The Commute: We Deserve Some Real Answers From The MTA

THE COMMUTE: Ever since I started riding buses more than 50 years ago, I noticed that service is erratic. I never knew the extent of the problem until I analyzed our origin and destination data as part of the study of southwest Brooklyn bus routes, which I directed for the Department of City Planning beginning in 1974. I included an open-ended question allowing bus riders to express comments. Service irregularity topped the list as the most pervasive problem with local bus routes.

Whenever the MTA was questioned at public meetings as to what they intend to do about the problem, they always claimed that all bus delays resulted from traffic, which was beyond their control. Although traffic plays a major part, it is not the sole reason. Sometimes, the schedules do not reflect accurate running times, bus stop dwell times, or there is inadequate recovery (also called layover) time at terminals.

In the late 1970s, the MTA announced that they were working on a system to track the location of buses and when completed in 1980, they would be able to adequately address the problem. Although that pilot project worked, it was scrapped due to objections by the unions. Then came two or three failed attempts at installing GPS on the buses. Finally, more than 30 years later, we got a system that works called BusTime.

However, the goal of increasing reliability was replaced with the goal of informing the passengers of bus arrival times. So what happened to being able to increase service reliability, a problem that has only gotten worse over time? Last year, the MTA announced they were testing a complementary project called BusTrek, which would enable better scheduling of buses and increased reliability. The MTA has been amazingly quiet regarding the success or failure of that pilot program. Is it still in use? We do not know.

Today, anytime someone mentions the problem of bus reliability at a public meeting, instead of talking about BusTrek, the MTA discusses their plans to greatly expand Select Bus Service (SBS) and how it is the panacea to improving bus service. That begs the question since most routes will never get SBS.

The answer appears to be the dreaded “Next Bus Please” sign, which is being used with increasing frequency. First, it was used when buses were too overcrowded to accept additional passengers. Now it is used even when seats are available. A friend of mine reported to me last week, while waiting for a bus on Woodhaven Boulevard, that approximately one dozen buses on varying routes all skipped the stop, displaying the “Next Bus Please” sign. “Next Bus Please” should mean exactly what it says — that the following bus will stop. Not that the next 11 buses also will also not stop.

Why Is “Next Bus Please” Used So Often?

The MTA believes that if a late bus only stops to discharge passengers instead of also picking them up, the bus will save a few minutes, putting it back on schedule. Does it work? Not always. Does it increase waiting times? It sure does. Should it ever be used? Yes, sometimes. Do drivers forget to take off the sign, when buses becomes less crowded or are back on schedule, thus confusing passengers? All the time.

The “Next Bus Please” sign makes sense when a bus is late and crowded and the following bus is a minute behind and is relatively empty. If someone has already waited 20 minutes for a bus and the bus is 10 minutes late, why should someone have to wait an additional 10 minutes because a bus with capacity is using his “Next Bus Please” sign? The result is having to wait 30 minutes for the bus that should have arrived in 10 minutes. The “Next Bus Please” signs should not be used when buses are not full and there is no bus directly behind.

Does the MTA want its buses to operate closer to schedule to help its passengers or are they more concerned with reducing overtime? Consider the following: On November 25, I witnessed a B49 bus approach the bus stop on Sheepshead Bay Road off Emmons Avenue in front of El Greco. Two passengers were waiting. The bus had 10 passengers aboard and had its “Next Bus Please” sign displayed. The bus skipped the stop and waited 20 seconds at the traffic signal near the bus stop. Time saved by skipping the stop? None. Was there another bus directly behind? No. Were passengers inconvenienced? Yes.

I decided to wait and see when the next bus would arrive although I was going in the opposite direction. The next bus arrived in six minutes. Not too bad. However, the bus had standees. So a virtually empty bus skipped a stop, forcing passengers who probably already waited more than the scheduled 10 minutes to board the following bus, upon which they are required to stand and the bus saved no time. How does this make any sense? Neither the MTA, nor the passenger was helped. Passenger comfort obviously is not important to the MTA, but it is to the passenger. I was recently on a bus when a similar incident occurred.

An Appeal To Our Elected Officials

The MTA has been allowed to get away with not being accountable for far too long. Questions regarding service are responded with the standard, “The incident will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken.” The case is then closed and no further correspondence is provided to the complainant. Specific questions are not responded to. Meanwhile service problems continue. I have been complaining about B1 and B49 service for about 10 years. We need to have a Town Hall forum in which appropriate operating personnel from the MTA can address specific bus service concerns. The B44 SBS riders need an opportunity to express their opinions regarding this new service. Also, the following questions need to be answered:

• Why are statistics not kept regarding when and where buses bypass passengers waiting at bus stops?
• How is on-time performance measured?
• What percentage of the buses are considered to be operating at or near schedule?
• Is this information available for individual routes? If not, why not?
• What percentage of scheduled trips are not made or are only partially made?
• Will we get a B44 SBS stop at Avenue R? If not, why not? Why should former Limited passengers now have a slower trip because SBS stops are nearly a mile apart?
• When will the first year results of the B44 SBS be made available?
• Why is the “Next Bus Please” sign being used so often and to what extent has it improved service?
• Who instructs the bus driver to skip stops? Are they allowed to do it on their own, and under what circumstances?
• What does the dispatcher actually do?
• How many dispatchers and roving dispatchers are there in Brooklyn?
• Is BusTrek in use and where and how is it being used?
• If it is still in the pilot stage, when will it be fully operational to improve service reliability?

Anyone who has questions about specific bus routes should be allowed to ask them. There should be a follow-up meeting, whereupon answers are provided that could not be provided at the first meeting. To claim that 75 percent of bus passengers are satisfied with service according to customer surveys and that more SBS routes will solve all the bus service problems are not adequate responses. Are you among the MTA’s satisfied bus customers?

The MTA needs to provide answers as to why bus service reliability is not adequate while the fare increases every two years. It is about time that, after waiting nearly 50 years, we get some answers.

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.