So here's the thing (and I'm sure plenty of people disagree with me), I actually think that a lot of the concepts the MTA came up with in the redesign were actually sound. It was the execution of it that was terrible. Releasing the spans and frequencies from the beginning was key: People see that there's fewer routes and that those routes are truncated, and the first thing they think is "Service cuts". By releasing the spans and frequencies earlier in the planning process, the MTA could've covered itself and maybe got a few more aspects of the plan implemented (of course, it would've had to hold up its end of the bargain and implement those aspects properly).
Here's something to consider: If you look through the list of changes made to the plan through the process, you'll notice that they added two routes (the SIM7 & SIM33...not sure how you want to count the SIM9 since that was added after the plan was implemented) and they also extended the SIM10 to the ETC. Supposedly, if the whole thing was intended to be cost-neutral, then the service provided on the SIM7 & SIM33 came at the expense of other routes. The SIM33 service was definitely at the expense of the SIM32 (and possibly the SIM34, since as I've heard it referred to as a "modified X12" even though the core ridership base was along Watchogue Road & Victory Blvd. As a matter of fact, I think the reason why the SIM34 had overcrowding issues initially was because they considered the SIM33 to represent the 23rd Street short-turns cut back to 14th Street while the SIM34 represented the full-length X12 buses cut back to Worth Street). The SIM7, I guess they took a few buses that would've otherwise run on the SIM1 (and sadly I do mean a few, since we all remember how ridiculously inadequate the initial schedule was)
Anyway, onto the actual logic: The thing about express routes that makes them inefficient to operate is that they have a pickup-only portion, then a long nonstop portion, and then a drop-off only portion, compared to a local route which is constantly picking up and dropping off people throughout the route (so the same seat might carry 2-3 different passengers throughout the course of a single trip, which is likely shorter on average than a typical express trip, though there are some long local routes out there as well, which likely have longer average passenger trips). At the extreme, you have the M86 which on a weekday, carries 189 passengers per revenue hour, because it's constantly picking up and dropping off people. The cumulative average efficiency of the local system by this metric was 68.7 passengers per revenue hour). My source is an Excel sheet from the route profiles released by the NYC Comptroller, combined with data pulled from the GTFS data feed by Subchat user Stephen Bauman. The thread is available here for reference.
Let's take a look at the express routes. The busiest one by this metric was the X11 at 26.7 passengers per revenue hour, followed closely by the QM24/44 at 26.6 passengers per revenue hour, followed by the X21 at 25.9 passengers per revenue hour. The X11 & QM24/44 are relatively short express routes, and the X21 is a long route, but has a long nonstop portion and also only operated at the height of rush hour, so it didn't have the lighter passenger loads at the beginning and end of rush hour bringing down the average. The cumulative efficiency of the express system is 24.3 passengers per revenue hour)
So the way I see it (and I'm sure the MTA sees it), the higher fares charged on the express bus are to make up for the inefficiency of the express bus system. You can have an operator drive a local route for an hour and expect to pick up around 69 people, or you can put the operator on an express route for an hour and expect to pick up around 24 people. Of course, these are averages, but the point is the same. The higher fare isn't to provide a one-seat ride or to guarantee a seat.
Now granted, the MTA does (in theory) schedule its express buses to avoid standees. They understand that, on average trips are much longer than on the local bus or subway (even if you're standing, there's a good chance that if your trip is long enough, you'll find a seat at some point along the way. It isn't always the case, but it's the case often enough. The other obvious thing is that local buses and subway cars are better designed in terms of accommodating standees, whereas express buses just have one long, narrow aisle).
The other thing to consider is that these figures are passengers per revenue hour. Express buses have a lot of deadheading involved, due to the peaky ridership patterns (a line might have enough demand to justify 15 buses per hour in the peak direction, but only 1-2 buses in the reverse-peak direction, and many lines have no reverse-peak service at all). There's obviously deadheading involved on the local buses as well, but not to the extreme extent of the express buses. An express operator might do an inbound trip, deadhead back to the start point, do another inbound trip, deadhead back to the depot, take a few hours of break time (at half-pay, which is another added cost, but one that's completely understandable, because the operator isn't free for the rest of the day, they still have to make sure to report back on-time for the second half of their shift) and then deadhead to Manhattan again, and do an outbound trip before clocking out for the day. So for 3 trips worth of people, you needed to pay the costs of a bus and operator for an entire day. On local peak runs, the operator is likely doing at least 3 trips in just half of the shift (e.g. A PM piece with say, an S44 short-turn to Jewett, deadhead back to St. George, second S44 short-turn to Jewett, deadhead back, and do a full S44 or S94 trip to Yukon Avenue).
Off-peak is generally more efficient because there's less deadheading in the case of both local and express runs ("What goes up must come down"). Generally frequencies are similar in both directions.
That being said, there's a few ways to increase the efficiency of the express bus system. You can have a peak/off-peak fare structure where off-peak trips are cheaper than peak trips, so it encourages some people to shift their travel patterns so that they can be accommodated in the off-peak periods where there's less deadheading (or ideally in the reverse-peak periods, where all you have to do is convert a few deadhead trips to revenue trips). Another method is to have the express buses allow intra-borough riders (which is what we're starting to see more of with this new express system, with people transferring between express buses). New Jersey Transit has its express routes allow intrastate passengers in place of actually running dedicated local routes in certain areas. I'm not really too fond of that setup (for example, try getting from an area like Weehawken or Union City out to Bergen County during the PM rush hour). The other issue is that any delay out of Manhattan affects the intrastate travelers. I can't imagine the chaos that would happen if they tried using the Hylan express routes to replace the S79 (**shudders**)
But that being said, one of the goals of the redesign was to shorten the amount of time required for the buses to fill up with their passengers. Instead of filling all 57 seats by traveling all the way from Midtown and through Downtown, the idea was to fill the buses up as quickly as possible, and have them fill up in Downtown-only or Midtown-only (and later in the plan, Greenwich Village/West Street). The old X7/9 were scheduled to take a little under an hour to fill up with passengers from Central Park South to Vesey Street, whereas the X2/5 took 20-25 minutes to fill up with passengers (even counting the portion along the FDR Drive, they still generally got out of Manhattan faster than the X7/9, though of course, I'm sure there were days where the FDR was backed up and it was quicker to go down Broadway and West Street). Then you have separate buses for Downtown, which are (scheduled) to take about 10-15 minutes to fill up with passengers and get out of Manhattan, and then the Greenwich Village buses, which are scheduled for about 30 minutes of runtime to fill up. Of course, real-life conditions can increase that greatly, as I'm sure anybody who's been caught in that Battery Place mess can attest to.
So it's for this reason that the MTA seems to be adamant about not allowing any form of a Downtown-Midtown route during peak hours, even if it's a "one stop Downtown" type of deal. Think about it, the bus comes into Manhattan with 57 people, but 19 people get off at the single stop Downtown, and now the bus isn't full anymore. Over the course of 3 busloads of people, you could've had one of those buses cut back Downtown (57*3 = 171, but 19*3 = 57). But you can't just randomly cut one bus back to Downtown, because then the remaining buses would be overcrowded. You would have to have the other 2 buses bypass Downtown. The other issue is of course, that you lose flexibility in detours (since if you bypass Downtown, you screw all the riders who were expecting to catch the bus there), and Downtown buses get affected by Midtown traffic (and vice versa in the morning).
Now on to the topic of consolidating routes. Round and round in circles we go. We have this canned line "By offering fewer flavors of service, we'll be able to offer more frequent trips on the remaining lines", and on the other side, we hear "You're taking away our options" and both sides keep going back and forth. Both sides have their point, and I will elaborate.
From the MTA's perspective, each route is scheduled independently from other routes, so it makes it hard to balance the headway. I was thinking of this as I was on an S44 which came a couple of minutes before the S59 last night. At that time, the S44 is scheduled every 20 minutes, while the S59 is scheduled every 30 minutes. So in total, that's 5 buses per hour down the northern part of Richmond Avenue, but they're not evenly spaced. Say the S44 comes at :00, :20, and :40 past the hour, and the S59 comes at :00 and :30 past the hour. So that means you have a headway of 20 minutes, two 10 minute headways, and another 20 minute headway (and there's always bunching at the top of the hour). You could have the buses scheduled every 24 minutes individually (12 minutes combined), but then on top of that schedule being hard to memorize, you're overscheduling one route and underscheduling the other route.
The other issue is that when riders switch off, it does in fact make it harder to determine which route they would've actually preferred. My motto is "When you start having to resort to your backup option every day, it's not really much of a backup, now it's your main option". So one of the examples given was why the SIM7/9/33 start at 14th Street while the SIM3/10/31 stop along 23rd Street (so riders can't easily use the SIM7/9 if there is a delay on the SIM10, and can't easily use the SIM33 if there's a delay on the SIM3/31). So by separating the routes, it makes it easier to determine who actually needs what route (and it also comes back to the issue of containing delays instead of spreading them through the system. If there's a delay on the SIM10 and the next SIM7 gets swarmed with people at 23rd Street, you just took a Midtown problem and spread it to Downtown, because the route was originally only scheduled to have enough seats for the people Downtown).
They key is that the MTA has to follow through on its promise on their end and take care of the delays....if there is a gap forming in SIM10 service and it looks like there won't be enough room for riders along 23rd Street, have a bus available to pick up those people along 23rd Street. If it's a regular occurrence, maybe schedule a few buses to start at 23rd Street, or put more standby buses near there.
Now, with that being said, there is a point to be made about schedule coordination: When the routes are frequent enough, it doesn't matter as much. So for example, let's say that the MTA restructured the SIM1 to operate from New Dorp to Downtown via Hylan Blvd, and created a rush hour SIM1X that operated from the Eltingville Transit Center to Downtown via Father Capodanno Blvd. And let's say the SIM1X operates on 7.5 minute headways (8 buses per hour) and you have the SIM5 operate every 10 minutes (6 buses per hour). So in a worse-case scenario, the schedule will have a SIM1X bunched together with a SIM5, and then a 7.5 minute gap until the next SIM1X.....7.5 minute headways are still reasonably frequent service. For better or for worse, buses don't always follow the exact schedule anyway, so maybe the SIM5 driver will be 2 minutes behind schedule and it will be a 5.5 minute gap in service. As it is, there's bunching on routes with 4-5 minute headways anyway. Worse-case scenario, let's say a SIM5 becomes overcrowded and has to bypass the last few stops....the Battery Place-bound riders at those stops will be able to take the next SIM1X, and the Water Street passengers who are in a hurry will just walk a little further or transfer to a SIM5 or SIM35 at Battery Place (which is why it's crucial that a universal 3-legged transfer policy be in place, to allow express bus riders to choose the next mode available without having to worry about paying an extra fare).
On a route like the SIM23/24 where the service is less frequent....sure, all buses need to go to either 34th Street or 42nd Street because otherwise you'll end up with 20-30 minute headways on each individual branch (which is especially bad in the PM rush when reliability is worse because of Manhattan traffic, compared to Staten Island traffic in the AM). Same reason why Gannon Avenue west of Bradley has no direct Midtown route during rush hour....if you try to branch the SIM31 (and have the Forest Hill Road branch and a Gannon branch), the headways will be wider on the individual branches.
Now the final topic.....probably one of the most controversial, but one that warrants a deep discussion.....the concept of Staten Island coverage vs. Manhattan coverage off-peak. During rush hour, there's sufficient volume of people that you can fill up routes that travel between many portions of Staten Island, and many portions of the Central Business District. Off-peak is a different story, and coverage on Staten Island is limited, but the neighborhoods that have off-peak express service are generally served by Downtown/Midtown combination routes (the old X1/10/17 were like that, the current system has the SIM1C/3C/4C and the Downtown-only SIM2, and the January 2019 system will have the SIM1C/3C/4C/33C).
To me, the concept of "Everything on Hylan Blvd, Gannon Avenue, or Richmond Avenue" for off-peak service is even stupider than the idea of "Everything on 5th Avenue or Church Street/Broadway". My reasoning is simple: Manhattan has more alternatives available than Staten Island overall, so transfers should be done on the Manhattan end where possible. I'd rather see a network of say, 6-7 off-peak express lines with Downtown-only or Midtown-only service, compared to a network with 3-4 off-peak express lines all running the Downtown/Midtown combination route.
Think about it this way: Even during off-peak hours, subway lines generally operate every 10 minutes (and if you have multiple lines along a trunk, then the headways become even shorter). I know off-peak (especially weekends, and now even late evenings with FastTrack being more prevalent) there's track work and shutdowns, but between SubwayTime and the MTA website that lists detours and delays, you can usually find some quick route to get to where you need to go. Now let's compare that to the local buses out here, which generally operate every 20-30 minutes. Let's say somebody lives along the Hylan Blvd portion of the SIM2 (which is about to have off-peak service eliminated in January 2019)....do you think they would prefer to take the S78 to the SIM1C or the SIM2 to the subway if their destination was Midtown? Keep in mind that the S78 is the longest local bus route in the city, and has many reliability issues due to it, so those 30 minute weekend headways can easily become 45-60 minutes. (Also keep in mind that if their destination is Downtown, then they don't have to transfer at all if they can catch the SIM2)
I would gladly give up Midtown off-peak service on all the routes in my neighborhood if it meant that other neighborhoods can have some form of off-peak express bus service (and as mentioned above, by running a shorter route, it's less prone to delays, so honestly I would want that anyway. The amount of times I've waited 30-40 minutes just to catch an X10 or X17 off-peak when Downtown traffic was moving perfectly fine, but buses were caught in a detour for some Midtown parade and ended up coming 2-3 at a time.....ugh makes me cringe....and I can see by the bunching on the SIM3C on 30 minute headways that the issue has not been resolved).
That being said, I believe there should still be a few Midtown-only routes during off-peak hours. I would run the SIM1, SIM2, SIM4, SIM6, SIM26, SIM32, and SIM34 (with a branch to Port Richmond) off-peak. Maybe extend the SIM1 to 23rd Street off-peak so that there's something going to the Greenwich Village area. So that way if you live near a Downtown-only route and you don't want to transfer, you can drive over to the SIM6 or SIM26 (or SIM1 to 23rd Street) and catch the bus there. I would have the off-peak SIM26 run up South Avenue and Forest Avenue to the Goethals Bridge to provide a little more coverage on Staten Island (and of course, stop at Arthur Kill Road). The way I see it, if you don't have a car (like myself) then you're already used to taking the local bus and subway, and if you do have a car, you can just drive to a route that goes to the portion of Manhattan you're seeking. Somebody is probably going to bring up the seniors or disabled.....keep in mind that there's seniors and disabled who currently have no off-peak express bus service whatsoever right now, and having some form of off-peak service would help them. Routes on the Manhattan end like the M55 (which runs up 6th Avenue and down 5th Avenue & Broadway) should probably be prioritized for increased frequency so that those who cannot use the subway have a good local bus alternative on the Manhattan end. I would also run an equivalent of the SIM4C during overnight hours (Downtown-Annadale via Gannon Avenue & Richmond Avenue).
You may be thinking "Why not just serve all of those corridors with Downtown/Midtown combination routes?" Again, on top of the reliability factor, there is also the unfortunate reality that the MTA has a budget to work within....and with all of the issues with the Staten Island local buses, I don't think it would be fair to keep throwing money at the express system while the local system is left to rot. There's so many corridors with poor local service or no local service that it's ridiculous (and again, a lot of those corridors have senior citizens that are left stranded). Corridors like Mosel Avenue, Huguenot Avenue, and Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue need a good local route, and areas along routes like the S42/54/55/56/66 need weekend service. We need better connections to New Jersey besides just the S89 (we need routes over the Goethals Bridge & Outerbridge Crossing, and they need to be full-time routes, not just rush hour routes).
Of course, if congestion pricing ever comes to pass, hopefully we can give everybody more options: Run even more of the peak express routes during off-peak hours, and give good, frequent local service 7 days a week to all of the corridors that need it. But for now, the MTA has to work within the budget it has, and those are the tradeoffs they face.
No comments:
Post a Comment