Bus Riders Bill Of Rights

[SirJokaPlaya]

http://www.news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=278700&position=1&news_type=news

 

I just saw this. Any chance of this happening?

[Juan833Blue]

What does it mean for the 181 and/or 188?:cry:

[Pablo M 201]

What does it mean for the 181 and/or 188?:cry:

Uh, has nothing to do those with those routes. Read the article carefully.

[engineerboy6561]

This doesn't sound like a bad thing if it truly is what the news piece implies it is. In effect, it means that private companies would have to have sufficient fleet size, maintenance infrastructure, etc. to provide acceptable levels of services on the routes they run.

 

Edit: this post is an accident; would a mod mind deleting it?

[engineerboy6561]

This doesn't sound like a bad thing if it truly is what the news piece implies it is. In effect, it means that private companies would have to have sufficient fleet size, maintenance infrastructure, etc. to provide acceptable levels of services on the routes they run. The only potential hangup I can see with this is companies' reactions: if larger carriers decide to drop certain routes altogether because the new regulations jack up marginal costs on these routes, would NJT would be willing or able to pick up these routes and provide service or would service simply vanish? For instance, say you had a relatively long express route from farther out in NJ into NYC that saw only moderate ridership and was run by such a carrier. Depending on the location of such a route, I could see it running on a lot of roads in harder-hit townships in bad enough shape that the buses might well develop serious suspension issues. Add to that a tight schedule and typical traffic in the tunnel and the loop leading into it and I could see peak buses usually being 10-15 minutes late into PABT and at least that late from PABT to the first group of stops until the B/O has a chance to make up time on the schedule. At that point the company would have to consider having additional standby buses in case of breakdown and a better-padded schedule which would mean at least one or two extra runs. If these new costs outweigh marginal revenue on the line some companies might simply drop it and effectively strand a group of their customers. In that situation somebody would need to be responsible for picking up the line either intact or by modifying parts of their existing routes to serve the area in question or people could get screwed far worse.

[SirJokaPlaya]

This doesn't sound like a bad thing if it truly is what the news piece implies it is. In effect, it means that private companies would have to have sufficient fleet size, maintenance infrastructure, etc. to provide acceptable levels of services on the routes they run. The only potential hangup I can see with this is companies' reactions: if larger carriers decide to drop certain routes altogether because the new regulations jack up marginal costs on these routes, would NJT would be willing or able to pick up these routes and provide service or would service simply vanish? For instance, say you had a relatively long express route from farther out in NJ into NYC that saw only moderate ridership and was run by such a carrier. Depending on the location of such a route, I could see it running on a lot of roads in harder-hit townships in bad enough shape that the buses might well develop serious suspension issues. Add to that a tight schedule and typical traffic in the tunnel and the loop leading into it and I could see peak buses usually being 10-15 minutes late into PABT and at least that late from PABT to the first group of stops until the B/O has a chance to make up time on the schedule. At that point the company would have to consider having additional standby buses in case of breakdown and a better-padded schedule which would mean at least one or two extra runs. If these new costs outweigh marginal revenue on the line some companies might simply drop it and effectively strand a group of their customers. In that situation somebody would need to be responsible for picking up the line either intact or by modifying parts of their existing routes to serve the area in question or people could get screwed far worse.

 

I like your idea but here's the problem: Where are companies gonna get the money to afford these buses if they need new buses?

I'm looking at my old Training manuals for NABI and P/T operating book that I kept after training:

MCI's alone cost $356K for a 40 footer, $386K for a 45 footer.

Not forgetting local lines that might be affected by this too, the NABI's are worth between $327K to $347K (Suburban being the more expensive).

For argument sakes, lets also say that NJT decides on getting Neoplans again for their articulated fleet: That's $455K for the Transit model and $471 for the Suburban model.

We can forget NOVA's and Flxible since by the end of 2013, they'll all be gone.

After Chris Crispy Creme Christie took $400 million from NJT's budget, where is NJT or these other companies gonna get the money to get new buses to make the public happy with this new Bill of Rights for passengers? That's the issue there.

[engineerboy6561]

I like your idea but here's the problem: Where are companies gonna get the money to afford these buses if they need new buses?

I'm looking at my old Training manuals for NABI and P/T operating book that I kept after training:

MCI's alone cost $356K for a 40 footer, $386K for a 45 footer.

Not forgetting local lines that might be affected by this too, the NABI's are worth between $327K to $347K (Suburban being the more expensive).

For argument sakes, lets also say that NJT decides on getting Neoplans again for their articulated fleet: That's $455K for the Transit model and $471 for the Suburban model.

We can forget NOVA's and Flxible since by the end of 2013, they'll all be gone.

After Chris Crispy Creme Christie took $400 million from NJT's budget, where is NJT or these other companies gonna get the money to get new buses to make the public happy with this new Bill of Rights for passengers? That's the issue there.

 

My point exactly: new buses, maintenance facilities, etc. do not grow on trees and the funding for this has to come from somewhere. If you ask the carrier to pay for it, either fares will go significantly up or the carrier will drop or curtail service on the line, helping nobody. If NJT has to cover it then they may refuse outright or take the money out of something like maintenance where the effects can be hidden, and if ButterBall has to cover it in the state budget he'll have a cow and veto the thing. What makes me laugh is that Republicans claim left and right that the problem with ObamaCare is that it's a costly unfunded mandate. This bill is a Republican brainchild through and through, and yet it seems to have the same problem they claim ObamaCare has...

[qjtransitmaster]

they can start by eliminating the SCOOT,MCAT, sussex county transit, west milford shuttle,salem county transit, ESPECIALLY OCEANRIDE!!!!!!! then use their garages for NJT have NJT routes extended or modified to absorb all of the rtes cut from eliminating these small guys they can create new long distance routes from them.

[engineerboy6561]

they can start by eliminating the SCOOT,MCAT, sussex county transit, west milford shuttle,salem county transit, ESPECIALLY OCEANRIDE!!!!!!! then use their garages for NJT have NJT routes extended or modified to absorb all of the rtes cut from eliminating these small guys they can create new long distance routes from them.

 

A takeover is one potential solution, but the viability of that depends on a number of other factors which I do not know about and may not be privy to. First of all, you'd have to know a great deal about the routes themselves; were these routes selected by the PBLs completely autonomously for profit, were they modified by NJT to avoid competition (to the detriment of the profitability of the route), or were the routes themselves contracted out to the PBLs because NJT didn't want to lose money on them? Also, certain of these routes may be not-for-profit services run by the community to serve a particular group despite losing money overall (i.e. a shuttle connecting local shops to relatively elderly, well-to-do areas at a token fare).

Routes that fall under the first two groups (profitable in their own right or capable of being profitable with some restructuring and service increases) would probably do better under a takeover because NJT would have the resources to provide better-quality and more frequent service than PBLs and the profit to be had would make it worth NJT's while to do so. However, lines contracted out as a way to dodge losing money on them and not-for-profit services should stay where they are; if times were good and NJT was feeling generous they might continue to support such services, but as things stand I could see these lines being subject to doomsday-style cuts as a means of helping to balance NJT's budget.

[qjtransitmaster]

A takeover is one potential solution, but the viability of that depends on a number of other factors which I do not know about and may not be privy to. First of all, you'd have to know a great deal about the routes themselves; were these routes selected by the PBLs completely autonomously for profit, were they modified by NJT to avoid competition (to the detriment of the profitability of the route), or were the routes themselves contracted out to the PBLs because NJT didn't want to lose money on them? Also, certain of these routes may be not-for-profit services run by the community to serve a particular group despite losing money overall (i.e. a shuttle connecting local shops to relatively elderly, well-to-do areas at a token fare).

Routes that fall under the first two groups (profitable in their own right or capable of being profitable with some restructuring and service increases) would probably do better under a takeover because NJT would have the resources to provide better-quality and more frequent service than PBLs and the profit to be had would make it worth NJT's while to do so. However, lines contracted out as a way to dodge losing money on them and not-for-profit services should stay where they are; if times were good and NJT was feeling generous they might continue to support such services, but as things stand I could see these lines being subject to doomsday-style cuts as a means of helping to balance NJT's budget.

 

my statewide plan will take the not for profit routes and merge them with profitable ones then merge them again to create new regional rtes that can stand on their own!!!! especially in OCEAN!!!!!!

[engineerboy6561]

my statewide plan will take the not for profit routes and merge them with profitable ones then merge them again to create new regional rtes that can stand on their own!!!! especially in OCEAN!!!!!!

 

I get that OceanRide is a mess, but what guarantee is there that NJT won't drop the routes altogether? I don't have time right now but over the weekend I'll post up a Google Map of what I think OceanRide should actually cover.

[qjtransitmaster]

I get that OceanRide is a mess, but what guarantee is there that NJT won't drop the routes altogether? I don't have time right now but over the weekend I'll post up a Google Map of what I think OceanRide should actually cover.

 

oceanride has coverage but the SERVICE IS SO BAD IT SHOULDNT RUN AT ALL!!!!!!! Their routes can be merged into several NJT routes!!!!!! especially the 139 and 137 and maybe an extension of 131 and 135 can do the trick

[theaveragejoe]

For argument sakes, lets also say that NJT decides on getting Neoplans again for their articulated fleet: That's $455K for the Transit model and $471 for the Suburban model.

.

 

You do know that Neoplan is no more in North Amercia