 minutes late for my appointment. Why did this happen? It wasn’t that buses were not arriving. In fact four in-service buses arrived while I was waiting — three B1 buses and one B49 bus. All were “full” and did not stop. Each bus had room for the two or three intending passengers who would have boarded prior to the subway stop where many get off the bus. This happened between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. I saw it happen again the following day when I was in my car.

Previously, I had similar experiences at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Each time I complained, the MTA posted signs in the bus depots reminding operators they should stop for Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach passengers. The problem lessened for a time but keeps reoccurring. So why does it happen?

Bus schedules do not allow sufficient time for wheelchairs and for passengers to board and disembark. Buses are frequently late, which causes them to bunch 30 percent of the time. In order to keep to schedule as much as possible, bus operators try to make up time wherever they can. One way is to ignore Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach passengers. The MTA told me that when dispatchers are on duty near the college during peak times, they try to ensure that a bus leaves the terminal every half hour with enough capacity to pick up passengers boarding after the first stop. That is not good enough!

Why should B44 Knapp Street riders receive bus service as frequent as every 3.3 minutes since the installation of SBS, when buses are nearly empty, but a few miles away, a 30-minute wait is okay for Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach riders whose buses are packed? If that isn’t gross mismanagement, I do not know what is. I have run out of patience after five years of complaining about the same problem.

What Happened With My Trip

So after waiting for 25 minutes and four in-service buses (#9789, #5100, #5087 and another bus whose number I didn’t catch) refusing to stop for me and not willing to wait any longer, I contemplated driving halfway to the subway station and then walking the rest of the way. That was when I realized I could take a bus in the opposite direction one half mile to the college, get off and board another bus back. So I did that when I saw the next bus coming. It took less than one minute to get to the last stop.

I got on the B1, which left the college with only five standees in another minute. We got to the subway two miles away in only four or five minutes. That’s about 30 miles per hour, for those who are calculating speed. We made all four green lights and bypassed only one passenger waiting at West End Avenue, who I thought was waiting for the B49. However, that may have not been the case.

When we arrived at the subway, a passenger asked the driver if this was a B1 bus. So I checked the sign and it read “Next Bus Please.” Although there only were five standees, the operator changed the sign after leaving the college so he could operate non-stop to the subway. That’s why we made it in only five minutes. The five minutes we saved from the scheduled time put the operator closer to being on schedule, although it meant a 30-minute wait or more for anyone waiting in Manhattan Beach or Brighton Beach. Also, there was no dispatcher directing the operator to use his “Next Bus Please” sign. He did it on his own.

How To Fix The Problem

By better supervision, not allowing bus operators to do whatever they please, and making bus schedules realistic to allow sufficient running time. That would prevent most of the problems, but it costs money — money that the MTA is not willing to spend. Buses that bypass intending passengers and force them to wait in all types of bad weather is a problem that won’t be solved by Bus Time. Since statistics are not kept when buses bypass passengers, or how often buses bunch, no one knows of these extra long waits other than the bus passenger. The MTA would rather engage in performing meaningless surveys, than gather real statistics to solve real problems. They would rather run empty B44 SBS buses south of Avenue Y than use those buses to serve real demand at Kingsborough, as I previously suggested. Better serving the college students so that some buses are not filled with 96 passengers during the off-peak will also result in better serving Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach passengers. If the MTA is interested in solving real problems, not only in perpetuating propaganda to convince us they are doing a good job, now is the time to prove that.

Conclusion

Millions were spent on the B44 SBS to save the average bus rider six minutes. However, money is not spent rewriting bus schedules to ensure they are realistic so that bus operators will not have to take extraordinary measures to save time — measures such as skipping bus stops or speeding, which can be dangerous, while passengers are much inconvenienced by waiting 30 minutes or more. Why do they not spend the money where it is needed? Because MTA upper management is not interested in what really happens on the road and they do not have the money to make needed changes because too much is wasted unnecessarily. There are no statistics regarding how often bus operators put up their “Next Bus Please” sign or actual waits encountered for buses. The MTA only cares if buses meet their schedule and how much is spent on overtime — not how well the passenger is served.

Just look at the statistics being collected to assess the success of SBS. No one asks where the statistics are that show the number of bus riders whose trip times are unchanged or are taking longer because of SBS. Everyone is only interested in the buses that are running faster. The negatives are completely ignored. It is like an accountant doing a balance sheet showing assets without liabilities. Would you use such an accountant in your business?

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio is gung-ho to greatly expand SBS, although it is not being fairly evaluated and we don’t know how successful it is. Does he really believe that 99 percent of SBS riders and 90 percent of non-riders are satisfied with SBS (Page 19)? Is he aware of all the initial complaints with the B44 SBS?

Why is saving six minutes so important when bus riders routinely waiting 30 minutes for a bus so unimportant?

The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).

Disclaimer: The above is an opinion column and may not represent the thoughts or position of Sheepshead Bites. Based upon their expertise in their respective fields, our columnists are responsible for fact-checking their own work, and their submissions are edited only for length, grammar and clarity. If you would like to submit an opinion piece or become a regularly featured contributor, please e-mail nberke [at] sheepsheadbites [dot] com.

Related posts

  • Jim

    Empty B44 South of Ave Y are useless other than creating noise and carbon monoxide pollutions. You always bring interesting points, but never mention how to deal with them and where to complain to be heard.

    • Allan Rosen

      You can complain directly to the MTA on their website, to your local elected officials and to your community board. They meet once a month.

      • nyckat

        Thanks Allan, will try your suggestions, MTA has been as useful as used toilet paper!

  • nyckat

    Complaining does NOT help- I have called, talked nicely, cried, went home got my car, drove under the influence of medication to get to dr’s appointments after waiting on Oriental over 40 minutes for a b49 bus. The list over the years keeps going yet nothing but rates change! Now we have a schedule that seems to have some new added times around 3pm- yet the other day when it was so cold- only ONE bus came during a timeframe where they had four scheduled. Sure I could have walked MUCH faster if I didn’t have Dr’s orders to stay off my feet, just had surgery! By the time I fill out all the paperwork needed for access a ride- my problems will be solved and I won’t qualify for the service anymore. Nice little catch 22 they have going there. Besides that the money they capture when you have 2.15$ left on your card and the fare is 2.50 they keep that money- but you STILL have to swipe a valid card!!! nice- that is called theft!

    • Allan Rosen

      It depends how you compain and who you complain to. The problem is not enough people complain. If it is only me and you, they think only two people ate unhappy. If everyone who can’t get on the B49 and B1 would complain every single time it happened not only to the MTA but to all their local officials and kept records of all those complaints, things would indeed change. It’s very easy to just ignore one or two constant complainers by labeling them as troublemakers. You must also provide bus numbers and times and as much details as you can. If your elected officials are not following up on your complaints let everyone know who they are.

      As fare as them keeping your money, I have already exposed that problem and criticized tm for it. You are supposed to know at all toes the exact amount on hour card. If you have $2.15 on the card, you need to have 35 cents in change to complete the transaction or you lose the money on the card. After the first time this happens to you, it shoudn’t happen a second time.

      The ext time

      • Allan Rosen

        The next time you have a very long wait for a bus write directly to Darryl.irick@nyct.com instead of using the form on the Internet. Are they at least replying to your complaints? What type of responses have you been getting?

        • Subway Stinker

          the B 36 is another peculiar line. Starting at Nostrand and Neck Rd. they frequently fill to capacity by Avenue Z and then pass all the riders and run non-stop to Sheepshead Bay Road, where they disgorge everyone and the students scamper aboard thru the back doors. The new smaller buses only make this overcrowding worse. Another trick the bus drivers use is to wait at their lair behind Brennan and Carr and then run together in a leap frog fashon all the way to Sheepshead Bay. Since there are no Dispatchers on the B36 route, the mice will play while the cats away.

          • MK

            YOU THINK THE FIRST STOP IS WHERE YOU GET ON AND THE LAST STOP IS WHERE YOU GET OFF…..WRONG……THESE OPERATORS WORK HARD EVERYDAY FROM BAY RIDGE TO MANHATTAN BEACH ENCOUNTERING ALL KINDS OF STUFF….GETTING JAMMED UNDER THE EL…WHEELCHAIRS….THE ELDERLY….LONG LIGHTS….DOUBLE PARKED CARS AND TRUCKS ON BRIGHTEN BEACH AVE….PEOPLE THAT TAKE LONG TO BOARD AND PUT THEIR METROCARDS IN…IT TAKES TIMES TO BOARD AND UNLOAD A BUS….YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN TO MTA TO PROVIDE MORE SERVICE….FOR SURE BUT STOP PUTTING BULLSHIT ON THE OPERATOR…..

          • Allan Rosen

            I realize what a difficult job the bus operator has, but that is no excuse for not allowing bus passengers to board when there is no other bus directly following. Would you want to be left in the street to freeze for a half hour when you see room on the bus for you?

            On Sunday I witnessed a bus operator refusing to open the door for Q53 passenger as the operator closed the door in his face. The headway for that route was every 20 minutes. The driver thought that by not reopening that door he might make the traffic light which he missed anyway causing him to wait 60 seconds. He gained nothing and the passenger lost 20 minutes.

            If you read the article, you woud know that I have been complaining to the MTA for five years. They did add service several times, but college enrollment keeps increasing so they are always behind adding bus service and the problem continues. I only blamed the operator for taking matters in their own hands in order to get back on schedule. You are correct in that 90% of this problem is because of the MTA, not the bus operator.

        • Andrew

          Has Mr. Irick invited you to broadcast his email address here?

          • Allan Rosen

            And why is that your concern?

            For your information, which I am sure you already know, like most companies and goverment agencies, the same formula is used for everyone’s e-mail address. For NYC Transit, it’s first name (dot) last name@nyct.com. So anyone who knows his name and title can easily figure it out. His position is no secret. I am sure he appreciates knowing what is going on so he can forward problems to the proper channels for remedy. Customers have complained having to wait three months for a reply from the MTA website. It never hurts to go right to the top to get problems solved.

            If more people complain, more problems will be addressed and we will receive better service. People don’t complain when they feel the complaints are falling on deaf ears.

          • Andrew

            In other words, no, he hasn’t. Just checking.

          • Allan Rosen

            I’m not saying one way or the other. Anyway, it is not your concern unless you really do work for the MTA and have been misleading us all of us all along.

          • Andrew

            You may not be saying, but it’s pretty obvious.

            As far as I know, Email Address Protector is not a job title at NYCT. And if it were my title, I apparently haven’t done a very good job.

            In my experience, it’s generally considered impolite to widely disseminate somebody else’s email address without that person’s explicit permission. When in doubt, I’ve always considered it courteous to ask before posting. But what do I know?

          • Allan Rosen

            You can make all the assumptions you want. I really don’t care.

      • joe lee

        Now you can see why its called the Collapsing States of America, because nobody really gives a damn…The MTA, and elected officials just couldn’t give a shit about anything !!!

        • Allan Rosen

          That isn’t true either. The question is how much do they really care?

          • joe lee

            Allan, that’s where you are incorrect.

            If they really cared, they would do a six month trial run to see if some of your proposed plans are successful. If successful they would continue it, if not, then discontinue same.

            The same crap is happening in this nation which is why this country is collapsing. BECAUSE NOBODY GIVES A DAMN !!! Because everyone is scared of their own shadows, and special interests rules, leading to the eventual collapse of this once great nation..

          • Allan Rosen

            I agree that six month or one year trials are needed not only for what I suggest, but any sensible proposal. There should be grants for such experimentation and there very well may be. But here is the problem. The MTA believes anything they do has to remain permanent unless there is a significant outcry. They would rather not try at all than try and fail. He many successful multimillionaires failed in their first few business attempts and went bankrupt? They didn’t give up. They learned from their mistakes, persevered and ultimately became successful.

            The MTA believes that even if a change is unsuccessful, the public will not let them get rid of it, and they will be stuck with another money loser. So they are reluctant to try anything new. The B49 and B9 extension to Riis Park was paid for by a Federal grant. It was very successful, but the MTA discontinued it when the grant was over because they didn’t want to subsidize it.

            However, if a trial is clearly labeled a trial with conditions set beforehand under which conditions the trial will be ended, there would be no problem with discontinuing it. But the MTA does not play that way. They make up the rules as they go along. They would iscontinue

          • Allan Rosen

            They would discontinue a trial by saying it didn’t pay for itself which doesn’t measure success or failure since 90% or more of the routes do not pay for themselves. The planning process needs to be fair and open not secretive.

            As one MTA planning official told me, there is no incentive for experimentation and they are afraid of political ramifications in case of failure so doing little or nothing is the best option. It’s not that nobody gives a damn. People are often restricted by what they are allowed to do, but they do have good intentions. Unfortunately, that is not enough.

          • sonicboy678

            Okay, I understand that the MTA doesn’t have a lot of money. That said, it’s even more important to receive feedback from the customers and even non-customers to get a better idea of how to run things. In fact, knowing that running a transportation system is unprofitable should provide some sort of incentive to find ways to provide optimal service for the public while losing as little money as possible. If experiments are required, then so be it. If it doesn’t work the first time, just figure out what went wrong and try it again in modified form at a later time.

            As an example, I feel that the 4 express along the Jerome Avenue Line in the Bronx could work under certain circumstances. The last time that pilot program was used was better than the time before it since more stations were served. On top of that, there was an additional train. Of course, it never resurfaced after the last trial several years ago.

          • Allan Rosen

            And I heard the riders loved it.

          • Andrew

            Yes, you did, probably from John Rozankowski. But probably not from the many 4 train riders at the Bronx local stations, who had less frequent service and more crowded trains. And probably not from the Lexington Avenue riders who encountered especially overcrowded trains if they happened to show up at the wrong time.

            And none of this needed a trial – it was plainly apparent from the relative ridership numbers.

            If it had improved service, it would still be running today.

          • Allan Rosen

            Go and speculate again. I have read several accounts in newspapers that the 4 express was well received. I know initially there were some problems but they were being addressed. And I am sure you have all the ridership numbers to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

            And to state if it had improved service, it would still be running today, is ridiculous. Now how many times has the MTA reduced service just to save money, when operating that service would have served the riders better? Come on now and stop with your constant defending of the MTA.

          • Andrew

            I am basing my statements on actual train loads, not on a few anecdotal reports. There is no room to add Lexington Avenue service – the 4 expresses were simply redesignated locals, so there was no operating cost involved.
            Burnside Avenue is not a particularly busy stop in comparison to the local stops on the line – cumulative ridership at the local stops significantly exceeds ridership at the few express stops. (Most significant is 161st Street, a major employment district as well as a transfer point to the IND.) The time savings is much less than on SBS, and a much smaller proportion of the ridership is able to take advantage, and there is no way to add local service without reducing routes service, so I’m amused that you’re so staunchly in favor of the 4 express while simultaneously considering SBS the work of the devil.

            It’s almost as if you have a vendetta against the MTA! (Oh, wait, you do.)

          • Allan Rosen

            There is no vendetta. And how much did you say the MTA pays you to be their spokeperson? I forgot. I’m not going to continue this discussion with you.

          • Andrew

            I love it. You are so blinded by your hatred for NYCT’s planners that you can’t even see that the specious criticisms you make of SBS actually apply to the 4 express.

          • Allan Rosen

            First of all the 4 express idea didn’t come from NYCT’s planners and I wasn’t defending it either, so your comments relating it to SBS does not apply.

            I do not know enough about it to know if it was a good idea or not. All I was saying was that initial problems were being worked out and I was not convinced it was given a fair chance. And I still don’t see your ridership numbers to back up your claim that it should have been discontinued. But ah yes, you can make any claim you want without proof, but I have to provide numbers to make any statement.

          • Andrew

            I know the 4 express idea didn’t come from the planners – that’s why you approve of it, unlike SBS.

            There were two different 4 express pilots, with different stops and different headways. Both were utter (and predictable) failures, as would be any express service on the line – there is simply too much ridership at the local stations and there is no capacity on the Lexington Avenue line for even one additional train, so the only way to run express service is to reduce local service. And the time savings for those who could use the service was smaller than the time savings for the typical SBS rider, which you are so eager to dismiss as negligible.

            It was given much more of a chance than it deserved. It was a bad idea from the start, and treating the local ridership as guinea pigs by reducing their service unnecessarily was inappropriate. The problems were worked out by scrapping the idea.

            Station-by-station ridership counts are on the MTA website.

          • Allan Rosen

            Funny I don’t remember reading about any complaints from local riders, only praise from express riders. Also, I remember having this discussion with you before and checking the schedule and there indeed was room for a total of about three more trains right before and after the peak hour of travel, so the lie is not operating at absolute full capacity as you state. It only runs for full capacity at the peak hour. At least that is what I recall from the last time I checked.

          • Andrew

            Are you seriously suggesting that success or failure should be determined based on how many people complain rather than on an analysis of the benefits and disbenefits?

            Local riders experienced longer waits and increased crowding, but there’s no reason for the typical rider to have connected that to the express service. There are fluctuations in headway and loading from day to day. The service cut on the local track was not stated upfront to local riders.

            I’m not sure what your assumption is of full capacity, but the peak hour is when the volume of riders is greatest, and cutting from 14 tph to 11 or 10 tph during the peak hour is a big deal. Or are you suggesting that the express only run outside of the peak hour?!

          • Allan Rosen

            Why do you insist on making up things I never said? Where did I ever state that success or failure should depend on complaints? I also never suggested cutting trains from 14 tph to 11 or 10?

            I stated that I heard more compliments than complaints. Riders south of Burnside were able to get a seat during te morning rush for the first time and were very happy about that. Nowhere do you provide any statistics that more were in fact hurt by the express than were helped by it, but you are so sure it was a poor idea.

          • Andrew

            During the peak hour, I believe the 4 runs 14 tph. The first pilot had expresses running every 20 minutes (3 tph) and the second pilot had expresses running every 15 minutes (4 tph). If you’re asking for 3-4 tph to run on the express track, then you’re asking for a reduction in service of 3-4 tph (21-29%) on the local track.

            Locals were more crowded than expresses. Riders south of Burnside were less likely to get seats with the express than without it. There was very little transfer activity from the local to the express at Burnside except when the two happened to connect – it simply isn’t worth waiting more than 2 minutes for such a short express run if the local is already there.

            Station-by-station ridership is posted on the MTA website. And I watched the trains at 161st during the last week of each of the two pilots. Both times, the locals were consistently more crowded than the expresses. Did you?

          • John Rozankowski

            The #4 Thru express was an excellent work in progress with Phase II considerably better, as you indicated.
            I feel that the express run should have started at Burnside Ave. (with 183 St. bypassed on the local track). Thus, the heavily used Kingsbridge and Fordham stations would have been included.
            It would have been similar to the very successful and established D train.

          • Subway Stinker

            Ferry service which is a money loser has been renewed by Mayor bloombucks. So, “pay for itself” is only the criteria when certain public officials or mta execs decide to bring that excuse forward. Regarding the B36 there is enough blame to go around. The NYCT put the newer, smaller buses on the route and they fill up faster than the old clunkers. And the lack of dispatchers is another fault that can be laid at the feet of Management, not labor. So as far as I can see, nobody comes to the B36 with clean hands.

  • Andrew

    What you describe is a road control issue.

    You haven’t presented any evidence that the B1 schedules do not provide adequate running time. Excessive running time is every bit as problematic as inadequate running time; the schedule should reflect typical running times in practice, with recovery time added at the terminals so that a bus that arrives late can still depart on time.

    • Allan Rosen

      Yes, but buses often leave terminals already bunched which I have documented, which would indicate inadequate running times and/or drivers taking their full layover anyway even if they are late. I’ve also heard drivers complain to me of inadequate running times.

      • Andrew

        If drivers are treating the terminal recovery time as guaranteed break time, they are completely missing the point of recovery time. Buses regularly leaving terminals in bunches is a sign of poor dispatching or of inadequate supervision.

        Of course drivers complain about inadequate running time. Few drivers have a problem with excess break time at the terminal or leisurely driving conditions. Driver complaints do not necessarily imply an actual running time problem – that would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. (And BusTime will help to make that analysis more robust.)

        • Allan Rosen

          I agree with your first paragraph, but I can see driers behaving the way they do if they consistently cannot meet their running time and the MTA refuses to add time. After awhile, the driver will just say, the hell with the schedule, I’m taking my break anyway, that’s just human nature.

          But why should the MTA listen to the drivers who keep complaining. They are all just a bunch of liars anyway who just want longer breaks. I guess that’s how management thinks and you do to. No wonder it’s so hard to negotiate a contract with the TWU.

          • Andrew

            As I said from the start, the schedule should reflect typical running times in practice – not too much and not too little. If running times are excessive, drivers have to “drag the line” in order to not drift ahead of schedule. Bus service is slow enough already; it doesn’t need to be slowed down any more by drivers stopping for green lights. If in fact the B1 schedules don’t provide enough running time, then that should of course be fixed, but it takes an actual analysis of data to reach that conclusion, and you’ve only provided speculation.

            Running times, I believe, are checked every two years, along with loadings. I don’t know if they will be analyzed more regularly with BusTime data, but at the very least the data sample will be much more robust.

            Who called bus drivers liars?

          • Allan Rosen

            You did. You said their claim for running times that are too lean cannot be believed because they always want bigger breaks.

            You say I provide no proof that buses cannot meet running times when buses are overcrowded. For five years I have witnessed buses skipping the first ten stops after leaving the college at various times of the day even when there is room, in order to get back on schedule. (I’m not saying it happens all the time.).

            That is enough evidence that running times are inadequate at times. And if they are checked every two years, the problem would not persist for the five years I’ve been noticing it. As I stated, nothing is done, because no one other than myself complains because they believe complaining is just a waste of time.

          • Andrew

            You did. You said their claim for running times that are too lean cannot be believed because they always want bigger breaks.

            No, I said that they have an incentive to complain about running times that are too short but no such incentive to complain about running times that are too long.

            Scheduled running times should be based on actual, observed running times, not on complaints.

            You say I provide no proof that buses cannot meet running times when buses are overcrowded. For five years I have witnessed buses skipping the first ten stops after leaving the college at various times of the day even when there is room, in order to get back on schedule. (I’m not saying it happens all the time.).

            Ah, now I get it. You are assuming that the buses are bypassing your stop because they are late.

            I suspect that they are typically bypassing your stop because, as far as the driver can see, they are full. Perhaps it’s time for a campaign to ask riders to step to the back of the bus. And, even though it should be obvious, maybe the drivers need to be reminded to stop for intending passengers.

            Or, perhaps this is what’s going on.

            In any case, if you want to insist that there isn’t enough running time, you need to establish that there isn’t enough running time.

            That is enough evidence that running times are inadequate at times. And if they are checked every two years, the problem would not persist for the five years I’ve been noticing it.

            That strongly suggests, then, that running times are not the problem at all.

            As I stated, nothing is done, because no one other than myself complains because they believe complaining is just a waste of time.

            As I said last week, it’s a road control issue.

            By the way, are bus drivers allowing passengers to board at the terminal prior to the scheduled departure time, or are they waiting until their departure time to begin the boarding process, which can take a few minutes? If the latter, every bus is leaving the terminal late!

          • Allan Rosen

            But complaints are a good reason to check running times. The operators opinions woud not be ignored but actively solicited. You are splitting hairs by now claiming that you said that operators cannot be believed. You are saying te same thing again by stating that try have no incentive to complain running times are too long. Why should that matter. That’s like saying no one has an incentive to complain he is being overpaid. Therefore we must ignore any comments any worker makes because they are only interested in their own self interest.

            The MTA did post notices for drivers to ask passengers to move to the rear and to pick up all passengers. But there is no follow-up so after a few months it’s business as usual. And I certainly have established there is not enough running time. There is no other reason for buses that are not full to skip the first mile of service and to put up their “Next Bus Please” sign during school dismissals.

          • Andrew

            Running times are already checked every two years. If it’s clear that an extra check needs to be scheduled, fine, but not every complaint is a sign of an actual systemic problem.

            I have never said that operators cannot be believed. I simply said that they are a lot more likely to complain about having too little running time than about having too much running time. Simply adding running time whenever somebody asks for more running time would lead to highly excessive running times and even slower service than exists now. More running time is never a bad thing for the driver but it’s often a bad thing for the rider.

            I’ve suggested a number of reasons that buses are skipping your stop that have nothing to do with running time. You’ve chosen to ignore them.

            If drivers are refusing to stop to pick up intending passengers, perhaps disciplinary action is warranted.

            By the way: http://www.apta.com/mc/multimodal/presentations/Presentations/Glikin%20Reddy%20MOPW%202013.pdf

          • Allan Rosen

            I never suggested just listening to the bus drivers. I suggested investiation based on their complaints.

            Disciplinary action is only warranted if bus drivers are skipping stops on their own, not if they are directed to do that. Would Bus Time know if that is happening?

            Yes, I ignored your suggestion that bus drivers are not stopping for me because they know who I am and are therefore skipping my stop. Absolutely ridiculous.

            Thanks for the link. Bus Time certainly sounds good on paper. Certainly hope it improves on time performance. The senior director is a good guy. I used to work with him in another department.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Allan Rosen

            Sometimes drivers skip stops on their own and other times they are directed to do so. And yes buses are directed to skip the same stops if they are all running late. And if it happens every day at the same then there is indeed a problem with running time.

            I am not getting into a discussion about OTP vs measures of regularity or OTP, because numbers can always be played and can be misleading as this link shows which I think you will find interesting.

            http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/dc-bus-s-7-minutes-late-still-technically-time/8009/

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Allan Rosen

            In most cases, the buses aren’t completely full. The problem is that virtually all drivers never remind passengers to move to the rear anymore, when that was the norm years ago. I only wonder if the practice has stopped because drivers fear for their safety if they order the passengers to do anything. There is or should be a prerecorded message that the operators should be able to press to ask passengers to move back when buses are crowded in the front. At least that way it would seem te message is coming from the MTA and not the drivers.

            Also, the number of passengers needing to board before the subway stations is also very small, like under 10 unless more than two buses in a row doesn’t stop. As I previously stated, the MTA posts signs in the depot whenever I complain, but there is no follow up. The signs eventually get covered up or are ripped down I’m sure.

          • Andrew

            As I’ve said, if drivers are simply refusing to make stops that they’ve been explicitly instructed to make, disciplinary action may be necessary.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            I have no objection to an investigation of a complaint about something unusual. But an occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint? I think that can wait until the line comes up in the regular cycle. Some trips take longer than others, and schedules are based on what is typical, not on the absolute worst case – relying on the worst case would result in drivers dragging the line almost all the time. The purpose of terminal recovery time is to absorb delays that are somewhat greater than average. An occasional generic not-enough-running-time complaint most likely results from an occasional trip that took much longer than scheduled rather than a systemic problem.

            I thought you were complaining that bus drivers were skipping stops on their own. I highly doubt that the buses are being directed to all skip the same stops.

            Obviously, BusTime has no way of knowing whether somebody is waiting at a stop. A supervisor has to physically go out to one of the stops (in plainclothes), note all of the buses that fail to stop, and later talk to the drivers.

            I also suggested that the buses skipped your stop because, as far as the drivers could see, their buses were full. Every driver probably assumes that every other bus will stop for you.

            Thank you for finally acknowledging what I’ve been saying for years about BusTime data. But I certainly don’t hope the focus is on improving on-time performance, which is of little relevance to most riders, rather than to improving measures of regularity (such as wait assessment) and of service sufficiency.

          • Andrew

            No clue why this won’t stop reposting…

          • Allan Rosen

            You have to do something about that stuttering problem.

            Anyway you raised some of these points before and I already responded to them.

            You keep talking about an occasional bus not meeting its running time, insisting that is not the issue. So let me remind you that this problem has been going on for at least five years and there has been ample time to revise the schedule, yet drivers are continually instructed even when they are not full, and sometimes have only five standees to skip the first mile with no bus directly behind. I once even saw a bus with seats also skip at least the first five stops.

          • Andrew

            Apologies for the repeated posts – just more proof of my technical ineptitude. They seem to have stopped, at least for now – but who knows what fun tomorrow will bring?

  • Pingback: Sheepshead Bites » Blog Archive The MTA Leaves Passengers Out In The Cold In Seven Degree Weather, And Politics Over Transit » Sheepshead Bay News Blog

  • Pingback: The MTA Leaves Passengers Out In The Cold In Seven Degree … | MetroTransitBlog - MTA News, alerts, and real-time bus & train info.