Traffic checkers

I'm pretty sure there are some (former?) traffic checkers on this board. Could anyone explain what the job entails? I've read the description on the SEPTA website but I'm looking for some more down and dirty info.

Stuff like:
Can they ask you to work at any time? It's just a part time job, but if you're "on-call" 24/7 wouldnt that preclude doing any kind of full time work? Or do you tell them when you are available?

What is a typical day like? Is it boring? Are you doing other things to keep yourself occupied(reading)? Are you riding the vehicles or staying at a single location?

Thanks. Sorry to throw so many questions out at once.

We work on an availability basis. When you fill out an application for the job you can indicate times of general availability on the differant days of the week. Then you can leave specific availability for work when you want, but there are minimum hour requirements for the month, and you must be available 4 weekend days each month, and be available to work at least one rush hour period on weekdays.

Generally speaking we ride vehciles most of the time but come good weather there are "corner checks" and "platform checks" which can last 6 hours on occasion. In these instances it is permissable I beleive to read etc. between vehicles, but on heavier lines it just isn't possible.

If you're thinking of being a checker around a regular 9-5 job, it just really isn't possible, since that rules out working rush hours. There also isn't any "night owl" work after midnight, except on very rare occasions, but that is usually on a volunteer basis.

I'll let some of the other checkers on the board chime in if they so desire, but I think that about covers it.

My explanation would be 40 years old, as I worked , Temporarily, in the summer as a traffic checker for the SEPTA predecessor, PTC, so, obviously some things have probably changed since then, however--- when I worked, it was on about as full time a basis as was possible, but only between July 1, and mid- late August ( this was part of the preparation for the September schedule change). I never did the "riding check" described above, our checks were all done at a specific location ( very often at a transfer point) what we actually did, was record the vehicle number, block number, destination, the arrival time, people boarding, people leaving, and people on each vehicle as it stopped at, or passed our assigned location. Time was recorded either to the half minute, or to the near second. ( In the "Checker" Jargon, we were doing either a "Half Minute" or Near Second BLO-- Boarding, Leaving, and On) Checkers were assigned to a number of locations along the assigned route so that when the check was finished, and the sheets turned in, the schedule department had a running record of the run of each vehicle ( and operator) on the route. With regard to the load of each vehicle, we were given a sheet with a run down of the seating capacities of each series of vehicles then operated by the PTC.
Checks were only done in good weather, and would be cancelled if there was an unusual delay ( ie-- a fire on one of the streetcar routes).We were required to call into the Dispatcher ( "Radio") before leaving home to determine whether the "checks were on" and to syncronize our railroad watches with Radio. This is how it was in the late 1960's.

Thanks for the info.

I've often wondered how complete a picture can be drawn from traffic checks. A problem with any survey that looks only at existing behavior is, well, that it only looks at existing behavior. There's no easy way to tell WHY people are doing what they do and whether there's any way to change that.

In another thread I used the long-gone Route 95 shuttle between Gulph Mills and King of Prussia as an example. Traffic checks only showed that very few people used that bus so it was eliminated. Nothing indicated that ridership was low because its trips operated only 2 or 3 minutes after another bus on the same route. There was plenty of demand but the service didn't match it.

Similarly, a check of early-evening inbound RRD runs might show low ridership; the cause might not be that demand was inherently slack but that potential passengers drove because there was little or no late-night return service.

And it's not limited to SEPTA - years ago I had a job in a clothing store. A bonehead manager decided that patterned summer shirts were "out" and ordered only plain colors. My super and I turned away dozens and dozens of customers who wanted patterned shirts, but next season the manager again ordered only plain ones. When we brought up our customers' requests, the manager's response was that there couldn't be a high demand for patterns because 99% of our previous sales were plain shirts! [Note: See under Fawlty, Basil]

Yes, it's a lot harder to predict what might potentially succeed or fail than it is to simply snapshot what is currently happening, but IMHO counting noses isn't enough.

JeffK wrote:I've often wondered how complete a picture can be drawn from traffic checks. A problem with any survey that looks only at existing behavior is, well, that it only looks at existing behavior. There's no easy way to tell WHY people are doing what they do and whether there's any way to change that.

In another thread I used the long-gone Route 95 shuttle between Gulph Mills and King of Prussia as an example. Traffic checks only showed that very few people used that bus so it was eliminated. Nothing indicated that ridership was low because its trips operated only 2 or 3 minutes after another bus on the same route. There was plenty of demand but the service didn't match it.

Similarly, a check of early-evening inbound RRD runs might show low ridership; the cause might not be that demand was inherently slack but that potential passengers drove because there was little or no late-night return service.

And it's not limited to SEPTA - years ago I had a job in a clothing store. A bonehead manager decided that patterned summer shirts were "out" and ordered only plain colors. My super and I turned away dozens and dozens of customers who wanted patterned shirts, but next season the manager again ordered only plain ones. When we brought up our customers' requests, the manager's response was that there couldn't be a high demand for patterns because 99% of our previous sales were plain shirts! [Note: See under Fawlty, Basil]

Yes, it's a lot harder to predict what might potentially succeed or fail than it is to simply snapshot what is currently happening, but IMHO counting noses isn't enough.

Well, that's sort of two problems. The traffic checkers are just to see what's actually happening. The other questions you posed, about why people aren't riding, or what might happen if changes are made, are matters taht should be answered by transportation planners in a service planning or schedule planning (not sure what department it would be at SEPTA, here the MBTA's version is called Service Planning). Those hypothetical questions should, ideally, be studied by the planners, and be tested by statistical modelling that relies on data from multiple sources, including traffic checkers, census data, and other sources.

JeffK wrote:I've often wondered how complete a picture can be drawn from traffic checks. A problem with any survey that looks only at existing behavior is, well, that it only looks at existing behavior. There's no easy way to tell WHY people are doing what they do and whether there's any way to change that.

I don't think that it was ever intended for traffic checks to answer any question other than how a particular route is performing at a particular time. In the case of the checks which I did, as indicated, they were part of the preparation process for the September schedule change. The traffic check system could never elicit answers to why things were as they were, they could only tell you how things were.

Walt wrote:The traffic check system could never elicit answers to why things were as they were, they could only tell you how things were.

That's the point exactly. Unfortunately several discussions I have had with various SEPTA suits seemed to indicate that they were in fact using rider counts partly as predictors of behavior rather than solely as snapshots.

Any computer programmer over the age of about 40 remembers the (in)famous Lines of Code metric for determining productivity. The problem was that LOC doesn't measure anything about who is or is not a good programmer, just who is the most verbose or can type the fastest. But it was an easy number to compute so 1000's of companies used it to prove they were making "progress".

JeffK wrote:

Walt wrote:The traffic check system could never elicit answers to why things were as they were, they could only tell you how things were.

That's the point exactly. Unfortunately several discussions I have had with various SEPTA suits seemed to indicate that they were in fact using rider counts partly as predictors of behavior rather than solely as snapshots.

If they are, its unfortunate. As it is ( was) the results of the checks did determine the level of service to be included in the next schedule change, but this was a reaction to "how things were", and not really an attempt to predict the future. I agree with you on this, you can't predict future behavior using traffic checks alone, and you shouldn't try.

Remember, this is SEPTA, much like the rest of government a REACTIVE organization. PROACTIVE is not in their vocabulary.

This is a classic example of what happened to the R8 Newtown Line. Traffic checks showed dismal ridership, so the line was closed. Proactive thinking would have said this operation has only been in effect 15 months, equipment reliability needs to be addressed, and operations need to be improved. Imagine if NJT decided to shutter the RiverLine after 15 months because ridership projections were not meeting their traffic check results. While SEPTA didn't quite invest as much money in upgrading Newtown infrastructure, the same analogy applies.

You guys act as though everyone at SEPTA is an idiot. Service Planning knows the purpose and limitations of traffic counters, they know what their [Service Planning's] job is, and they know how to do it. Such is my impression after talking with various "suits" (to borrow your term), including the head of Service Planning, all of whom are plenty competent, to say the least.

IMO very few of us think that everyone working for SEPTA is a blundering fool. It's just that there is too high a percentage of employees - both line AND management - who can't get their act together. That hurts not just the riders but also undermines the good employees who feel that their efforts are wasted. And yes, I know quite a few who find themselves in that unfortunate position, including some who have become so discouraged that they quit to go elsewhere. Remember that Gresham's Law applies to people as well as money!

Over the years there HAVE been too many cases where SEPTA has been in reactive mode when it comes to marketing its services. To cite two - look at the poor stats for the R6 Cynwyd line, which was threatened with closure until community groups forced SEPTA to put some effort into promotion. Once word got out ridership went up. Or how 'bout the Route 123 bus from K of P to Upper Darby? When service started, there was no promotion, no hoopla, and no signs except one little tiny, almost unreadable blue-on-gray route number added to the side of a shelter. A bus just appeared one morning at the shopping center. Most people didn't have a clue where or when it ran, and the route was almost shut down until word-of-mouth raised ridership to the point where it finally became viable.

And finally, I pushed my concerns about the mishandled Route 95 schedules all the way up to the level of senior management. Incredibly, I was told that only *average* service frequencies were considered, so that two vehicles leaving at the top of every hour was counted as equivalent to half-hourly service. Rational or not, that IS the response I received from a "suit" at the VP level.