Muni on-time rate slips to 69.2 percent
"The on-time rate dipped to 69.2 percent during the last three months of 2007, the most recent reporting period. That number represents the worst showing in a year and falls far short of the 85 percent threshold that San Franciscans demanded at the ballot box in 1999."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/21/MNUUVNDDO.DTL
Nathaniel Ford goes on to say "Any drop in on-time performance is unacceptable". Of course, with no repercussions for performance, does "unacceptable" really have any meaning?
I'm fairly disgusted with riding Muni lately. Let's hope the TEP recommendations get implemented and we see some improvement. It's better than staying the current course we're on.
Thoughts anyone?
Every time it drops 5%
Every time it drops 5% Nathaniel Ford has to put back $100 of his paycheck (after taxes) to the city's general fund. There. How's that for repercussions?
$100 for a 5% dip? Make it
$100 for a 5% dip? Make it a thousand or two to be worth anything. At $100/5% dip you'd be watching a 20% on time rate for a measly $1000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you consider sponsoring me for AIDS/Lifecycle 7? http://www.aidslifecycle.org/2145
They say they added service
They say they added service to the lines with the heaviest ridership. I think I've seen an overall decline in trains on the N-Judah line, which they specifically mention as a heavy ridership line.
You could charge him a buck per minute for the total sum of late minutes per day. He'd probably go through his salary within three days, I would imagine.
I agree, at 10am today I had
I agree, at 10am today I had to wait 20+ minutes at Montgomery St. for a T or N train to take me to 2nd & King. I could have actually walked faster.
I love the spin they put on
I love the spin they put on it by saying:
"That means the 89-Laguna Honda, for instance, which averages 179 weekday boardings and had a 30.8 percent on-time rate last year, is treated the same as the N-Judah, which has 45,300 weekday boardings and arrived on schedule 70.3 percent of the time."
It just shows how broken they really are, that they can't keep a bus that only has 179 weekday boardings on time even half the time. With this few boardings I doubt that frequent stopping to pick up passengers is really a large issue with delays.
If traffic on the route or the length of the route is causing it to be late 69.2% of the time then it's about time they revised the schedule if it's completely unrealistic.
In the case that drivers are lazy or can't be bothered to try staying on time then it's an employee or management issue.
In any case, I don't see how a 30.8% on time rate, even on a lightly-traveled line is anywhere near acceptable. In fact, on a heavily-traveled line, there is more likely to be another vehicle coming along in less time than a line that runs every half hour or every hour. This kind of disruption on a lightly traveled line almost makes it unusable, since people depend much more on the schedule when the line runs very infrequently. They're probably not just going to show up and hope something is coming soon, but will look at the schedule and try to be at the stop based on the schedule if it comes infrequently.
Yes, they should fix the heavily-traveled lines first since it will benefit more people to do so, but this crap about it being the fault of the lightly-traveled lines is just an excuse. Arguably if these lightly traveled lines are so off schedule they becomes much more of a problem to the people that need to use them. And if a bus line becomes useless to the people it's supposed to serve then why have it at all?