Express bus cut talk

[checkmatechamp13]

Folks in areas of Stapleton Heights could've used that...

 

I just dug up an old SI map with the X18 and X20 on it... The X20 run was way too short. It's no wonder it died. It just served as an overflow bus. Was there ever a time when it was actually running somewhat at capacity and when did it start running as a route?

 

In my 1993 bus map, the X20 ran every 30 minutes from 6:40 AM- 8:35 AM (5 runs) and from 3:30 PM- 6:00 PM (6 runs). Considering that the X20 runs into areas where it duplicates more frequent lines, it would've been better if they had cut that line and used those extra buses to split the X18 into 2 routes (both via the Downtown Loop):

 

X18: Victory Blvd/Cebra Avenue-Manhattan

Manhattan-bound: Cebra Avenue-St Pauls Avenue-Van Duzer Street-Richmond Road-Narrows Road South

SI-bound: Narrows Road North-Targee Street-Van Duzer Street-Beach Street-St Pauls Avenue-Cebra Avenue

 

X18A: Bay Street/Broad Street-Manhattan

Manhattan-bound: Broad Street-Tompkins Avenue-Hylan Blvd-Bay Street-School Road-Lily Pond Avenue

SI-bound: Lily Pond Avenue-School Road-Bay Street-Hylan Blvd-Tompkins Avenue-Vanderbilt Avenue-Bay Street.

 

If nothing else, it would've made people's rides less circuituous. Even if they ended up eliminating both routes, at least they would've gotten a few years worth of use out of them. It would've expanded service into a new area, instead of serving an area already served by a multitude of express routes.

 

Slander consists of unfounded negative statements about someone or something. The fact remains that new bus services must have a public hearing. Significant alterations must have a public hearing. They had a public hearing to extend the S55 by a half mile, but no public hearing for a 12.5 mile new bus route? Does that make sense to you?

 

If we want to have the ability to influence policy, we must have the right information. If you stick the S89's ridership numbers in with the S59 so that no one sees it ranks in the bottom ten routes in ridership, then you have deprived the public of an opportunity to provide adequate comment on this issue. This is especially true when you keep the S89's ridership separately from the S59. I note that the S93 is also an independent route, but the S91 (an example of a typical SI Limited) does not have its individual ridership listed.

 

You don't play these types of games with bus routes unless politics are involved. You don't support this type of behavior unless you want the system to collapse. The MTA gets a hard time getting anything because the agency is seen as corrupt. When the private subway companies did city politicians favors, they earned a reputation for being corrupt and the city killed them with the five cent fare.

 

I don't recall a public hearing for the S55 extension to Arthur Kill Road. In any case, the people who attended would've said that it was a good idea (they wouldn't know that they would have to lose express service because of it)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Slander consists of unfounded negative statements about someone or something. The fact remains that new bus services must have a public hearing. Significant alterations must have a public hearing. They had a public hearing to extend the S55 by a half mile, but no public hearing for a 12.5 mile new bus route? Does that make sense to you?

 

If we want to have the ability to influence policy, we must have the right information. If you stick the S89's ridership numbers in with the S59 so that no one sees it ranks in the bottom ten routes in ridership, then you have deprived the public of an opportunity to provide adequate comment on this issue. This is especially true when you keep the S89's ridership separately from the S59. I note that the S93 is also an independent route, but the S91 (an example of a typical SI Limited) does not have its individual ridership listed.

 

You don't play these types of games with bus routes unless politics are involved. You don't support this type of behavior unless you want the system to collapse. The MTA gets a hard time getting anything because the agency is seen as corrupt. When the private subway companies did city politicians favors, they earned a reputation for being corrupt and the city killed them with the five cent fare.

 

Regarding the S89, everyone on Staten Island knows its purpose and why it was created so I don't see what you're crying about. It's a service that provides limited stop service to the light rail in NJ that only runs for a few hours during the week. The same goes for the S93. And why would the S91 be separate from the S61? It is just there to provide a quicker commute, but it does the same route as the S61. The same thing with the S98....

 

You're in Brooklyn and you want to tell us what type of service we should have as Staten Island residents?? Talk about nerve. Yes, politics is involved and this is a service that we want, case closed. The day that residents from another borough can decide or dictate the type of service that another borough has, then we're in big trouble.

 

The MTA is supposed to provide service that best meets the needs of each community, especially seeing that it is us who are subsidising the system. If the community had such a problem with it then it wouldn't have happened, believe me. This was in the works for some time and I am glad that it is up and running and giving Staten Islanders another quick alternative to the express bus.

[JAzumah]

Regarding the S89, everyone on Staten Island knows its purpose and why it was created so I don't see what you're crying about. It's a service that provides limited service to the light rail in NJ that only runs for a few hours during the week. The same goes for the S93. And why would the S91 be separate from the S61? It is just there to provide a quicker commute, but it does the same route as the S61. The same thing with the S98....

 

You're in Brooklyn and you want to tell us what type of service we should have as Staten Island residents?? Talk about nerve. Yes, politics is involved and this is a service that we want, case closed.

 

You did not understand what I said.

 

The S89 is represented as an S59 Limited. There is no requirement for a public hearing for an alternate service pattern on an existing route. There is a requirement for a public hearing on a new or substantially different route. For typical SI Limiteds, a separate ridership count is not kept for the Limiteds. It IS kept for the S89 and S93. That means that the MTA itself (despite saying otherwise publicly) knows that it is a separate service.

 

There are reasons why these rules are in place. It prevents the MTA from doing changes unilaterally that might screw up the transportation system, like implementing the S79SBS in a manner that would harm the community and cutting the S54 to do so. Since you live in Staten Island, you know that there are substantial parts of the North Shore that have very little political clout. Of course, there are many people that have the attitude that the MTA should shove the S79SBS down the throats of Hylan Boulevard residents and businesses. This sort of activity goes BOTH ways.

 

I have gotten at least one call about bus service to Jersey City every single week since the beginning of August from people who actually live on SI and work in Jersey City. It is the largest and longest continuous stream of inquiries that I have received on this project since the beginning of the S89. I am not saying that your opinion doesn't count, but unless you work in Jersey City, they are better positioned to know the services they need than you are. I am sure you can respect that.

 

You have LESS bus service now on Staten Island than in August 2007. You have added the S89, but have lost the X16, X18, X20, and weekend S54 without ANYTHING to compensate those losses. Of those, the X16 was useful, the X18 was so-so, and the X20 useless because no one bothered to restructure it properly. Who is going to backfill these services? How does anyone expect to get North Shore light rail funding when the bus system is skeletal? The FTA is tired of agencies blowing up their bus networks so that they can pay to run light rail. If anyone was using their brain, they would stop poaching the 144 and run the S89 to Newark Airport, where around 30,000 jobs exist. Then, airport centered businesses like HOTELS would spring up all over the place, bringing jobs to Staten Island and allowing people who have to commute to other places in Jersey a place to make reasonable transfers. Then, 24 hour bus service could be available on Richmond Avenue.

 

Of course, I'm still crying. The next logical steps are to eliminate the X3, X9, and X42. In theory, the X3, X9, and X42 do not need a public hearing to be eliminated since they are all derivatives of other routes. If the cash is really short, the X11 is an X10 derivative and it could be cut too.

[checkmatechamp13]

you know what I found odd about waiting at 23rd st sometimes for a 28/38....

 

Well, I knew it was a checkpoint, but the supervisor (or whoever the dude out there be w/ the clipboard and the thin MTA jacket) would always press people to board the x28 (even if the x38 didn't have as many ppl. on it).... I never understood that... and there would be a line of about 20 or so deep waiting also.. of course, there's no way of knowing how many of them needed 27/37 service, as opposed to 28/38/29 service....

 

I think I mouthed off one time & said how come I can't board the 38... he said something to the effect of the bus going back to the depot... which was BS b/c there were people still on there, and the bus pulled into 23rd/broadway signed as an x38.....

 

maybe that was an omen of things to come or something, iono....

 

 

 

 

If I were to guess, those would have been the earlier 37/38 trips... not implying that every 37/38 was crushloaded of course, but the majority of em around the 6-7pm timeframe... yup....

I was guilty of letting 28's go, for a 38, when I used to wait for them over there by the main library, and lo & behold, I wadn't in the same boat....

 

That last statement there, I made that same point, when Shortline was going crazy w/ those "doomsday" threads back then, as well as 1 or 2 other threads talking about the 27/28/37/38..... That has always been my stance on the two routes (37/38), and instead, the MTA did what they did with them....

 

and those south of (houston?) will have to wait even longer for a 27/28 b/c all of a sudden, they want to introduce a new variant... Incredible.

 

I wonder if there were ever any type of demand for WFC service to begin with....

 

The last time I checked the schedule, there were buses running every few minutes ending at Worth Street. I believe those buses have been extended to 23rd Street, so pretty much all stops south of Houston Street will have the same amount of service.

 

For the MTA, no. For a private company, of course.

 

 

 

 

The bus + subway was $3 in 1995. Now, the average per trip is $1.30. This is part of the reason why the subsidies have gone up so much.

 

 

 

 

 

Really? The total amount saved from the SI cuts was $840,000. That's all. The S89 subsidy is around $1M per year. The S89's riderhip was lumped in with the S59's ridership in the documents, but the S89's ridership is kept separately (only independent bus routes are separate). The ridership on the S89 in 2008 was 1,000 trips per day. In 2009, it was 918. This bus route is one of the weakest in the entire MTA system. Why take all the abuse for cutting just $840,000 from the budget?

 

 

 

 

I don't think your numbers are correct. The MTA lists 27% for express buses, 41% for locals, and 67% for the subway (fully allocated). At least, they listed that in 2009 before Busmageddon was cancelled that year.

 

The costs I listed were the operating costs (the costs that change when you add/reduce service). The costs you listed were the total costs (which include management, dispatchers, fixed depot maintainance, and other costs that don't change, regardless of how much service is run)

 

And back when the fare was $1.50, you have to consider that

a) Free transfers were still given between bus lines

Not everybody had to use 2 modes of transportation, so they still would pay 1 fare

c) Unlimited MetroCards have caused people to take trips they wouldn't make otherwise, so the MTA wouldn't have gotten revenue from them anyway.

 

 

You did not understand what I said.

 

The S89 is represented as an S59 Limited. There is no requirement for a public hearing for an alternate service pattern on an existing route. There is a requirement for a public hearing on a new or substantially different route. For typical SI Limiteds, a separate ridership count is not kept for the Limiteds. It IS kept for the S89 and S93. That means that the MTA itself (despite saying otherwise publicly) knows that it is a separate service.

 

There are reasons why these rules are in place. It prevents the MTA from doing changes unilaterally that might screw up the transportation system, like implementing the S79SBS in a manner that would harm the community and cutting the S54 to do so. Since you live in Staten Island, you know that there are substantial parts of the North Shore that have very little political clout. Of course, there are many people that have the attitude that the MTA should shove the S79SBS down the throats of Hylan Boulevard residents and businesses. This sort of activity goes BOTH ways.

 

I have gotten at least one call about bus service to Jersey City every single week since the beginning of August from people who actually live on SI and work in Jersey City. It is the largest and longest continuous stream of inquiries that I have received on this project since the beginning of the S89. I am not saying that your opinion doesn't count, but unless you work in Jersey City, they are better positioned to know the services they need than you are. I am sure you can respect that.

 

You have LESS bus service now on Staten Island than in August 2007. You have added the S89, but have lost the X16, X18, X20, and weekend S54 without ANYTHING to compensate those losses. Of those, the X16 was useful, the X18 was so-so, and the X20 useless because no one bothered to restructure it properly. Who is going to backfill these services? How does anyone expect to get North Shore light rail funding when the bus system is skeletal? The FTA is tired of agencies blowing up their bus networks so that they can pay to run light rail. If anyone was using their brain, they would stop poaching the 144 and run the S89 to Newark Airport, where around 30,000 jobs exist. Then, airport centered businesses like HOTELS would spring up all over the place, bringing jobs to Staten Island and allowing people who have to commute to other places in Jersey a place to make reasonable transfers. Then, 24 hour bus service could be available on Richmond Avenue.

 

Of course, I'm still crying. The next logical steps are to eliminate the X3, X9, and X42. In theory, the X3, X9, and X42 do not need a public hearing to be eliminated since they are all derivatives of other routes. If the cash is really short, the X11 is an X10 derivative and it could be cut too.

 

1) The S89 carries more riders than the X16, X18, and X20 combined, so, automatically, if it came down to that, there would be more people in favor of keeping the S89 than the X16/X18/X20.

 

2) Nobody at the public hearing would've had the foresight to predict that the S89 would cost them their express routes. Remember: The first time they announced that there would be service reductions was in December 2008, and they didn't announce plans to eliminate the X16/X18 until December 2009.

 

3) Those people going to Jersey City still have the option of taking the S89 and HBLR to get there. It is a two-seat ride, but it is a comparable amount of time (and the S89 runs more frequently than the 144 did, so they don't have to time themselves for a specific bus)

 

4) (And I'm being 100% serious on this one) If you think that a route to Newark Airport is going to be so successful, why don't you run it? You can start it as an

[JAzumah]

1) The S89 carries more riders than the X16, X18, and X20 combined, so, automatically, if it came down to that, there would be more people in favor of keeping the S89 than the X16/X18/X20.

 

2) Nobody at the public hearing would've had the foresight to predict that the S89 would cost them their express routes. Remember: The first time they announced that there would be service reductions was in December 2008, and they didn't announce plans to eliminate the X16/X18 until December 2009.

 

3) Those people going to Jersey City still have the option of taking the S89 and HBLR to get there. It is a two-seat ride, but it is a comparable amount of time (and the S89 runs more frequently than the 144 did, so they don't have to time themselves for a specific bus)

 

4) (And I'm being 100% serious on this one) If you think that a route to Newark Airport is going to be so successful, why don't you run it? You can start it as an

 

1. That is one way to look at it, although I don't like the idea of using sheer numbers all of the time. The S55 and S56 have shown up on numerous cut lists because of that, but it would be stupid to cut those routes.

 

2. The entire reason hearings are required is that someone in NYS government understood that changes in the transit system of such magnitude have impacts financially on the agency as well as on the community. Part of the reason why the original Regional Bus proposal died is because the MTA wanted to cut out the public hearings for modifying routes.

 

3. The 144 is 15 minutes faster than the S89/HBLR combo. Most of the time is picked up by eliminating the transfer time between the two modes.

 

4. I have a route plan known as Route 100 that is an X17J clone, but would operate through Newark Airport every 30-60 minutes all day long 7 days per week. I'm pretty sure this will get done in 2012.

[B35 via Church]

Slander consists of unfounded negative statements about someone or something. The fact remains that new bus services must have a public hearing. Significant alterations must have a public hearing. They had a public hearing to extend the S55 by a half mile, but no public hearing for a 12.5 mile new bus route? Does that make sense to you?

 

If we want to have the ability to influence policy, we must have the right information. If you stick the S89's ridership numbers in with the S59 so that no one sees it ranks in the bottom ten routes in ridership, then you have deprived the public of an opportunity to provide adequate comment on this issue. This is especially true when you keep the S89's ridership separately from the S59. I note that the S93 is also an independent route, but the S91 (an example of a typical SI Limited) does not have its individual ridership listed.

 

You don't play these types of games with bus routes unless politics are involved. You don't support this type of behavior unless you want the system to collapse. The MTA gets a hard time getting anything because the agency is seen as corrupt. When the private subway companies did city politicians favors, they earned a reputation for being corrupt and the city killed them with the five cent fare.

 

I don't doubt there existing a certain level of corruption w/i the MTA....

But you act as if EVERYTHING the MTA does, is corrupt... is illegal... is immoral & unjust....

 

case in point- the ridership numbers of the S89 hidden (as you convey it) w/ that of the S59's.... interesting, and I guess the ridership numbers of the Bx1/2... and the ridership numbers of the Q20/44 are combined for the same reason.... it's all part of one big conspiracy to cover up the fact that the weaker route has the ridership it does...

 

ok, gotcha.

 

 

Regarding the S89, everyone on Staten Island knows its purpose and why it was created so I don't see what you're crying about. It's a service that provides limited stop service to the light rail in NJ that only runs for a few hours during the week.

Let me fill you in.

 

It's personal with him...

He is a private carrier... Transport Azumah is the name of his company.

Bear in mind that the MTA is his direct competitor.

 

Coach USA discontinued route 144... rights to the route were later given to Joel..... but the 144 ended up being suspended, due to the creation of the (cheaper) S89 service, of which we have today... he feels that the S89 illegally competed with the 144....

 

ever since then, he's been bitter, saying anything to try to SLANDER (which is what it is) the S89.... you can do your own research as to how many SI-ers he's done pissed off with his services in the past....

 

classic David vs Goliath situation... difference is, david never complained/bitched about how, why, and what goliath did to get so dam big - he just went up & slayed the mofo.

 

I mean, just look at his route 100 in the works... he admits to it being an X17J "clone" (his words), except that it'd serve EWR.... how much any of you wanna bet that this either never gets off the ground, or will end in complaints of "people aren't taking my route over the 17j, b/c the 17j is xyz"......

 

it's like bringing a sword to a gunfight, and complaining that the guy with the gun, has a gun.

 

 

You have LESS bus service now on Staten Island than in August 2007. You have added the S89, but have lost the X16, X18, X20, and weekend S54 without ANYTHING to compensate those losses. Of those, the X16 was useful, the X18 was so-so, and the X20 useless because no one bothered to restructure it properly. Who is going to backfill these services?

 

What does that have to do with the tea in china?

 

the S89 had squat to do w/ the loss of those express routes.... There you go trying to diminish the value & the worth of the S89 again....

[B35 via Church]

2) Nobody at the public hearing would've had the foresight to predict that the S89 would cost them their express routes. Remember: The first time they announced that there would be service reductions was in December 2008, and they didn't announce plans to eliminate the X16/X18 until December 2009.

 

3) Those people going to Jersey City still have the option of taking the S89 and HBLR to get there. It is a two-seat ride, but it is a comparable amount of time (and the S89 runs more frequently than the 144 did, so they don't have to time themselves for a specific bus)

 

2- Because the S89 had nothing to do with the elimination of those routes, directly or indirectly....

Don't buy into his deflection....

 

3- ...from what I hear, never came on time anyway.

[JAzumah]

I don't doubt there existing a certain level of corruption w/i the MTA....

But you act as if EVERYTHING the MTA does, is corrupt... is illegal... is immoral & unjust....

 

This is why the MTA was given copies of 144 ridership data when we took over.

 

This is why I was warned by MTA employees that the MTA has a habit of stabbing people in the back.

 

I was leaked the S89 schedule well before it was public.

 

This is why MTA personnel help spot the buses I chartered to move X90 passengers.

 

This is why MTA personnel help distribute information to their customers on the chartered buses I ran.

 

Most people assume a lot of things about me and that is why they get it really wrong.

 

 

case in point- the ridership numbers of the S89 hidden (as you convey it) w/ that of the S59's.... interesting, and I guess the ridership numbers of the Bx1/2... and the ridership numbers of the Q20/44 are combined for the same reason.... it's all part of one big conspiracy to cover up the fact that the weaker route has the ridership it does...

 

ok, gotcha.

 

Have a look for yourself: http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus.htm

 

Why it is the ONLY route that is listed differently in the list of routes and their ridership on the service cut documents. Every single other line is listed as it is listed on the 2009 facts and figures. If you have an alternative view, I'd love to hear it.

 

 

 

Let me fill you in.

 

It's personal with him...

He is a private carrier... Transport Azumah is the name of his company.

Bear in mind that the MTA is his direct competitor.

 

Coach USA discontinued route 144... rights to the route were later given to Joel..... but the 144 ended up being suspended, due to the creation of the (cheaper) S89 service, of which we have today... he feels that the S89 illegally competed with the 144....

 

ever since then, he's been bitter, saying anything to try to SLANDER (which is what it is) the S89.... you can do your own research as to how many SI-ers he's done pissed off with his services in the past....

 

classic David vs Goliath situation... difference is, david never complained/bitched about how, why, and what goliath did to get so dam big - he just went up & slayed the mofo.

 

I mean, just look at his route 100 in the works... he admits to it being an X17J "clone" (his words), except that it'd serve EWR.... how much any of you wanna bet that this either never gets off the ground, or will end in complaints of "people aren't taking my route over the 17j, b/c the 17j is xyz"......

 

it's like bringing a sword to a gunfight, and complaining that the guy with the gun, has a gun.

 

I get it...the "ends justify the means".

 

What if the MTA decides to implement an emergency fare hike one day in order to stave off insolvency? I mean, it is for the good of the transit system, right? What if they promised to put that money towards an emergency repair program in the subway? Would you tolerate a 100% fare increase for that? It would be illegal, but fixing 80-100 year old structures so that they don't fail is a matter of life and death. There are stations where chunks of concrete are falling on people below. You would support that, right?

 

The problem is one of a boiling frog. When you get used to government and quasi-government agencies declaring "emergencies" to break the law, you soon realize that the law doesn't exist. The one provision of Regional Bus that caused its failure (the ability of the MTA to unilaterally make route changes without public hearings) is already implemented with regards to the S89. How can you control spending at an agency when procurement and service delivery is being done in an illegal manner at the agency's discretion?

 

 

What does that have to do with the tea in china?

 

the S89 had squat to do w/ the loss of those express routes.... There you go trying to diminish the value & the worth of the S89 again....

 

How many projects were implemented that were subject to public hearings or competition, but that process did not happen?

 

How many MTA people have yelled and screamed about special people getting special contracts to supply goods at prices above market rate?

 

How much does this cost the MTA every year?

 

Where does that money usually come out of? Where does the money to run buses and subways come out of?

 

This is why this discussion matters. The variable costs is what one saves by not running a bus, but the system costs are the total that each route has to bear. You cannot run a bus route without buses and a place to park them and that is what system costs represent. Likewise, you cannot manage finite resources unless you apply rules to manage those resources. If the rules are not followed, you will always be short. If new bus routes are implemented without a public hearing, new routes will be added to the system as existing routes struggle for funds. It would be like you trying to meet your bills when I keep reaching into your pocket and taking money out without your permission. You will never be able to meet your bills. This is easy to understand unless you want to deviate from the facts of the issue.

[checkmatechamp13]

You did not understand what I said.

 

The S89 is represented as an S59 Limited. There is no requirement for a public hearing for an alternate service pattern on an existing route. There is a requirement for a public hearing on a new or substantially different route. For typical SI Limiteds, a separate ridership count is not kept for the Limiteds. It IS kept for the S89 and S93. That means that the MTA itself (despite saying otherwise publicly) knows that it is a separate service.

 

There are reasons why these rules are in place. It prevents the MTA from doing changes unilaterally that might screw up the transportation system, like implementing the S79SBS in a manner that would harm the community and cutting the S54 to do so. Since you live in Staten Island, you know that there are substantial parts of the North Shore that have very little political clout. Of course, there are many people that have the attitude that the MTA should shove the S79SBS down the throats of Hylan Boulevard residents and businesses. This sort of activity goes BOTH ways.

 

I have gotten at least one call about bus service to Jersey City every single week since the beginning of August from people who actually live on SI and work in Jersey City. It is the largest and longest continuous stream of inquiries that I have received on this project since the beginning of the S89. I am not saying that your opinion doesn't count, but unless you work in Jersey City, they are better positioned to know the services they need than you are. I am sure you can respect that.

 

You have LESS bus service now on Staten Island than in August 2007. You have added the S89, but have lost the X16, X18, X20, and weekend S54 without ANYTHING to compensate those losses. Of those, the X16 was useful, the X18 was so-so, and the X20 useless because no one bothered to restructure it properly. Who is going to backfill these services? How does anyone expect to get North Shore light rail funding when the bus system is skeletal? The FTA is tired of agencies blowing up their bus networks so that they can pay to run light rail. If anyone was using their brain, they would stop poaching the 144 and run the S89 to Newark Airport, where around 30,000 jobs exist. Then, airport centered businesses like HOTELS would spring up all over the place, bringing jobs to Staten Island and allowing people who have to commute to other places in Jersey a place to make reasonable transfers. Then, 24 hour bus service could be available on Richmond Avenue.

 

Of course, I'm still crying. The next logical steps are to eliminate the X3, X9, and X42. In theory, the X3, X9, and X42 do not need a public hearing to be eliminated since they are all derivatives of other routes. If the cash is really short, the X11 is an X10 derivative and it could be cut too.

 

1) IMO, all of those reductions were made to spread the pain across all 5 boroughs, so it didn't seem like Staten Island was getting off easy. (By the way, it was $3 million saved with the SI reductions, not $840,000)

 

2) If the MTA only did those cuts to balance out the subsidies received by the S89, theoretically, there should be no reason to cut any additional service.

 

3) Every borough has less service than it did in 2007.

 

4) If the S89 received $1 million in subsidies, that would mean that the subsidy per rider is about $4 and change. Factor in the fare paid by the customer and you get a cost per rider of close to $6, almost as much as the S55/S56 and S60. From experience, those buses are much more crowded than the S55/S56, and S60, so I doubt the subsidies were $1 million.

 

1. That is one way to look at it, although I don't like the idea of using sheer numbers all of the time. The S55 and S56 have shown up on numerous cut lists because of that, but it would be stupid to cut those routes.

 

2. The entire reason hearings are required is that someone in NYS government understood that changes in the transit system of such magnitude have impacts financially on the agency as well as on the community. Part of the reason why the original Regional Bus proposal died is because the MTA wanted to cut out the public hearings for modifying routes.

 

3. The 144 is 15 minutes faster than the S89/HBLR combo. Most of the time is picked up by eliminating the transfer time between the two modes.

 

4. I have a route plan known as Route 100 that is an X17J clone, but would operate through Newark Airport every 30-60 minutes all day long 7 days per week. I'm pretty sure this will get done in 2012.

 

2) But you saw the way the politicians were back in March-they all acted like they gave a damn about their constituents and said that they didn't want reductions in service. Do you really think they would oppose a new route? Even if the S89 was related to the discontinuation of the express routes, they still wouldn't have predicted that it was an either/or situation.

 

3) If there is still a demand for direct service to Jersey City, doesn't that mean that you could still run the 144? If the time savings are that great, you could run a few 144 trips per day directly to Jersey City.

 

4) Why run it as an X17J clone when you could just end it at Newark Airport? There are already buses that go from Newark Airport to Manhattan.

 

This is why the MTA was given copies of 144 ridership data when we took over.

 

This is why I was warned by MTA employees that the MTA has a habit of stabbing people in the back.

 

I was leaked the S89 schedule well before it was public.

 

This is why MTA personnel help spot the buses I chartered to move X90 passengers.

 

This is why MTA personnel help distribute information to their customers on the chartered buses I ran.

 

Most people assume a lot of things about me and that is why they get it really wrong.

 

 

 

 

Have a look for yourself: http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus.htm

 

Why it is the ONLY route that is listed differently in the list of routes and their ridership on the service cut documents. Every single other line is listed as it is listed on the 2009 facts and figures. If you have an alternative view, I'd love to hear it.

 

 

 

 

 

I get it...the "ends justify the means".

 

What if the MTA decides to implement an emergency fare hike one day in order to stave off insolvency? I mean, it is for the good of the transit system, right? What if they promised to put that money towards an emergency repair program in the subway? Would you tolerate a 100% fare increase for that? It would be illegal, but fixing 80-100 year old structures so that they don't fail is a matter of life and death. There are stations where chunks of concrete are falling on people below. You would support that, right?

 

The problem is one of a boiling frog. When you get used to government and quasi-government agencies declaring "emergencies" to break the law, you soon realize that the law doesn't exist. The one provision of Regional Bus that caused its failure (the ability of the MTA to unilaterally make route changes without public hearings) is already implemented with regards to the S89. How can you control spending at an agency when procurement and service delivery is being done in an illegal manner at the agency's discretion?

 

 

 

 

How many projects were implemented that were subject to public hearings or competition, but that process did not happen?

 

How many MTA people have yelled and screamed about special people getting special contracts to supply goods at prices above market rate?

 

How much does this cost the MTA every year?

 

Where does that money usually come out of? Where does the money to run buses and subways come out of?

 

This is why this discussion matters. The variable costs is what one saves by not running a bus, but the system costs are the total that each route has to bear. You cannot run a bus route without buses and a place to park them and that is what system costs represent. Likewise, you cannot manage finite resources unless you apply rules to manage those resources. If the rules are not followed, you will always be short. If new bus routes are implemented without a public hearing, new routes will be added to the system as existing routes struggle for funds. It would be like you trying to meet your bills when I keep reaching into your pocket and taking money out without your permission. You will never be able to meet your bills. This is easy to understand unless you want to deviate from the facts of the issue.

 

1) The S93 is also listed as a seperate route (and it is a fairly strong route)

 

2) If the MTA implemented the bus route themselves, that wouldn't be like stealing from a person trying to pay their bills-that would be like that person overspending while still trying to pay their bills.

 

Sure, politics was involved in the creation of the route (which is why no politician would oppose it if a public hearing were held), but if the MTA truly felt it wasn't needed, they wouldn't go through with it.

[BJC]

If you ask me,MTA was better off making X 18 and 20 one route,but I don't even think that would've been enough to save that new route....anyone here know where they extend the X 20 to before it got cut?

[LRG]

If you ask me,MTA was better off making X 18 and 20 one route,but I don't even think that would've been enough to save that new route....anyone here know where they extend the X 20 to before it got cut?

 

Seaview Avenue.

[checkmatechamp13]

They extended it one stop down Father Capodanno Blvd to a Park-and-Ride facility (I think it is near Seaview Avenue). The new route was pretty much the AM pattern of the old route (in both directions), extended a few blocks south (see below)

 

The X20 originally had the following pattern:

AM: Sand Lane-Hylan Blvd-Steuben Street-Narrows Road South-VZ Bridge

PM: VZ Bridge-Lily Pond Avenue-Father Capodanno Blvd-Sand Lane-Hylan Blvd-Narrows Road South.

 

I don't think it would've been worth combining the X18 and X20. You would just end up lengthening the trip for people on the X18 portion of the route.

 

The only way I could think of saving the X18 portion of the route would be by either sending some X15 trips via Vanderbilt Avenue (which would add 15 minutes to the trip time of those customers) or reinstating the X16 and running that via Vanderbilt Avenue.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't doubt there existing a certain level of corruption w/i the MTA....

But you act as if EVERYTHING the MTA does, is corrupt... is illegal... is immoral & unjust....

 

case in point- the ridership numbers of the S89 hidden (as you convey it) w/ that of the S59's.... interesting, and I guess the ridership numbers of the Bx1/2... and the ridership numbers of the Q20/44 are combined for the same reason.... it's all part of one big conspiracy to cover up the fact that the weaker route has the ridership it does...

 

ok, gotcha.

 

 

 

Let me fill you in.

 

It's personal with him...

He is a private carrier... Transport Azumah is the name of his company.

Bear in mind that the MTA is his direct competitor.

 

Coach USA discontinued route 144... rights to the route were later given to Joel..... but the 144 ended up being suspended, due to the creation of the (cheaper) S89 service, of which we have today... he feels that the S89 illegally competed with the 144....

 

ever since then, he's been bitter, saying anything to try to SLANDER (which is what it is) the S89.... you can do your own research as to how many SI-ers he's done pissed off with his services in the past....

 

classic David vs Goliath situation... difference is, david never complained/bitched about how, why, and what goliath did to get so dam big - he just went up & slayed the mofo.

 

I mean, just look at his route 100 in the works... he admits to it being an X17J "clone" (his words), except that it'd serve EWR.... how much any of you wanna bet that this either never gets off the ground, or will end in complaints of "people aren't taking my route over the 17j, b/c the 17j is xyz"......

 

it's like bringing a sword to a gunfight, and complaining that the guy with the gun, has a gun.

 

 

 

 

What does that have to do with the tea in china?

 

the S89 had squat to do w/ the loss of those express routes.... There you go trying to diminish the value & the worth of the S89 again....

 

I'm not at all new to "Jazumah"... I know very well who he is from other forums...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1. That is one way to look at it, although I don't like the idea of using sheer numbers all of the time. The S55 and S56 have shown up on numerous cut lists because of that, but it would be stupid to cut those routes.

 

2. The entire reason hearings are required is that someone in NYS government understood that changes in the transit system of such magnitude have impacts financially on the agency as well as on the community. Part of the reason why the original Regional Bus proposal died is because the MTA wanted to cut out the public hearings for modifying routes.

 

3. The 144 is 15 minutes faster than the S89/HBLR combo. Most of the time is picked up by eliminating the transfer time between the two modes.

 

4. I have a route plan known as Route 100 that is an X17J clone, but would operate through Newark Airport every 30-60 minutes all day long 7 days per week. I'm pretty sure this will get done in 2012.

 

 

This is the same guy that went out and tried to put his service on eliminated bus lines in the city and what happened? He was SHUTDOWN!!

 

Now if you are considering bringing back the service you gave us previously, you can keep it. I'd rather deal with the disfunctional MTA anyday than that.

[checkmatechamp13]

A route is better than no route. At least it means there is a direct form of mass transit for SIers going towards Newark and Newark Airport. Personally, I wouldn't rely on it if I had to use it for commuting, but for those times when I need to make a trip out there (and leave early so I can afford to have a few buses cancelled on me), it would be a real help.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is why the MTA was given copies of 144 ridership data when we took over.

 

This is why I was warned by MTA employees that the MTA has a habit of stabbing people in the back.

 

I was leaked the S89 schedule well before it was public.

 

This is why MTA personnel help spot the buses I chartered to move X90 passengers.

 

This is why MTA personnel help distribute information to their customers on the chartered buses I ran.

 

Most people assume a lot of things about me and that is why they get it really wrong.

 

 

 

 

Have a look for yourself: http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus.htm

 

Why it is the ONLY route that is listed differently in the list of routes and their ridership on the service cut documents. Every single other line is listed as it is listed on the 2009 facts and figures. If you have an alternative view, I'd love to hear it.

 

 

 

 

 

I get it...the "ends justify the means".

 

What if the MTA decides to implement an emergency fare hike one day in order to stave off insolvency? I mean, it is for the good of the transit system, right? What if they promised to put that money towards an emergency repair program in the subway? Would you tolerate a 100% fare increase for that? It would be illegal, but fixing 80-100 year old structures so that they don't fail is a matter of life and death. There are stations where chunks of concrete are falling on people below. You would support that, right?

 

The problem is one of a boiling frog. When you get used to government and quasi-government agencies declaring "emergencies" to break the law, you soon realize that the law doesn't exist. The one provision of Regional Bus that caused its failure (the ability of the MTA to unilaterally make route changes without public hearings) is already implemented with regards to the S89. How can you control spending at an agency when procurement and service delivery is being done in an illegal manner at the agency's discretion?

 

 

 

 

How many projects were implemented that were subject to public hearings or competition, but that process did not happen?

 

How many MTA people have yelled and screamed about special people getting special contracts to supply goods at prices above market rate?

 

How much does this cost the MTA every year?

 

Where does that money usually come out of? Where does the money to run buses and subways come out of?

 

This is why this discussion matters. The variable costs is what one saves by not running a bus, but the system costs are the total that each route has to bear. You cannot run a bus route without buses and a place to park them and that is what system costs represent. Likewise, you cannot manage finite resources unless you apply rules to manage those resources. If the rules are not followed, you will always be short. If new bus routes are implemented without a public hearing, new routes will be added to the system as existing routes struggle for funds. It would be like you trying to meet your bills when I keep reaching into your pocket and taking money out without your permission. You will never be able to meet your bills. This is easy to understand unless you want to deviate from the facts of the issue.

 

You defend local bus service over express bus service constantly, yet when it comes to the S89 you have so many problems with it. Hmm, I wonder why? (Sarcasm)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

They extended it one stop down Father Capodanno Blvd to a Park-and-Ride facility (I think it is near Seaview Avenue). The new route was pretty much the AM pattern of the old route (in both directions), extended a few blocks south (see below)

 

The X20 originally had the following pattern:

AM: Sand Lane-Hylan Blvd-Steuben Street-Narrows Road South-VZ Bridge

PM: VZ Bridge-Lily Pond Avenue-Father Capodanno Blvd-Sand Lane-Hylan Blvd-Narrows Road South.

 

I don't think it would've been worth combining the X18 and X20. You would just end up lengthening the trip for people on the X18 portion of the route.

 

The only way I could think of saving the X18 portion of the route would be by either sending some X15 trips via Vanderbilt Avenue (which would add 15 minutes to the trip time of those customers) or reinstating the X16 and running that via Vanderbilt Avenue.

 

 

It took about 40 minutes from Forest and Clove Rd to Downtown and it shouldn't be any longer than that.

[checkmatechamp13]

You defend local bus service over express bus service constantly, yet when it comes to the S89 you have so many problems with it. Hmm, I wonder why? (Sarcasm)

 

To be fair to him, I didn't really see any posts defending either service (except when he talked about express service being cut to subsidize the S89).

 

To be honest, what was the original purpose of this thread? For the most part, everybody on here knows that express buses are needed for far-flung places in the outer boroughs, and, if a service is performing well, it should be kept. Now, this is turning into a discussion about whether the S89 was a good choice to implement.

[checkmatechamp13]

It took about 40 minutes from Forest and Clove Rd to Downtown and it shouldn't be any longer than that.

 

Good point. An extra 15 minutes would make it that much less competitive with the local bus->ferry.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

To be fair to him, I didn't really see any posts defending either service (except when he talked about express service being cut to subsidize the S89).

 

To be honest, what was the original purpose of this thread? For the most part, everybody on here knows that express buses are needed for far-flung places in the outer boroughs, and, if a service is performing well, it should be kept. Now, this is turning into a discussion about whether the S89 was a good choice to implement.

 

And yeah, I don't know why this is turning into an S89 discussion either.

 

Regarding your other comment, I already know Jazumah, so I am referring to other forums that he comments in. If you don't know him, he bitches incessantly about the S89. It's rather sickening actually. I mean if he was really so bothered by it and it was so illegal, he would've taken action on the MTA by know as he has said numerous times in other forums.

[checkmatechamp13]

I think he is trying to sue them for running him off of his route.

 

As far as the S89 goes, it is to be expected, since he was the former operator of the 144 (though some of the arguments have very little merit, like express buses being cut to subsidize the S89). However, the thing is that, if his service was more reliable, he would have more riders (I believe that, when the S89 first started, the fare was $2 for the local bus and $1.90 for the light rail, while he was charging $5 for the 144. For $1.10 more, you could have a one-seat ride)

 

Basically, the 144 would be able to coexist with the S89 if the service was better. Think about it-you have many express routes that compete with local bus->subway alternatives, and they do alright (and the difference in the fares is higher)

[JAzumah]

1) IMO, all of those reductions were made to spread the pain across all 5 boroughs, so it didn't seem like Staten Island was getting off easy. (By the way, it was $3 million saved with the SI reductions, not $840,000)

 

There wasn't much to cut on SI. The biggest overlap was on Hylan Boulevard and that was obvious.

 

 

2) If the MTA only did those cuts to balance out the subsidies received by the S89, theoretically, there should be no reason to cut any additional service.

 

They expected a higher level of protest than they got. I am sure they submitted more cuts than they needed. Corporate America overcuts all the time and ends up having to bring people back to fix it. The MTA is adding back some capacity to Hylan Boulevard.

 

 

3) Every borough has less service than it did in 2007.

 

Not Brooklyn and not Queens, thanks to massive MTA Bus service increases.

 

 

4) If the S89 received $1 million in subsidies, that would mean that the subsidy per rider is about $4 and change. Factor in the fare paid by the customer and you get a cost per rider of close to $6, almost as much as the S55/S56 and S60. From experience, those buses are much more crowded than the S55/S56, and S60, so I doubt the subsidies were $1 million.

 

The project cost is $1.4M. The route carries heavily in one direction and weakly in the other. So, your cost structure is closer to an express bus. Half of the buses deadhead in the weaker direction instead of being in service.

 

 

 

2) But you saw the way the politicians were back in March-they all acted like they gave a damn about their constituents and said that they didn't want reductions in service. Do you really think they would oppose a new route? Even if the S89 was related to the discontinuation of the express routes, they still wouldn't have predicted that it was an either/or situation.

 

Our state has a $9B budget gap. The adults have to seize the wheel at some point.

 

 

3) If there is still a demand for direct service to Jersey City, doesn't that mean that you could still run the 144? If the time savings are that great, you could run a few 144 trips per day directly to Jersey City.

 

We will beginning 1/3, but the traffic base is split. It makes it much harder to get things done.

 

 

4) Why run it as an X17J clone when you could just end it at Newark Airport? There are already buses that go from Newark Airport to Manhattan.

 

The existing traffic will subsidize buildup of the new market.

 

 

 

1) The S93 is also listed as a seperate route (and it is a fairly strong route)

 

Yes, and it serves a market that no one else can serve.

 

 

2) If the MTA implemented the bus route themselves, that wouldn't be like stealing from a person trying to pay their bills-that would be like that person overspending while still trying to pay their bills.

 

The point is that the spending is unauthorized. Overspending is like paying overtime after a blizzard. It is unexpected in magnitude, but the spending is necessary. Overspending is not a characterization of the necessity of that expense.

 

 

Sure, politics was involved in the creation of the route (which is why no politician would oppose it if a public hearing were held), but if the MTA truly felt it wasn't needed, they wouldn't go through with it.

 

Ehh...doesn't work like that. The MTA hates admitting mistakes. I know that Country Club, Bay Ridge, Bath Beach, and Dyker Heights have Donkey Kong like political influence. They placed a submission hold on the MTA and that led to fixing the cuts.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think he is trying to sue them for running him off of his route.

 

As far as the S89 goes, it is to be expected, since he was the former operator of the 144. However, the thing is that, if his service was more reliable, he would have more riders (I believe that, when the S89 first started, the fare was $2 for the local bus and $1.90 for the light rail, while he was charging $5 for the 144. For $1.10 more, you could have a one-seat ride)

 

Basically, the 144 would be able to coexist with the S89 if the service was better. Think about it-you have many express routes that compete with local bus->subway alternatives, and they do alright (and the difference in the fares is higher)

 

That his line went bust because of his own doing... And as far as his "legal actions", I don't think there is much he can do about it, so the end result of it is endless bitching.

[checkmatechamp13]

Replies in bold:

 

There wasn't much to cut on SI. The biggest overlap was on Hylan Boulevard and that was obvious.

 

The only reductions that weren't justified were the X16 and X18. All of the other services were either duplicative (the Hylan Blvd routes and S42) or expensive to run (the S54, S60, and X20), at least the way they were structured.

 

They expected a higher level of protest than they got. I am sure they submitted more cuts than they needed. Corporate America overcuts all the time and ends up having to bring people back to fix it. The MTA is adding back some capacity to Hylan Boulevard.

 

The past hearings had a much higher turnout than former hearings. The problem was that people were too busy saying "No service cuts" (which the MTA expected, considering nobody likes service reductions) rather than focusing on specific reductions. The X16 and X18 could've been saved if people specifically talked about how the X16 and X18 impacted their commute rather than talking about how express buses are necessary for SI

 

Not Brooklyn and not Queens, thanks to massive MTA Bus service increases.

 

But they still suffered through service reductions on other routes (and I don't think those increases were more than the service that was reduced)

 

The project cost is $1.4M. The route carries heavily in one direction and weakly in the other. So, your cost structure is closer to an express bus. Half of the buses deadhead in the weaker direction instead of being in service.

 

From my observations, the S89 has weak reverse-peak ridership over the Bayonne Bridge, but in Staten Island ridership is fairly high, at least North of the Eltingville Transit Center

 

Our state has a $9B budget gap. The adults have to seize the wheel at some point.

 

It didn't have a budget gap back in 2007. Even with a big budget gap politicians were still protesting the service reductions (Like the S60. They didn't even offer a solution to restructure it. They just wanted it kept in its expensive form)

 

We will beginning 1/3, but the traffic base is split. It makes it much harder to get things done.

 

You mean you'll be running a branch to Grove Street and a branch to Exchange Place/Hoboken?

 

The existing traffic will subsidize buildup of the new market.

 

I don't think it will be a good idea.

If you charge a $5.50 fare, you won't be able to turn a profit, but if you charge a higher fare, people will just take the X17J, which comes very frequently (not to mention, passengers going to Manhattan wouldn't want to sit through the stop at Newark Airport).

I think there is a large enough passenger base between SI and Newark Airport (and possibly Newark Penn Station) to make a profit at $5-$6 per person. You won't be competing with any MTA service.

 

Yes, and it serves a market that no one else can serve.

 

The College of SI runs its own route between St. George and CSI, so I'm sure they would be willing to use their resources to run a Brooklyn-CSI route if needed (that would actually be more justfied, since passengers from St. George can use the S62).

 

The point is that the spending is unauthorized. Overspending is like paying overtime after a blizzard. It is unexpected in magnitude, but the spending is necessary. Overspending is not a characterization of the necessity of that expense.

 

Ehh...doesn't work like that. The MTA hates admitting mistakes. I know that Country Club, Bay Ridge, Bath Beach, and Dyker Heights have Donkey Kong like political influence. They placed a submission hold on the MTA and that led to fixing the cuts.

 

But the borough president apparently was able to use his power to create the route in the first place. In any case, no politician in their right mind would oppose the creation of a new service, considering that everybody at the public hearings in March were chanting "No service cuts!"

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Replies in bold:

 

The past hearings had a much higher turnout than former hearings. The problem was that people were too busy saying "No service cuts" (which the MTA expected, considering nobody likes service reductions) rather than focusing on specific reductions. The X16 and X18 could've been saved if people specifically talked about how the X16 and X18 impacted their commute rather than talking about how express buses are necessary for SI

 

X16 riders were extremely vocal about their service. I personally wrote to several representatives about the X16 and how vital it was to West Brighton residents and spoke about the X16 at the hearing. A petition was drawn up and sent to the MTA, but as I said before, they had their minds set up on doing everything possible to kill that route. Had they kept it, I'm sure they would've played the same games... Missing buses with no reasons why or sending several fill-ins or new B/Os that don't know the route at all, which meant in many cases, passengers being passed by which I witnessed myself and was a victim of as well.

 

We would not fight as hard as we did to get the X16 implemented and then just let it fall by the waste side.

 

Overall, Staten Islanders may not show up to the hearings, but that is because many of them can't get there since they are held at 6pm, when most Staten Islanders are still working. I actually took personal time off and left early to go that hearing, but many of us write our local representatives regularly, so please don't imply that we don't care.

 

I was in touch regularly when Fossella was working to implement express bus improvements with the HOV lane on the Gowanus and when he was pushing to have it extended over the Verrazano bridge and in the reverse direction during the evening rush.