Wouldn't this have worked for a service cut?

[RTOMan]

You are an Ass, I use the subway at night, If you don't like us New Yorkers, then GTFO!!!!!!! and don't ride our transit system, the subway is needed at night due to what subway guy posted.

 

You shouldn't talk to Jay like that....

[LRG]

You shouldn't talk to Jay like that....

 

Funny you say that...the first two letters of the OP of the topic are the initials of Jay Walder....

[RTOMan]

Funny you say that...the first two letters of the OP of the topic are the initials of Jay Walder....

 

Why you think i said that? B)

[Sam]

There are several things to consider. One, the idea behind mass transit is to get people our of their cars. Reducing service defeats that purpose adding more street congestion, pollution, etc. Even though I strongly disagree with Bloomberg and the DOT to reduce lane capacity for vehicular traffic by adding bike lanes, it is in the best interests of the metropolitan region to provide as many transit alternatives to cars as possible. Honestly, cutting any more service, which makes travelling unreliable, makes private car ridership very, very attractive.

 

Secondly, cutting night service or any cut for that matter does little to address the real problem with the MTAs budget. Debt service is the real problem. New York City and New York State cut funding for decades and that allowed the MTA to decay horribly. The MTA chose to borrow huge amounts of money to rebuild the system and still does it. And now we have to pay the piper. Service cuts wont save enough and modest higher fares won't do it either. If mass transit is an essential public good (and we know that it is), all levels of government will have to work to restructure or eliminate debt service. To do nothing will make the 1970s look like the wonder years.

[Zman]

You are an Ass...

 

UNCALLED FOR. You don't go calling people names just because you disagree with them.

[Shortline Bus]

This is the wrong attitude for New Yorkers to have about this topic. Virtually EVERY other major city shuts down subway service for the late night hours and we do not. What makes NY special? NOTHING does.

 

Tokyo has double our population, double our subway ridership and is the economic capital of the east. Yet they do not run trains 24/7. When the trains do run they perform amazingly well. The 5 hours of rest the trains get each day reduce wear and tear which reduces car breakdowns.

 

It's not just Tokyo. Other major cities in Asia shut down the subway during late night hours. Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur just to name a few others do not run around the clock subway service but have systems that are way more advanced and cleaner than ours in NYC. These cities have just as much economic weight and demand for business as New York City. If they can do it we can do it. It's time we play FOLLOW THE LEADER in New York City because our system SUCKS compared to what's out there. We need to implement strategies that are used in these other cities like NO late night subway service. Whoever doesn't see this must not want a better subway system and must want 1 in every 5 trains to show up late.

 

Late night service can come back when trains are AUTOMATED and less costly to operate but until then only use the subway when absolutely needed.

 

Correction kid There are a couple here in US in which subway/rapid transit runs all night like NYC. The Chicago CTA and Path also runs 24/7 365 a year. Ditto for the Patco rail service in the Philadelphia area as well. In the Windy City out of the 10 major lines only '2' run at all times.

 

Sorry kid. NYC is too big and long to shut down subway service overnights. Even if you had buses running from Far Rockaway-207th/Inwood as replacement for the in best case scenrio with traffic lights that still at least a 2-hour trip 1-way. There traffic even overnights in Midtown Manhattan.

 

I know some other posters may disagree with these ideas as I am not endorsing it but a better option to look at late at nights to save money IMO. 1)Close a few lightly used stations 2)Shuttle Buses replace shuttle trains such as the and Rockaway Park . 3)Reduce headways to every 30-40 minute on lightly used trains. 4)Extend Overnight service/20 minute headways on weekends until 7am.

 

NYC is huge geographic wise and by the time a bus if it gets stuck in traffic traveling from Wakefield in the Northern Bronx-Flatbush Brooklyn on the it time to re-start subway service. Nice try young man but not a good idea.

[BroadwayBuffer]

Correction kid There are a couple here in US in which subway/rapid transit runs all night like NYC. The Chicago CTA and Path also runs 24/7 365 a year. Ditto for the Patco rail service in the Philadelphia area as well. In the Windy City out of the 10 major lines only '2' run at all times.

 

Sorry kid. NYC is too big and long to shut down subway service overnights. Even if you had buses running from Far Rockaway-207th/Inwood as replacement for the in best case scenrio with traffic lights that still at least a 2-hour trip 1-way. There traffic even overnights in Midtown Manhattan.

 

I know some other posters may disagree with these ideas as I am not endorsing it but a better option to look at late at nights to save money IMO. 1)Close a few lightly used stations 2)Shuttle Buses replace shuttle trains such as the and Rockaway Park . 3)Reduce headways to every 30-40 minute on lightly used trains. 4)Extend Overnight service/20 minute headways on weekends until 7am.

 

If their goal is to eventually eliminate S/As, then closing those stations wouldn't save any money. Otherwise, if stations like 18th and 28th Sts on the and were bypassed late nights, it might have saved by cutting a few S/A jobs. A similar idea which was brought up in the 2009 service cut package which never came to pass was sending the via the Manhattan Bridge late nights to close City Hall through Lawrence St stations. Although many of those stations would have been staffed anyway since they are part of larger station complexes.

 

This is another note for those suggesting a late night shut-down: Every station would need to be cleared out, closed, and locked at the end of the night, which would require people (presumably multiple S/As) to do it. All trains would need to be layed up and secured. The entire shut down would probably only be for about a two hour period (2-4am?), since many crews would still be working through the night to put everything away and then take it all out again. It would interesting to look at from a cost/benefit analysis perspective since it might actually cost more money, or the cost savings would be so minimal that it wouldn't make any sense do it.

 

Late night headways are already too long as is. I know a number of posters here have already pointed this out, but the more they cut service, the more they discourage ridership. This has been thrown around a few times as a possibility for future service cuts, but it would not be good.

[SubwayGuy]

If their goal is to eventually eliminate S/As, then closing those stations wouldn't save any money. Otherwise, if stations like 18th and 28th Sts on the and were bypassed late nights, it might have saved by cutting a few S/A jobs. A similar idea which was brought up in the 2009 service cut package which never came to pass was sending the via the Manhattan Bridge late nights to close City Hall through Lawrence St stations. Although many of those stations would have been staffed anyway since they are part of larger station complexes.

 

This is another note for those suggesting a late night shut-down: Every station would need to be cleared out, closed, and locked at the end of the night, which would require people (presumably multiple S/As) to do it. All trains would need to be layed up and secured. The entire shut down would probably only be for about a two hour period (2-4am?), since many crews would still be working through the night to put everything away and then take it all out again. It would interesting to look at from a cost/benefit analysis perspective since it might actually cost more money, or the cost savings would be so minimal that it wouldn't make any sense do it.

 

Late night headways are already too long as is. I know a number of posters here have already pointed this out, but the more they cut service, the more they discourage ridership. This has been thrown around a few times as a possibility for future service cuts, but it would not be good.

 

All valid and excellent points. If any more savings are to be wrung out, it will be through cutting bus routes. A train operator and conductor (at 28.65 and 24.99 an hour = 53.64/hr) can move 2,000 people at one time. A bus operator at 26.94/hr can move what...100-110? So two bus operators, which costs about as much as a T/O and C/R combo, can only move 200-220 at once compared to 2,000.

 

That makes the subways more efficient, so if the TA wants to save money, everything will be done to encourage people to ride subways more often as opposed to buses. By redirecting people in the other direction, from subways to buses, the TA would be forced to run more buses, which would more than negate the savings from cutting train service.

 

Likewise, all the ideas to shut down and restart the system have disadvantages because things need to be properly shut down in order for this to work. Even when the strikes occurred in 2005, there were clear rules about the way service was going to end. It's not as if at 12:01 AM everybody just walked off the job and left their trains and buses where they lay...

 

Shutting down and starting up costs money too, the only difference is there is no service so there is no income during that time.

[checkmatechamp13]

All valid and excellent points. If any more savings are to be wrung out, it will be through cutting bus routes. A train operator and conductor (at 28.65 and 24.99 an hour = 53.64/hr) can move 2,000 people at one time. A bus operator at 26.94/hr can move what...100-110? So two bus operators, which costs about as much as a T/O and C/R combo, can only move 200-220 at once compared to 2,000.

 

That makes the subways more efficient, so if the TA wants to save money, everything will be done to encourage people to ride subways more often as opposed to buses. By redirecting people in the other direction, from subways to buses, the TA would be forced to run more buses, which would more than negate the savings from cutting train service.

 

Likewise, all the ideas to shut down and restart the system have disadvantages because things need to be properly shut down in order for this to work. Even when the strikes occurred in 2005, there were clear rules about the way service was going to end. It's not as if at 12:01 AM everybody just walked off the job and left their trains and buses where they lay...

 

Shutting down and starting up costs money too, the only difference is there is no service so there is no income during that time.

 

I have a question: Where do the additional costs on buses come from if the bus driver's wage is $26.94 per hour?

 

The S60 used to run for approximately 15 hours on weekdays before it was eliminated (6AM-9PM) and had a cost per passenger of $6.83. Multiply that by 210 passengers and that is $1,434.30 per day that they are spending. The S60 probably only had 1 or 2 operators during the weekdays, since it made a round trip in approximately 30 minutes.

When you divide $1,434.30/15 hours, that is a cost of $95.62 per hour. Where is that additional cost coming from? Either my math is wrong or somehow maintainance costs an additional $60-$70 per hour.

Another example is the S54 on weekends. It had 114 runs on the weekend, with each one being approximately 45 minutes. If you round it to 1 hour to account for layover periods, that is 114 hours of runtime on the weekend with a cost of $8,327 ($1,100 passengers times $7.57 per passenger). Divide that by 114 and you get $73.00 per hour.

My question is: Where are these additional costs coming from?

[INDman]

It takes more buses to move the same amount of people as one train does. Thats why it costs more.

[NX Express]

I have a question: Where do the additional costs on buses come from if the bus driver's wage is $26.94 per hour?

Fuel, maintenance, and other minor costs.

[SubwayGuy]

Fuel, maintenance, and other minor costs.

 

That's correct. Buses are also more prone to breakdowns and other maintenance issues than trains are, and require more frequent inspection. Trains are inspected every 12,000 miles and by class, they all have MDBF's of (at minimum) 50,000 miles. You show me a bus that can consistently run 12,000 miles between inspections and I'll show you a unicorn. 10,000 miles MDBF would be a great performance by a bus. For a train, that's nothing.

 

Also to checkmatechamp, remember that the time the bus is running is only the time it is in service. A bus operator still needs to be paid to pre-trip his bus prior to leaving the depot, and return it to the depot at the end. It also does not include running not in service to the terminal. These are some of the setup/break down costs associated with shutting down and restarting any form of service, whether subway or bus. Trains need to go to yards and buses need to go to depots to shut down service.

 

For subway trains, the costs may be higher to maintain them in total, but when you divide them by a 20x greater number of passengers, the TA actually spends much less per passenger running a subway train than they do a bus.

[checkmatechamp13]

The reason that I was asking that question is because it just seems strange to me that those "minor costs" would exceed the driver's wage. I didn't think buses were that prone to breakdowns that they needed that much maintainance.

[SubwayGuy]

The reason that I was asking that question is because it just seems strange to me that those "minor costs" would exceed the driver's wage. I didn't think buses were that prone to breakdowns that they needed that much maintainance.

 

That's because buses take more of a beating on the road than trains take on the rails.

[Shortline Bus]

That's because buses take more of a beating on the road than trains take on the rails.

 

If you going to run buses as overnight replacement for long routes like the and that run 24/7 you better off not running any service at all.

That why the idea of shutting down NYC subways overnight is a terrible idea.

Other options like closing lighter used stations makes more sense . Another idea to think about could even be using shuttle buses on the Rockaway Park or the in SW Brooklyn/Bay Ridge. Not endorsing those options but it something more realistic to consider.

[Filip]

Ware the original IRT and BRT, the privately owned companies, able to make a profit on running the service?

Ware they able to pay for the construction on themself?

What has changed that the MTA needs sponsoring from government?

Why the people who don't use the Subway in NYC must pay for it (taxes)?

[checkmatechamp13]

Ware the original IRT and BRT, the privately owned companies, able to make a profit on running the service?

Ware they able to pay for the construction on themself?

What has changed that the MTA needs sponsoring from government?

Why the people who don't use the Subway in NYC must pay for it (taxes)?

 

The idea behind a publicly run system is that a private company wouldn't provide the best service, since they would always be worrying about costs. Therefore, they would provide a lesser level of service (the trains would be chronically crowded), and, unless they were in a situation where they had to hold the fares artificially low, the fares would go up. On top of that, privately run companies don't pay unionized wages.

[SubwayGuy]

Ware the original IRT and BRT, the privately owned companies, able to make a profit on running the service?

Ware they able to pay for the construction on themself?

What has changed that the MTA needs sponsoring from government?

Why the people who don't use the Subway in NYC must pay for it (taxes)?

 

Simple. Privately held companies have to answer to investors and stockholders. That means they need to turn a profit. A municipal agency does not need to turn a profit, so that is less "cost" for everyone.

 

In other words (this is an extreme oversimplification, but...):

Municipal Agency makes 1 million dollars

Municipal Agency spends 1 million dollars

 

They broke even, but they have a balanced budget so they're happy.

 

Private Company makes 1 million dollars

Private Company spends 1 million dollars

 

They didn't make any money, so they're going to raise their prices so they make 1.25 million dollars next year.

[Ms. W Supporter]

If you going to run buses as overnight replacement for long routes like the and that run 24/7 you better off not running any service at all.

That why the idea of shutting down NYC subways overnight is a terrible idea.

Other options like closing lighter used stations makes more sense . Another idea to think about could even be using shuttle buses on the Rockaway Park or the in SW Brooklyn/Bay Ridge. Not endorsing those options but it something more realistic to consider.

 

I was thinking about why trains still run at night. After all, in every other major city there is no such thing as 24hr service. For the shorter routes and train service in the extreme outerboroughs, they should just substitute for shuttle bus or have most trains run once an hour. Except for the few that work, many people are not really out during those times. During those times, lots of maintenance can be done, reducing the cost of future "emergancy" maintenance...the trains probably will be in better shape too.

[RTOMan]

I was thinking about why trains still run at night. After all, in every other major city there is no such thing as 24hr service. For the shorter routes and train service in the extreme outerboroughs, they should just substitute for shuttle bus or have most trains run once an hour. Except for the few that work, many people are not really out during those times. During those times, lots of maintenance can be done, reducing the cost of future "emergancy" maintenance...the trains probably will be in better shape too.

 

So im guessing you dont ride the trains @ 0200 hrs in the morning in NYC right?

 

These words was already spoken before by the OP...

 

You related to him?

[checkmatechamp13]

So im guessing you dont ride the trains @ 0200 hrs in the morning in NYC right?

 

These words was already spoken before by the OP...

 

You related to him?

 

She meant that trains on certain lines should have shuttle buses instead of shuttle trains. She's saying to review everything on a case-by-case basis instead of just generally saying whether or not everything should or shouldn't run.

For example, she's probably referring to lines like the Rockaway Park and Dyre Avenue Shuttles that could be replaced by shuttle buses, not lines like the Lexington Avenue Line or Queens Blvd Line.

[RTOMan]

She meant that trains on certain lines should have shuttle buses instead of shuttle trains. She's saying to review everything on a case-by-case basis instead of just generally saying whether or not everything should or shouldn't run.

For example, she's probably referring to lines like the Rockaway Park and Dyre Avenue Shuttles that could be replaced by shuttle buses, not lines like the Lexington Avenue Line or Queens Blvd Line.

 

So you tell me how much "work" the lines on the outer boros need to be done late at night since they are outside.

 

For the shorter routes

 

Shorter routes where? Thats a quote from her post.

 

Maybe you should read it again...

[SubwayGuy]

Here is a very simple summary of this thread in FIVE sentences:

 

1-A very small handful of people think cutting overnight service is a good idea.

 

2-But in reality it is a stupid idea because NYC is a unique "city that never sleeps" which has residents and businesses that RELY on overnight service for employment or business.

 

3-Some people feel that substituting buses for trains overnight is a good idea.

 

4-But it is a horrible idea because buses cost more to run per passenger than trains do, and they provide significantly slower service than trains do which is not acceptable when overnight headways on buses and trains are quite lengthy

 

5-Therefore cutting overnight service, or running buses instead of trains, are both horrible ideas and should not be implemented.

[RTOMan]

Here is a very simple summary of this thread in FIVE sentences:

 

1-A very small handful of people think cutting overnight service is a good idea.

 

2-But in reality it is a stupid idea because NYC is a unique "city that never sleeps" which has residents and businesses that RELY on overnight service for employment or business.

 

3-Some people feel that substituting buses for trains overnight is a good idea.

 

4-But it is a horrible idea because buses cost more to run per passenger than trains do, and they provide significantly slower service than trains do which is not acceptable when overnight headways on buses and trains are quite lengthy

 

5-Therefore cutting overnight service, or running buses instead of trains, are both horrible ideas and should not be implemented.

 

In other words hopefully none of these posters are in postitions to implement these "changes"...

 

EVER....

[asidrane]

Here is a very simple summary of this thread in FIVE sentences:

 

1-A very small handful of people think cutting overnight service is a good idea.

 

2-But in reality it is a stupid idea because NYC is a unique "city that never sleeps" which has residents and businesses that RELY on overnight service for employment or business.

 

3-Some people feel that substituting buses for trains overnight is a good idea.

 

4-But it is a horrible idea because buses cost more to run per passenger than trains do, and they provide significantly slower service than trains do which is not acceptable when overnight headways on buses and trains are quite lengthy

 

5-Therefore cutting overnight service, or running buses instead of trains, are both horrible ideas and should not be implemented.

 

It is a good summary of the thread and I like the way you not only shot down the idea, but provided sound logic as to why they aren't the best suggestions.