Jump to content

How the MTA is wasting money that could be used to improve bus service


BrooklynBus

Recommended Posts

There are places where ridership is low enough to deem shut down of the bus line, and for the short distance bus lines it would be absorbed into a longer bus line that exists.

 

I don't see the logic in that. Certain local buses are needed for network coverage and cutting them would leave people stranded. And what "short distance" lines are you referring to because most of those have either been eliminated or have been swallowed up by another route that had to be re-routed to cover that portion of the route, making that line longer and less reliable in most cases (i.e. (M5)).

 

You see I'm trying to understand if you're looking to improve service while trying to improve ridership or if you're just saying let's cut where necessary and forget about improving ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


....which is exactly what happened w/ the x13.

 

I'm sure the (old) x14 riders loved that idea.

 

I happen to be one of them... Now according to the (MTA), the additional stops were supposed to add just 10 minutes to the commute, which is a complete lie. The commute can now take 20 - 30 minutes longer each way depending on traffic and that's why I either take the X30 or go over to the X2 which still bypasses Downtown completely. Basically ridership to Midtown on the X14 in the morning has been lost because there are too many variables to factor in now trying to get to Midtown. Now going home, I do use the X14 because traffic is less of an issue for some reason down on Water St. etc. during the PM rush, but still, it takes me a good 20 - 30 minutes longer now than it did before. I used to be able to get home in one hour if traffic was good and now the best I can do is an hour and 15 minutes usually. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smart idea would have been to shut down lines that have the lowest riderships, and to decrease bus service on the ones that have a low amount of ridership. The ones that are in the medium range would have a balance of buses, and the one with higher riderships should recieve limited or SBS service.

You're assuming riderships of routes are gonna remain stagnant, throughout.... You're not considering room for growth; hell, you're not considering growth at all...

 

What happens when more cuts are made, dude... more of the routes in the "medium range" will eventually turn into the "lines that have the lowest riderships"... more riders that fall into the medium range category will opt to board buses w/ the "higher riderships"... This is a perfect analogy of what's happenin to our economy; the rich get richer, the poor gets poorer....

 

is that what we really want.....

 

 

You see I'm trying to understand if you're looking to improve service while trying to improve ridership or if you're just saying let's cut where necessary and forget about improving ridership.

 

With that type of a statement, there is no looking to improve service..... That's plain as day to me...

 

 

I happen to be one of them... Now according to the (MTA), the additional stops were supposed to add just 10 minutes to the commute, which is a complete lie. The commute can now take 20 - 30 minutes longer each way depending on traffic and that's why I either take the X30 or go over to the X2 which still bypasses Downtown completely. Basically ridership to Midtown on the X14 in the morning has been lost because there are too many variables to factor in now trying to get to Midtown. Now going home, I do use the X14 because traffic is less of an issue for some reason down on Water St. etc. during the PM rush, but still, it takes me a good 20 - 30 minutes longer now than it did before. I used to be able to get home in one hour if traffic was good and now the best I can do is an hour and 15 minutes usually. :P

 

While I haven't been on the x14 in a minute, I can tell you the first thing that came to mind when I heard that the x13/14 would merge, is a (failed) attempt at formatting the route similar to the BM1-4, where you have it serving midtown & lower manhattan, via FDR.... difference is, the BM buses don't have to put up w/ near as much of the 57th st traffic....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming riderships of routes are gonna remain stagnant, throughout.... You're not considering room for growth; hell, you're not considering growth at all...

 

What happens when more cuts are made, dude... more of the routes in the "medium range" will eventually turn into the "lines that have the lowest riderships"... more riders that fall into the medium range category will opt to board buses w/ the "higher riderships"... This is a perfect analogy of what's happenin to our economy; the rich get richer, the poor gets poorer....

 

is that what we really want.....

 

 

 

 

While I haven't been on the x14 in a minute, I can tell you the first thing that came to mind when I heard that the x13/14 would merge, is a (failed) attempt at formatting the route like the BM1-4, where you have it serving midtown & lower manhattan, via FDR....

 

Some folks on here advocate cutting certain local bus lines, but what they don't look at is this is a business and the goal of the (MTA) should be to EXPAND ridership, thus boosting the monies that they bring in, not cutting service because that does nothing but decreases ridership. If you're going to make transit less accessible, then there is one less incentive for people to ride. Not everyone LOVES riding public transportation, but some folks are willing to use it provided that it is accessible because when you look at what someone who drives gives up by using public transportation it is quite a bit.

 

They spend more time to walk to the bus stop usually instead of driving in the comfort of their car. They share a bus with a bunch of strangers instead relaxing in the comfort of their car and the list goes on and on. The only savings may be less money spent in gas for the car, but the comfort factor may outweigh that. Like (B35) said, you cut service on one line and those folks will look at other alternatives that better fit their commute, which can damage the line further.

 

While I haven't been on the x14 in a minute, I can tell you the first thing that came to mind when I heard that the x13/14 would merge, is a (failed) attempt at formatting the route similar to the BM1-4, where you have it serving midtown & lower manhattan, via FDR.... difference is, the BM buses don't have to put up w/ near as much of the 57th st traffic....

 

They never take traffic into consideration. How they couldn't see the amount of traffic that the X14 would run into because of the reroute is beyond me, but I can understand them merging the line, but why not make some X14s Midtown only and some X14s Downtown only during the heaviest part of the rush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (MTA) is so politically influenced it would make people blush.:eek:

Thus the agency could use an overhaul. Not sure of the solutions but unless NYC City Hall and Albany starts anew, things will never get better.

 

The problem is that things weren't too different in terms of creating new routes to serve unserved needs when the TA was under City control. The only thing different was they were weren't so focused on cutting service as they are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well constructed post... and I'll follow up w/ one of my own.

 

Although it may come off as me being a stubborn ox (lol), believe me, even when we disagree on things, I still soak in bits of info that is being relayed to me (although you'd never know it).... So on that note, I say...

 

Respect :tup:

 

 

As far as going solely off sheer numbers.... For me, it's never enough to rely on just one source of data - even if it comes right out the horse's mouth, so to speak.... If anyone thinks there aren't hidden agendas involved in these cuts, they are sadly mistaken... What is, isn't always on the surface.... Experience is the best teacher; which for me, makes it a hell of a lot easier to debunk & quite frankly, see through the smokescreens the MTA throws up w/ it's incomplete, irrational, illogical, inconsistent, unfair, and downright skewed information - with which it is portrayed to those that aren't privy to those that don't know any better....

 

a.k.a, the majority of the riding public.....

 

^^ Which is why I'm quick to call BS when I review these infamous hundred page PDF's they put out whenever some type of change (majority the time, in the form of cuts) is proposed, or set to take place.... Aint goin throw me into the category of the ill-informed & naive....

 

If one person can gain something, anything, from what I post on this forum about any given bus route, then my job is done... Disagree, tell me why I'm off base... Agree, well at least someone else sees what I'm seeing... That's how I take it.

 

Hobbies can become learning experiences... So if it weren't for "busfanning", I wouldn't know "one-tenth" of what I've come to realize over the past, well, 2 decades, if I didn't pick up on riders' habits on every single route, every single time I've rode one out...

 

As far as the MTA's suggestions to altered/discontinued routes goes, whenever they bring up alternate means of travel (in this case, walking distances), I take it w/ a grain of salt (and I walk at mach 1... lol)... I've long been convinced that:

 

- they make extensions/positive changes to a route based off enough ppl. in a given area (or the right group of people, which is where we disagree, but it is what it is) complaining... The methods with which they go about adding service, and taking away service, is not consistent - having a hearing and only allowing a handful of people to speak for 5 mins (or however short it is), isn't enough... full knowing they're gonna go ahead w/ what they planned anyway, but that's my suspicion....

 

- they only go off the map when they want to make a routing cut... and how many "lines" are on top of the same road... how many "lines" are adjacent some subway... how many "lines" are "near" another "line" on the map....

You cannot possibly judge how long, in accordance to how far it'll take for someone to walk from pt. A to B, by what's portrayed on a map... Just because you have point A & point B doesn't always mean that the two connect linearly (such as the case in your example w/ the B4 & the B36... which is true)....

 

 

If they feel axing a particular route outright at a given moment would yield in too much backlash at that moment, then they start cutting individual runs... here & there... over the span of years.... so much so that ridership will diminish due to poor service... which gives them "justification" to getting rid of a route... it's the underhanded shit like that I try to get ppl. to realize - because I see it, and oh is it ever so freakin conspicuous !!

 

I understand the MTA is doing what it does to save some funds, but on the same side of the coin, I feel the MTA has gotten into the habit of discouraging bus service in NYC, and gotten into this set mode of attempting to cram everyone onto the subway.....

 

Yes, the train is generally the faster mode of transporatation, but regardless:

 

- Everyone doesn't live a hop, skip, and a jump from the subway.

- Everyone aint fin to walk ridiculous distances to get to the subway.

 

 

fin.

 

Actually, I can't disagree with one thing you have just said here.

 

After reading this post, I don't think any of us can get a job with the (MTA).

 

Well, you are wrong on that one. I was given the chance and I blew it because I valued my health as being more important than my job, and I'd make the same decision today because nothing is as important as your health. (You'll have to wait for my autobiography to get the whole story.) Of course I never should have been put in that position to have to make that choice.

 

At age 28, I was given the opportunity to run the entire bus planning department for six months before it was merged into Operations Planning which previously had just been for subways. Unfortunately, we didn't have the power that OP has today. At that time Transportation called the shots, all of whom were former bus operators who didn't want to change a thing unless it was a matter of safety. At that time, Schedules was even separate from us. My only real powers were final say on the bus destination signs and power to suggest bus stop changes to DOT which were always listened to.

 

After I left, they never had a head of Operations Planning whose first priority was the passenger because that is not what they wanted. There was one exception, someone I had previously worked with who was very competent and also cared about the passenger. He kept that job only for one year.

 

Not too long ago, a participant on Buschat, also a busfan, was hired by OP. We were quite friendly on the internet, but after he was hired, he broke all ties with me. Guess he wants to keep his job. I kept referring to the people at OP as idiots in my posts. Then one day I got an e-mail from him stating he had just become one of the "idiots." Wonder how he is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I can't disagree with one thing you have just said here.

 

 

 

Well, you are wrong on that one. I was given the chance and I blew it because I valued my health as being more important than my job, and I'd make the same decision today because nothing is as important as your health. (You'll have to wait for my autobiography to get the whole story.) Of course I never should have been put in that position to have to make that choice.

 

At age 28, I was given the opportunity to run the entire bus planning department for six months before it was merged into Operations Planning which previously had just been for subways. Unfortunately, we didn't have the power that OP has today. At that time Transportation called the shots, all of whom were former bus operators who didn't want to change a thing unless it was a matter of safety. At that time, Schedules was even separate from us. My only real powers were final say on the bus destination signs and power to suggest bus stop changes to DOT which were always listened to.

 

After I left, they never had a head of Operations Planning whose first priority was the passenger because that is not what they wanted. There was one exception, someone I had previously worked with who was very competent and also cared about the passenger. He kept that job only for one year.

 

Not too long ago, a participant on Buschat, also a busfan, was hired by OP. We were quite friendly on the internet, but after he was hired, he broke all ties with me. Guess he wants to keep his job. I kept referring to the people at OP as idiots in my posts. Then one day I got an e-mail from him stating he had just become one of the "idiots." Wonder how he is doing.

 

 

LMAO!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say that although we have our differences some times, I really respect your wide knowledge of the system (all boroughs) especially as it pertains to people's travel patterns. You also have a good understanding on MTA decision making. If the people at Operations Planning had one tenth the knowledge that you have, we'd be in good shape. Wish you could get a job there somehow. The thing is they wouldn't hire anyone who knows too much. They look for people with mediocre knowledge who who will do as told and not think for themselves. That is part of the problem.

 

I just want to make one specific comment on one of your points. Although you may be correct that the eliminated portion of the B3 may not have been necessary according to pure numbers, you have to remember that that is the reason they have service guidelines, to keep minimum routes and minimum service levels in case people have no alternatives and would have to walk too far to a bus. The problem with the MTA is that whenever they use these guidelines it is only as justification to cut routes, never to add routes, and in this last round of cuts, they just distorted the data or ignored minimum walking guidelines to make further cuts such as the B3 and B4. The guideline calls for striving to have a maximum of a quarter-mile walk to a bus stop. Over the years, they started to interpret this as a quarter-mile to a bus route with wider bus stop spacing. In the case of the B4 to meet this standard, they measured the distance to the B36 (their proposed alternative) as the crow flies, ignoring that you can't walk diagonally or can only cross the Belt Parkway at specific points. The actual walk to the B36 is one-half mile in many cases plus you would have to transfer a second time and pay an extra fare which they also ignored. It is a widely accepted planning fact that most people will not walk more than a quarter mile to access a bus or one half mile to access a subway, so it is not reasonable to expect someone to walk a half mile to a bus. If that is how you are going to plan, you have estimate loss of revenue which they don't do either. They only considered loss of revenue when night time service was discontinued, but at that time the ridership is virtually negligible anyway ( 10 or fewer persons per route per trip?) so it really doesn't matter. But when you are talking about losing more than 1,000 riders, you are talking real money.

 

Their constant lying and distortions and just plain sloppiness is what irks me most. When they eliminated the B40, the tables they presented weren't even consistent. In one table a customer was someone who made a one-way trip and in another table it was someone who made a round trip, so when they compared the two tables they were comparing apples and oranges. When you bring that type of stuff to their attention, they just ignore you.

 

They were so embarrassed by my testimony at the service cut hearings, because I had all the facts, that they omitted 1 1/4 hours of the video testimony from their web coverage, so as to exclude my testimony. At first I thought it was just some type of glitch so I sent them an e-mail to bring it to their attention. They responded that they will fix it if they get the time. They never fixed it. Now how much effort would that have taken? Just proves it was no glitch but intentional.

 

According to Second Avenue Sagas, the guidelines for network coverage are to have everybody walk no more than 1/4 mile to a bus line in denser areas, and no more than 1/2 mile to a bus line in less dense areas (which would explain why a lot of Staten Island falls into the latter category as far as coverage goes)

 

EXCELLENT POST MY FRIEND!!! You see I've always argued that the (MTA) likes to distort their figures to suit their needs. Now some folks checkmate and Amtrak7 swear up and down by the (MTA) figures and figures in general and like I said before you cannot trust everything that the (MTA) puts out. I even doubt most of their "cost per passenger" figures. When I spoke at the hearing about how they helped to destroy the X16 by not having buses sent as scheduled and how that obviously would FORCE people onto other express bus lines, I could tell that they were pissed, but I didn't care. The truth had to be said and I wasn't going to let them get away with trying to justify the cuts as simply because ridership declined so drastically when the majority of the X16s that I was on were filled.

 

I trust the MTA's stats, but, for some cases, the MTA sees that the stats warrant the maintainance of the service, and yet they go ahead and reduce it anyway.

 

For example, the cost of the B4 in the Sheepshead Bay area was $2.57 per passenger (according to their stats). I'm sure most people here would agree that, even though that isn't that great (it is well below the system average), it is worth it to keep the service within the coverage guidelines. B35 via Church and I have debated the cost of the sections of the B12 and Q24 that were eliminated, but, according to the MTA's stats, those sections were actually very cost efficient.

 

Well constructed post... and I'll follow up w/ one of my own.

 

Although it may come off as me being a stubborn ox (lol), believe me, even when we disagree on things, I still soak in bits of info that is being relayed to me (although you'd never know it).... So on that note, I say...

 

Respect :tup:

 

 

As far as going solely off sheer numbers.... For me, it's never enough to rely on just one source of data - even if it comes right out the horse's mouth, so to speak.... If anyone thinks there aren't hidden agendas involved in these cuts, they are sadly mistaken... What is, isn't always on the surface.... Experience is the best teacher; which for me, makes it a hell of a lot easier to debunk & quite frankly, see through the smokescreens the MTA throws up w/ it's incomplete, irrational, illogical, inconsistent, unfair, and downright skewed information - with which it is portrayed to those that aren't privy to those that don't know any better....

 

a.k.a, the majority of the riding public.....

 

^^ Which is why I'm quick to call BS when I review these infamous hundred page PDF's they put out whenever some type of change (majority the time, in the form of cuts) is proposed, or set to take place.... Aint goin throw me into the category of the ill-informed & naive....

 

If one person can gain something, anything, from what I post on this forum about any given bus route, then my job is done... Disagree, tell me why I'm off base... Agree, well at least someone else sees what I'm seeing... That's how I take it.

 

Hobbies can become learning experiences... So if it weren't for "busfanning", I wouldn't know "one-tenth" of what I've come to realize over the past, well, 2 decades, if I didn't pick up on riders' habits on every single route, every single time I've rode one out...

 

As far as the MTA's suggestions to altered/discontinued routes goes, whenever they bring up alternate means of travel (in this case, walking distances), I take it w/ a grain of salt (and I walk at mach 1... lol)... I've long been convinced that:

 

- they make extensions/positive changes to a route based off enough ppl. in a given area (or the right group of people, which is where we disagree, but it is what it is) complaining... The methods with which they go about adding service, and taking away service, is not consistent - having a hearing and only allowing a handful of people to speak for 5 mins (or however short it is), isn't enough... full knowing they're gonna go ahead w/ what they planned anyway, but that's my suspicion....

 

- they only go off the map when they want to make a routing cut... and how many "lines" are on top of the same road... how many "lines" are adjacent some subway... how many "lines" are "near" another "line" on the map....

You cannot possibly judge how long, in accordance to how far it'll take for someone to walk from pt. A to B, by what's portrayed on a map... Just because you have point A & point B doesn't always mean that the two connect linearly (such as the case in your example w/ the B4 & the B36... which is true)....

 

 

If they feel axing a particular route outright at a given moment would yield in too much backlash at that moment, then they start cutting individual runs... here & there... over the span of years.... so much so that ridership will diminish due to poor service... which gives them "justification" to getting rid of a route... it's the underhanded shit like that I try to get ppl. to realize - because I see it, and oh is it ever so freakin conspicuous !!

 

I understand the MTA is doing what it does to save some funds, but on the same side of the coin, I feel the MTA has gotten into the habit of discouraging bus service in NYC, and gotten into this set mode of attempting to cram everyone onto the subway.....

 

Yes, the train is generally the faster mode of transporatation, but regardless:

 

- Everyone doesn't live a hop, skip, and a jump from the subway.

- Everyone aint fin to walk ridiculous distances to get to the subway.

 

 

fin.

 

The thing is that the vast majority of all subway services still have a parallel local bus route nearby. I don't think it was entirely due to political pressure that they decided to keep the M10, Bx4, and Q56: They realized that the bus serves a seperate market from the train.

 

I've been saying this repeatedly myself, but we have folks in here that are diehard train folks. I mean don't get me wrong, the subway is great esp. when the buses are f*cked up, but bus service should complement the train service. Look at the subway service today and there are constant delays and construction just about every week on a majority of the lines, requiring bus shuttles to get people around. The way I see it, the (MTA) tries to push people towards the subway when they don't provide adequate service on the subway. Constant disruptions. Also, as you said, they manipulate bus service pulling buses here and there and then suddenly the route must be cut because it is no longer viable. I mean people aren't stupid. They see when service is reduced and they move to other lines that have better frequencies, but as you said that is how they drive down demand on certain lines and then they say "Oh well we've tried everything to get the route more ridership" WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THE LINE IS DEAD. They did the same shit with the X16, pulling runs here and there and then they'd start cutting service little by little. Then they argued that ridership declined so they were going to try to boost ridership by having the X16 go further into Port Richmond. The extension was so pointless that it was clear that it wouldn't help at all. The line had already been seen as one that was unreliable, so there was no way that folks were going to suddenly flock to it because of a dumb extension. I have to laugh at whole thing because they really think that people are stupid, but it is so clear what their agenda is. In spite of all of that, it was still used. I mean the service in the AM was pretty reliable, but you couldn't get an X16 to save your life in the evening rush unless it was the last run which was at about 17:55 or so, which doesn't even cover the later part of the rush. :P

 

Actually, the extension of the X16 didn't really cost anything (not that it really mattered, since the stops were close to the former last stop anyway)

 

The smart idea would have been to shut down lines that have the lowest riderships, and to decrease bus service on the ones that have a low amount of ridership. The ones that are in the medium range would have a balance of buses, and the one with higher riderships should recieve limited or SBS service.

 

Didn't they already do that?

 

Some folks on here advocate cutting certain local bus lines, but what they don't look at is this is a business and the goal of the (MTA) should be to EXPAND ridership, thus boosting the monies that they bring in, not cutting service because that does nothing but decreases ridership. If you're going to make transit less accessible, then there is one less incentive for people to ride. Not everyone LOVES riding public transportation, but some folks are willing to use it provided that it is accessible because when you look at what someone who drives gives up by using public transportation it is quite a bit.

 

They spend more time to walk to the bus stop usually instead of driving in the comfort of their car. They share a bus with a bunch of strangers instead relaxing in the comfort of their car and the list goes on and on. The only savings may be less money spent in gas for the car, but the comfort factor may outweigh that. Like (B35) said, you cut service on one line and those folks will look at other alternatives that better fit their commute, which can damage the line further.

 

 

 

They never take traffic into consideration. How they couldn't see the amount of traffic that the X14 would run into because of the reroute is beyond me, but I can understand them merging the line, but why not make some X14s Midtown only and some X14s Downtown only during the heaviest part of the rush?

 

The pros of taking public transportation in many parts of the city outweigh the cons. In Manhattan, you have to walk a long distance to get to where you parked your car (my family went through that when we lived in Brooklyn), and you'll most likely get stuck in traffic.

 

And of course, there is the cost factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Second Avenue Sagas, the guidelines for network coverage are to have everybody walk no more than 1/4 mile to a bus line in denser areas, and no more than 1/2 mile to a bus line in less dense areas (which would explain why a lot of Staten Island falls into the latter category as far as coverage goes)

 

You are correct. That's the way it is now. But when they first were created in the early 1980s due to pressure from then City Council President, Carol Bellamy, it was a 1/4 mile to a bus stop, not a bus route. There is a difference. I don't know when it was changed. The part about less dense areas also was added later. That's the thing about the MTA, when they create something and then they don't like it, they either change it, or just ignore it anyway, or use it to support what they want to support.

 

 

The thing is that the vast majority of all subway services still have a parallel local bus route nearby. I don't think it was entirely due to political pressure that they decided to keep the M10, Bx4, and Q56: They realized that the bus serves a seperate market from the train.

 

It has a lot to do with political pressure. That's what saved the B25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. That's the way it is now. But when they first were created in the early 1980s due to pressure from then City Council President, Carol Bellamy, it was a 1/4 mile to a bus stop, not a bus route. There is a difference. I don't know when it was changed. The part about less dense areas also was added later. That's the thing about the MTA, when they create something and then they don't like it, they either change it, or just ignore it anyway, or use it to support what they want to support.

 

 

 

 

It has a lot to do with political pressure. That's what saved the B25.

 

You left planning?? why??? if u were good why didnt u stay?? I created an LI plan and yet I dont think it reached the board during the 23rd would u like to see it anyway most of my plans however dont involve NY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust the MTA's stats, but, for some cases, the MTA sees that the stats warrant the maintainance of the service, and yet they go ahead and reduce it anyway.

Well, what does that tell you...

 

 

The thing is that the vast majority of all subway services still have a parallel local bus route nearby. I don't think it was entirely due to political pressure that they decided to keep the M10, Bx4, and Q56: They realized that the bus serves a seperate market from the train.

yah right....

 

the MTA realizes nothin of the kind.... If that were the case, the x29, and the B48 south of fulton would still be around.... also the Bx41 riders that were screwed (and don't tell me, well, the 39 still serves that portion the 41 did, b/c that's not the point... Bx39 & Bx41 serves two very different markets)

 

...and like BrooklynBus said, politicking is what saved the B25... the right people b*tched about there being no more bus service serving that park down in DUMBO (a fast growing yuppified area), and voila; B25 still runs.

 

 

Didn't they already do that?

By how the post was conveyed, looks like he's tryna imply that more should have been cut.... The undertone behind that particular post I didn't like at all....

 

 

The pros of taking public transportation in many parts of the city outweigh the cons. In Manhattan, you have to walk a long distance to get to where you parked your car (my family went through that when we lived in Brooklyn), and you'll most likely get stuck in traffic.

 

And of course, there is the cost factor.

yeh, that is of course, assuming you actually found a place to park ! That's why I stopped driving to work; try to get there early enough to find a spot, and still ended up having to take a tour around the village... I couldn't tell you the amt. of times I sweated bullets parking along west st...

 

and for people to suggest those park & fasts to me, or any other of those ripoff parking garages.... don't make me laugh... the suckers that don't know any better, they're makin an absolute KILLING off of... they aint gettin one rusty ole 1926 penny with the "ONE CENT" inscribed on the back, out of me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. That's the way it is now. But when they first were created in the early 1980s due to pressure from then City Council President, Carol Bellamy, it was a 1/4 mile to a bus stop, not a bus route. There is a difference. I don't know when it was changed. The part about less dense areas also was added later. That's the thing about the MTA, when they create something and then they don't like it, they either change it, or just ignore it anyway, or use it to support what they want to support.

 

 

 

 

It has a lot to do with political pressure. That's what saved the B25.

 

Agreed. That is what I disagree with: It isn't the statistics themselves, it is how they use those statistics that I disagree with.

 

So were the M10, Q56, and Q84 saved by political pressure, or not? The Q56 in particular doesn't go through any influential areas.

 

Well, what does that tell you...

 

 

 

yah right....

 

the MTA realizes nothin of the kind.... If that were the case, the x29, and the B48 south of fulton would still be around.... also the Bx41 riders that were screwed (and don't tell me, well, the 39 still serves that portion the 41 did, b/c that's not the point... Bx39 & Bx41 serves two very different markets)

 

...and like BrooklynBus said, politicking is what saved the B25... the right people b*tched about there being no more bus service serving that park down in DUMBO (a fast growing yuppified area), and voila; B25 still runs.

 

 

 

By how the post was conveyed, looks like he's tryna imply that more should have been cut.... The undertone behind that particular post I didn't like at all....

 

 

 

yeh, that is of course, assuming you actually found a place to park ! That's why I stopped driving to work; try to get there early enough to find a spot, and still ended up having to take a tour around the village... I couldn't tell you the amt. of times I sweated bullets parking along west st...

 

and for people to suggest those park & fasts to me, or any other of those ripoff parking garages.... don't make me laugh... the suckers that don't know any better, they're makin an absolute KILLING off of... they aint gettin one rusty ole 1926 penny with the "ONE CENT" inscribed on the back, out of me...

 

1) That tells me they do what they want, when they want.

 

2) As of now, are there a similar number of people benefitting from the Bx39 running up White Plains Road, compared to when the Bx41 went up there.

 

In other words, how did the number of Bx39 riders transferring to the Bx41 compare to the number of Bx41 riders transferring to the Bx39?

 

3) According to the 2009 service reductions booklet, the B67 was supposed to be extended to DUMBO to replace the B25, so they would still have service. Or did those yuppies actually want direct access to areas along Fulton Street?

 

4) Now that I look at it again, you're right: He sounded like he was trying to imply that all low-ridership routes should be eliminated. I'm all for eliminating wasteful services, but you can't leave riders without any service at all.

 

5) That's why my family has never driven into Manhattan (there are times we've driven through Manhattan, but we never drove to a destination that was in Manhattan). There were a couple of times when we used taxis (all of them were to transport a sick relative), but even then, I think it was cheaper (and of course, easier) than driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, how did the number of Bx39 riders transferring to the Bx41 compare to the number of Bx41 riders transferring to the Bx39?

Well, most the Bx39 riders that xferred to any bus over at Gun Hill, did so more w/ the 28....

 

But to answer the question, there were more Bx39 riders from the south xferring to the NB 41 @ Gun Hill, than you ever saw Bx41 riders from the north at GunHill, seeking the 39....

 

 

According to the 2009 service reductions booklet, the B67 was supposed to be extended to DUMBO to replace the B25, so they would still have service. Or did those yuppies actually want direct access to areas along Fulton Street?

 

It wasn't about access along Fulton street.... They see that the B25 serves "their" area, "their" park, so therefore, they're treating it as "their" route..... Remember, we're not talking about people that's been living in the area for decades; these are people moving to the area in droves.... If you're new to an area (especially yuppies), they are very reluctant to change.... yuppies eventually become NIMBY's as they mature....

 

The B67 DUMBO extension didn't go through, due to the B69 parallel-a-lization of the B67 south of Flatbush....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO WAY YOU READ MY MIND!!!!!!!! I meant to originally post it but since I only see them in Battery Park City I wasn't sure if it was more heavily used on other parts of the route. It runs parallel to the (1), which is much faster. If Battery Park City really needs service they could eliminate it and extend the M22 along its route.

 

Actually, Battery Park City has free shuttle buses aka Downtown Connection which parells M15 on Water St up to Seaport, and M20 up to Northern Battery Park City.

I suggest Seaport-bound bus be extend to Chinatown's Pike St area.

In Northern Potion, Chinatown's Pike St-bound bus could use Church St, Chambers St, Broadway, Murray St.

Pike St-bound bus could stays on Pearl St-St. Jame Pl to Chatham Sq, onto E. Broadway, stopping at M9/M22 stop, then right on Pike St, layover Pike St.

BPC-bound: Turn right at Madison St, stopping at Madison St/Market St, Catherine St, then regular stops.

Currently BPC Shuttle Bus operates between Seaport and northern BPC during hours from 10:00am until last bus at 7:30pm.

It should run late evening when M22 bus stop running.

That way folks could take BPC Shuttle Bus as alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't about access along Fulton street.... They see that the B25 serves "their" area, "their" park, so therefore, they're treating it as "their" route..... Remember, we're not talking about people that's been living in the area for decades; these are people moving to the area in droves.... If you're new to an area (especially yuppies), they are very reluctant to change.... yuppies eventually become NIMBY's as they mature....

 

The B67 DUMBO extension didn't go through, due to the B69 parallel-a-lization of the B67 south of Flatbush....

 

These yuppies are the same types that shop in Whole Foods like myself and while some of them can quite artificial, some of them are quite sharp. I wouldn't consider myself to be a yuppy per se in the typical sense, but rather a young middle class working professional who is smart enough to see through the bullshit smoke screens that the (MTA) puts up and I applaud them for fighting to keep their service. I think it is great to see youth involved in political issues such as this one because when the youth actually wake up and take a stand on things, they can be damn powerful and that's what we need more of in this country. Young people waking up and taking back the country from the politicians and having it be their country again. And yes I'm already a NIMBY and I'm still in my 20s... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not too smart to see through the MTA's smokescreen: Most of them (with the exception of people like yourself) are too stupid to understand the smokescreen. They don't see cost per person, total savings, alternatives (in this case, the B67 was going to be extended to specifically serve their neighborhood).

 

The smokescreen isn't fake statistics: The smokescreen is that they apply guidelines where they feel like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not too smart to see through the MTA's smokescreen: Most of them (with the exception of people like yourself) are too stupid to understand the smokescreen. They don't see cost per person, total savings, alternatives (in this case, the B67 was going to be extended to specifically serve their neighborhood).

 

The smokescreen isn't fake statistics: The smokescreen is that they apply guidelines where they feel like it.

 

I wouldn't go that far buddy. This is the same agency that has been accused repeatedly of having two sets of books, so unlike you, I don't trust their so called stats so easily.

 

As far as them seeing the the whole cost per person, the average person doesn't give a damn about that, nor do I blame them. All they know is that there is a form of transportation that is being stolen from them and the "alternative" may not suit their needs as well as their current line.

 

Now you happen to be in a unique situation with several bus lines by you, but if you were in their shoes, you'd be fighting just like they did. They're smart enough to connect the dots to know that even if they don't use that line, having that bus line works to their advantage. An area that has more transportation is generally a more viable one in terms of property values and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You left planning?? why??? if u were good why didnt u stay?? I created an LI plan and yet I don't think it reached the board during the 23rd would u like to see it anyway most of my plans however dont involve NY

 

I didn't leave by choice. Here is the quick story. First my powers were reduced from Director of Bus Planning for the whole City, to just for Brooklyn when I made my first waves. I really didn't mind that since I never wanted the entire city anyway. But now I had a boss whose interest wasn't in making any changes, but applying for federal grants so as to increase his staff and his empire. When someone was finalizing a proposal he would throw in stumbling blocks asking for alternatives. He made me spend an entire year having myself and my staff redoing my entire proposal five separate times, each time adding five alternatives to each proposal. And each time the proposals became worse making them more non-sensical. My original proposal changed about 30 Brooklyn routes which were organized into phases so that no route would have to be changed more than twice, usually once on the southern end and once on the northern end. He wanted all the proposals organized and implemented by Community Board. I tried to explain to him how expensive and disruptive that would be because you would have to change some routes as many as six times, each time it passed another Board. (Try to imagine implementing the B44 SBS by Community Board and you will see what he was asking.) Also what would happen if one Board didn't like the part of the route that went through its Board but you already made the change at the other end of the route assuming the other part of the route would be changed? You would end up with a screwed up route that wouldn't be run as designed or you would have to undo the change you already made.

 

So when the plan was finally finished to his liking, I told him that he would have to take full responsibility for it because I would no longer support it. So he backed down and dropped everything and millions of dollars went down the drain. After that our relationship became so strained, that his boss transfered me to a unit where I had absolutely no experience. As he put it, "I can't have you working under him anymore. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about him so I will have to transfer you. Between you, me and the lampost, the the MTA has some real SOBs working here and you've had the experience of working for one of the worst." And that was his boss speaking!

 

So for the next 20 years I tried to get back into Operations Planning after he was moved to another unit three years later. I had six interviews but was never given the job. Twice, I was told to my face right at the interview that I would never be hired and that they only were interviewing me because they had to. About least twice I was offered a job but not as a manager but as a staff person. I declined because I knew that I would be miserable. All they would so would be to dump piles of papers on my desk everyday asking me to do cost calculations for changes that others had conceived, most of which I probably wouldn't even agree with. Why would I accept doing work assigned by people who were less qualified than myself?

 

I'm sorry, but I am so disgusted with everything that I have no interest in any fantasy planning. I don't even want to update my own website, because it would just be a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't leave by choice. Here is the quick story. First my powers were reduced from Director of Bus Planning for the whole City, to just for Brooklyn when I made my first waves. I really didn't mind that since I never wanted the entire city anyway. But now I had a boss whose interest wasn't in making any changes, but applying for federal grants so as to increase his staff and his empire. When someone was finalizing a proposal he would throw in stumbling blocks asking for alternatives. He made me spend an entire year having myself and my staff redoing my entire proposal five separate times, each time adding five alternatives to each proposal. And each time the proposals became worse making them more non-sensical. My original proposal changed about 30 Brooklyn routes which were organized into phases so that no route would have to be changed more than twice, usually once on the southern end and once on the northern end. He wanted all the proposals organized and implemented by Community Board. I tried to explain to him how expensive and disruptive that would be because you would have to change some routes as many as six times, each time it passed another Board. (Try to imagine implementing the B44 SBS by Community Board and you will see what he was asking.) Also what would happen if one Board didn't like the part of the route that went through its Board but you already made the change at the other end of the route assuming the other part of the route would be changed? You would end up with a screwed up route that wouldn't be run as designed or you would have to undo the change you already made.

 

So when the plan was finally finished to his liking, I told him that he would have to take full responsibility for it because I would no longer support it. So he backed down and dropped everything and millions of dollars went down the drain. After that our relationship became so strained, that his boss transfered me to a unit where I had absolutely no experience. As he put it, "I can't have you working under him anymore. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about him so I will have to transfer you. Between you, me and the lampost, the the MTA has some real SOBs working here and you've had the experience of working for one of the worst." And that was his boss speaking!

 

So for the next 20 years I tried to get back into Operations Planning after he was moved to another unit three years later. I had six interviews but was never given the job. Twice, I was told to my face right at the interview that I would never be hired and that they only were interviewing me because they had to. About least twice I was offered a job but not as a manager but as a staff person. I declined because I knew that I would be miserable. All they would so would be to dump piles of papers on my desk everyday asking me to do cost calculations for changes that others had conceived, most of which I probably wouldn't even agree with. Why would I accept doing work assigned by people who were less qualified than myself?

 

I'm sorry, but I am so disgusted with everything that I have no interest in any fantasy planning. I don't even want to update my own website, because it would just be a waste of time.

 

Man you are so right. Now I just worked with them for a few summer internships back in high school, but yeah they're very good at creating bullshit work to make themselves look busy. And there certainly are those types like the guy you mentioned that like to "build up an empire" so they can just pass their "duties" along to some poor schmuck. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not too smart to see through the MTA's smokescreen: Most of them (with the exception of people like yourself) are too stupid to understand the smokescreen. They don't see cost per person, total savings, alternatives (in this case, the B67 was going to be extended to specifically serve their neighborhood).

 

The smokescreen isn't fake statistics: The smokescreen is that they apply guidelines where they feel like it.

 

You say that as if they were the ones that disapproved, or rejected the B67...

 

FWIW, I would rather spend more energy fighting for something that's already in place, than fighting for some change I know nothing about after I moved somewhere....

It's like takin a college course, and the professor's been teaching out of a particular volume of a book... ya buy that same volume... and a week before the final exams, the professor does a total switch-up, and bases the exam off 2 volumes newer than the book you've all been studying out of the whole semester for that course..... sure the content may be similar, but it may spin things in another direction which may totally throw you out of whack.... Are you really gonna tell me that you wouldn't be the least bit irked over such a switch like that, that deep into the semester? Especially when it could have bearing over your grade/GPA......

 

It's not that those people in DUMBO aren't smart enough, they aren't as privy/keen/aware enough... give them a couple years, and their voices will just be loud & strong as the ones in Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Bay Ridge, etc....

 

 

...and you're right, part of the smokescreen aren't fake statistics...

They're tweaked statistics....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that as if they were the ones that disapproved, or rejected the B67...

 

FWIW, I would rather spend more energy fighting for something that's already in place, than fighting for some change I know nothing about after I moved somewhere....

It's like takin a college course, and the professor's been teaching out of a particular volume of a book... ya buy that same volume... and a week before the final exams, the professor does a total switch-up, and bases the exam off 2 volumes newer than the book you've all been studying out of the whole semester for that course..... sure the content may be similar, but it may spin things in another direction which may totally throw you out of whack.... Are you really gonna tell me that you wouldn't be the least bit irked over such a switch like that, that deep into the semester? Especially when it could have bearing over your grade/GPA......

 

It's not that those people in DUMBO aren't smart enough, they aren't as privy/keen/aware enough... give them a couple years, and their voices will just be loud & strong as the ones in Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Bay Ridge, etc....

 

 

...and you're right, part of the smokescreen aren't fake statistics...

They're tweaked statistics....

 

The thing is checkmate hasn't really been privy to using lines that have shitty frequencies, so he doesn't really know how it feels to use lines like that, hence why he's quick to call for cuts. While I had stopped using the X16 frequently, I still understood the importance of that line and the impact that it would have for West Brighton residents like myself and that more than anything was the reason I fought so vehemently to keep it. I didn't give a damn about the cost per passenger because I didn't need any stats to understand the importance of the line. It wasn't just about the loss of that route. It was about the impact that it would have on the local bus lines and other express bus lines, not to mention longer commutes for others. I'm not looking forward to this winter without the X16 I can tell you that much. Last year I got one of the last X16s from Downtown before it became almost impossible to get back to Staten Island and of course the Midtown buses didn't start running until later on in the evening, so by then I probably would've been stranded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go that far buddy. This is the same agency that has been accused repeatedly of having two sets of books, so unlike you, I don't trust their so called stats so easily.

 

As far as them seeing the the whole cost per person, the average person doesn't give a damn about that, nor do I blame them. All they know is that there is a form of transportation that is being stolen from them and the "alternative" may not suit their needs as well as their current line.

 

Now you happen to be in a unique situation with several bus lines by you, but if you were in their shoes, you'd be fighting just like they did. They're smart enough to connect the dots to know that even if they don't use that line, having that bus line works to their advantage. An area that has more transportation is generally a more viable one in terms of property values and so forth.

 

They have been accused twice, and found innocent both times. On a side note, the person who accused them was themselves found guilty of corruption.

 

And I'm in a unique position as far as transit goes, by the fact that there is a lack of service in my area. Like I've said, because my area is a little bit more spread out, I'm over 1/4 mile from the nearest bus line, whereas 80% of city residents are within those guidelines. Yet I feel that the service levels should be reduced (at certain times) because of the lack of ridership.

 

I'm not advocating for a citywide reduction in service, just a reduction on the lines with extra service. You said yourself that they are cutting where they shouldn't and not cutting where they should.

 

The thing is checkmate hasn't really been privy to using lines that have shitty frequencies, so he doesn't really know how it feels to use lines like that, hence why he's quick to call for cuts. While I had stopped using the X16 frequently, I still understood the importance of that line and the impact that it would have for West Brighton residents like myself and that more than anything was the reason I fought so vehemently to keep it. I didn't give a damn about the cost per passenger because I didn't need any stats to understand the importance of the line. It wasn't just about the loss of that route. It was about the impact that it would have on the local bus lines and other express bus lines, not to mention longer commutes for others. I'm not looking forward to this winter without the X16 I can tell you that much. Last year I got one of the last X16s from Downtown before it became almost impossible to get back to Staten Island and of course the Midtown buses didn't start running until later on in the evening, so by then I probably would've been stranded.

 

But neither does most of the city. Most lines run frequently in NYC.

 

In fact, I would say that most of the lines I use run less frequently than buses in the rest of the city, on average.

 

And the reason more people should care about ridership and cost per passenger is because it is their tax dollars and transit fares that are subsidizing the service. Like I said, riders on the Bx12 ( a very cost-efficient line) shouldn't have to pay higher fares because the MTA wanted to keep weekend service on the S54 (a very inefficient line)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they completely eliminated the B25 without replacement in any area, those yuppies in DUMBO would still be much closer to a bus line (actually a whole bunch of bus lines if they walked a little bit south to Downtown Brooklyn) than I am.

 

If I recall correctly you're within walking distance of Richmond Ave, which has what 3 or 4 bus lines compared to the (B25). I know DUMBO well and there are certain portions that are basically served by the (B25) only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.