Yes, folks, we here at SFist are proud to announce that "Ask a Muni Driver" has returned and will run every Monday for as long as we have our new Muni Driver around to answer all your Muni related questions. And, hell, maybe even a few others-- he could be great at all of your relationship questions too.
So let's start in with today's question, about our new drivers' thoughts on what's good and what's bad about Muni.
And, as always, if you have a question you'd like to ask, e-mail us at editor at SFist.com
{Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesperson for anything except my opinion as a MUNI driver, San Franciscan, and daily passenger just like the rest of you sorry sods relying on MUNI to get us to work on time.
If you figure out who I am, please, please don’t tell my bosses ‘cause I want that pension some happy day – assuming there’s any money left in the fund for the lowly drivers by that time.}
While there are many problems with MUNI, I think the #1 problem is the unrealistic schedules. People complain about buses not coming on time, or coming bunched together, but there’s no way for buses to come on time because of the schedules, and the schedules cause the bunching.
For example, anybody riding the 48 Quintara should know that the MUNI schedule gives 6 minutes for the bus to go from 24th Mission to 24th Castro (during the busiest time of day – otherwise it’s only 5 minutes).
Due to passengers getting onto the bus from BART, and the general busy-ness of the intersection, it often takes 3 minutes or more just to get out of the bus zone at 24th Mission.
I’ve had it take as long as 15 minutes to do what the schedule specifies should take at maximum 6 minutes.
This is without considering routine possibilities such as double-parked cars, wheelchair-bound passengers (average time to load: 3 minutes), or even just general jostling and overcrowding.
It’s also a major safety issue when drivers feel the pressure of trying to stay on schedule in order to get their tiny bathroom break (assuming there’s a usable bathroom at the end of the line – not at all guaranteed!) IF they can reach the designated stop in time.
This means there is a tendency to speed up, skip stops, or even use the bus as a wedge to get in front of other traffic – all of which carry fairly dire potential consequences. At the same time, MUNI’s official policy is that drivers should always focus on safety in preference to speed. In fact, for those members of the public still in the dark about this, MUNI drivers can be penalized for “running hot” – i.
e., being AHEAD of schedule, but cannot be penalized for running BEHIND schedule. This is a classic Catch-22 – if the driver wants to pee, stand up for 2 minutes, whatever, she or he is highly motivated to try to keep to the completely unrealistic (and too often unsafe) schedule.
On the other hand, MUNI can claim with truth that there is no penalty for going slow….you figure it out. The schedules are so ridiculous and self-contradictory that there are routes (such as the 36-Teracita) where the posted speed limit is 25 mph, but the schedule cannot be met at that speed.
Drivers have to break the law to stay on schedule. Given that both drivers and riders are set up with such absurd expectations, is it any surprise that we so often fail to keep the published schedule? Frankly, with the current schedules I am skeptical that MUNI is actually meeting the 70% on-time average that they claim.
There is no chance of improving the average without a major overhaul of the entire schedule. The only way MUNI can address the 80% on-time goal with any hope of meeting it would be to revise the schedules and add buses to the busiest lines.
A question for the public on this topic: Would riders rather hear the truth or a convenient lie?
Truth: the bus will come every 20 minutes; that’s when it will show up. Or the lie…the buses will come every 10 minutes and passengers can spend the ‘additional’ 10 minutes cussing MUNI for being late?
What’s right with MUNI?
Thinking….thinking….thinking….
we have a NICE LOGO!
@Andy, it is likely in your scenario that the first train is late and the second is probably a bit early. it also might be that an operator is out or a train car was not available for one of the runs.
It should be possible for an early train or bus to hold until it gets on schedule, but passengers don't like it when that happens. Also, there aren't that many places to wait which don't affect traffic flow. For example, the rail lines block left turns when they are stopped.
Santa Clara VTA often has their buses wait at time points until they are on schedule. It is sort of annoying as a passenger already on the bus, but it is more annoying if you are up the line and the bus passes your stop ahead of schedule, especially if the bus only runs every 30 or 60 minutes. This kind of headway is not uncommon at VTA.
For lines with high frequency, it really should not matter about schedules. If you look at most every good high-frequency urban rail system, they give you frequencies, not schedules. That is, you'll just see "Frequency: 7 minutes".
Thus, the important factor in regulating timings is no longer whether or not each train hits a specific schedule, but focuses on properly spacing out the trains, something which Muni seems to completely miss consistently.
Schedules for lower frequency lines, however, makes a lot of sense. If a bus only runs every 20 minutes, it's handy to have a schedule to know when that bus will arrive.
Adding too much time to the schedule obviously causes issues since it then penalizes all riders and forces them to wait constantly if the bus is running smoothly. However, having too little time causes every bus to run late as we've seen..
.
But I think most of us probably agree that consistent spacing is more important than specific schedules for most lines that have reasonably frequency. And for those that don't NextMuni is a very good thing.
The Transit Effectiveness Project won't fix all the schedules, but it should make schedules more "reality-based."
Drivers are far from perfect (minding the 25 assholes) but in most cases they are just the messengers. Regarding scheduling, route planning and Dan Noyes.
.. talk to TWU local 250A, yo.
They've got the people's railway by the balls and mammaries - and not in a pleasant way.
Muni is not feel good, inc. There are too many competing interests: Da Mayor, the Supes, the union (ok, it is not all their fault), the MTA board, planners and engineers who don't actually ride the system, a county transit authority whose vision is not slightly tainted by actual operating conditions, an out of touch regional transportation commish (responsible for 511 and translink) a limited amount of subcontractors willing put up with SF's flaming hoops in exchange for uppity price gouging and then add a plentiful array of advisory committees.
In consensus building and middle grounding, we all know that it is much easier to keep everyone pissed...
CoMisery accomplished!
Overwhelmed? Frustrated?
Confused? On the verge of going postal? Well, cheer up you aspiring tyrants!
What you have is many opportunities to get involved and strike back at the system in your own little ways.
Don't hate the Muni - be the muni.
(Yeah, so what's new?
)
The 67-Bernal bus (is this the laziest line in the entire system? Buses and their "drivers" appear to spend far more time idling on layover at 24th/Mission or hiding around the corner on Valencia) is perfectly set up to block not only the 48 but most commerical vehicles (and behemoth SUVs) at that intersection.
Heading northbound, idling 67s fill up the bus stop and make manoeuvring the 48 around them to the curb stop is a time-consuming business -- turning SOV traffic can make this take a couple of entire traffic light cycles.
Southbound it's even worse, as the high skilled professional Muni drivers on the 67 nearly always "park" their vehicles with the rear end sticking out into the traffic lane, resulting in near-constant gridlock at the intersection, since there are always idle 67s to spare.
One might think it might not take any sort of Special Transit Effectiveness Program www.sftep.
com two-year consultant trough-feeding wallow to notice or -- God forbid -- rectify things like that, but one would evidently be quite wrong to think so.
Anyway, the solution to everything is always is to whine about how underfunded Muni is, how unrealistic running to a schedule is, and throw huge additional piles of money at Muni (to pay more drivers sitting idle, either on payover, in self-induced congestion, or in DPT-induced transit congestion) and make the schedules slower. Of course.
Poor Muni. 8mph is too high an average speed.
PS Forget about everything if the wheelchair lift gets used.
High floor transit buses are illegal to purchase in most of the civilized world -- but Muni's inexplicably un-terminated Procurement Professionals has saddled us with ADA disaster diesel buses, trolley buses and streetcars for the next 15 to 30 years.
PPS The 48 "runs" on a 20 minute headway off-peak. BART (Pittsburg line, which is the one that counts) runs on a 20 minute headway offpeak.
The 48 schedule, of course, is perfectly timed to maximize bus-train transfer time.
News RSS