Stranded straphangers begin drive to bring back bus service to Queens

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For a young person like myself, the transit service in my area is close, but an elderly person might think differently.

 

I'm not advocating for reducing service to the point where people can't get around. If that were the case, I wouldn't want the B4, B71, or Q79 to be restored to the way they were (coverage) or the B64 or M98 to be restored to the way they were.

 

 

 

I just realized that the QM1 doesn't run weekends. I was probably confused from the QM1A days.

 

As far as the QM10 goes, are the following QM12s more empty when the QM10 gets all of the 3rd Avenue passengers?

 

I agree that the BM5 elimination is iffy. It is faster to go through Queens than to make all of the BM2 stops. Maybe a compromise could be to have the BM5 run rush hours only, with the BM2 covering Starrett City during other times.

 

Okay, so what else would you want cut? I don't see that many routes so far. Aside from that there will be more express bus cuts come summertime, so there really won't be much more to cut. I confirmed that today while I was on the BM3 coming back to Manhattan.

[Forest Glen]

It usually depends on which one comes first between the QM10 and QM12. If a QM12 comes first, it gets its own passengers + QM10 passengers and vice-versa, that of course depends on the time & the traffic.

 

Elimination the BM5 imo is a bad move. It's faster to commute via Queens rather than using the BM2 as the main route. Making the last trip at like 8 or 9PM would work better. The BM5 has also gained some positive feedback from those boarding at the 3 addition Queens Stops.

 

As much as I like the express bus, you don't need an express bus route from Rego Park to Midtown. It simply isn't long enough. However, an express bus route from Rego Park to Lower Manhattan is needed. As for the BM5, its ridership is low, but not low enough to be eliminated (kinda like the X64). It serves an area that lacks direct access to Midtown. Perhaps it can have limited rush hour service (5 runs to and from the city).

[checkmatechamp13]

Okay, so what else would you want cut? I don't see that many routes so far. Aside from that there will be more express bus cuts come summertime, so there really won't be much more to cut. I confirmed that today while I was on the BM3 coming back to Manhattan.

 

I forgot to add the BxM4 (weekend service) to the list.

 

There won't be any more (significant) cuts this summer. If anything, they'll be adding service. Remember the extra X22 service and the restoration of the X37/X38.

 

There could also be some frequency reductions on some reverse-peak routes (though, admittedly, some of the buses would otherwise be deadheading so there might not be that many savings). The BxM2 and BxM11 could be reduced to run every 60 minutes rather than every 30 on Saturdays, and the BxM6 and BxM10 could be combined off-peak (this would give Parkchester an increase in service, as the BxM10 is generally more frequent).

 

By the way, does anybody know if any of those rush hour BxM7 trips from the different parts of Co-Op City could be combined?

[B35 via Church]

Perhaps it can have limited rush hour service (5 runs to and from the city).

What do you mean by limited rush hour service?

I think the BM5 should be peak direction only, given its usage.....

 

just have it run from 5:30am to like 9am [inbound], then from 4pm to 8pm [outbound], each @ 20-30 min headways....

 

alternative, take the BM2 to the bus (82) [which is what certain riders do anyway]

 

 

There won't be any more (significant) cuts this summer. If anything, they'll be adding service. Remember the extra X22 service and the restoration of the X37/X38.

 

There could also be some frequency reductions on some routes.

 

you say there should be frequency reductions on "some routes".... That's what he's asking....

I'm replying to this b/c I also have the same question.....

 

Tell us what routes those are; frequency reductions still classify as cuts.

[checkmatechamp13]

you say there should be frequency reductions on "some routes".... That's what he's asking....

I'm replying to this b/c I also have the same question.....

 

Tell us what routes those are; frequency reductions still classify as cuts.

 

I just changed the post to add the routes. The reverse-peak route I was thinking of was the BxM3, since I rode it a few times in the AM rush and there were very few people on the bus (it was my family and 1 or 2 other people), but like I said, if the bus is deadheading anyway, it might as well pick up some people.

[Amtrak7]

By the way, does anybody know if any of those rush hour BxM7 trips from the different parts of Co-Op City could be combined?

 

Doubt it. What should be done is a 7 and 7A combination:

 

-Eliminate City Island service

-Maintain current headways along the local (7A) portion of the route, but hourly Saturdays

-Other 7 trips remain as they do now, expressing.

-Maybe reduce the Saturday Co-op City frequency to 20 or 30 minutes

-Co-op City should run 24/7

 

I don't know if those rush hour split trips can be combined, but I think they were split for ridership and not time reasons.

 

Riverdale: 15 minute Saturday headway is way too much. BxM2 weekend ridership is much lower than BxM1, so I think it should be eliminated off-peak. Don't do it until after all those weekend busings are over!

 

Express buses that cost over 5 times the fare paid (eliminate!):

 

BM4 Saturday (69 riders)

 

Over 4 times (probably eliminate):

 

QM4 Sunday (101 riders)

BM1 Saturday (229 riders)

BM3 Saturday (230 riders)

BM5 Saturday (98 riders)

QM4 Saturday (156 riders)

 

Over 3 times (consider other factors like ridership trends, alternatives, and spans):

 

QM18 weekday (273 riders)

QM10 weekday (517 riders)

BM4 weekday (716 riders)

QM12 weekday (578 riders)

QM3 weekday (131 riders)

BM5 weekday (500 riders)

BM2 Saturday (235 riders)

QM15 Saturday (170 riders)

QM2 Sunday (228 riders)

BxM3 Sunday (207 riders)

 

Notice how only one Bronx route is on the list. I guess that's why Bronx express bus service is as much as it is? A 50% farebox recovery ratio for direct operating cost is pretty good compared to other systems.

 

In comparison, local routes in NYC:

 

Over 5 times:

 

Q67 Saturday (257)

Q67 Sunday (117)

S55/56 weekday (1860)

 

Over 4 times:

 

S57 weekend (1680 Sat and Sun)

 

Over 3 times:

 

S57 weekday (1950)

[checkmatechamp13]

Doubt it. What should be done is a 7 and 7A combination:

 

-Eliminate City Island service

-Maintain current headways along the local (7A) portion of the route, but hourly Saturdays

-Other 7 trips remain as they do now, expressing.

-Maybe reduce the Saturday Co-op City frequency to 20 or 30 minutes

-Co-op City should run 24/7

 

I don't know if those rush hour split trips can be combined, but I think they were split for ridership and not time reasons.

 

Riverdale: 15 minute Saturday headway is way too much. BxM2 weekend ridership is much lower than BxM1, so I think it should be eliminated off-peak. Don't do it until after all those weekend busings are over!

 

Express buses that cost over 5 times the fare paid (eliminate!):

 

BM4 Saturday (69 riders)

 

Over 4 times (probably eliminate):

 

QM4 Sunday (101 riders)

BM1 Saturday (229 riders)

BM3 Saturday (230 riders)

BM5 Saturday (98 riders)

QM4 Saturday (156 riders)

 

Over 3 times (consider other factors like ridership trends, alternatives, and spans):

 

QM18 weekday (273 riders)

QM10 weekday (517 riders)

BM4 weekday (716 riders)

QM12 weekday (578 riders)

QM3 weekday (131 riders)

BM5 weekday (500 riders)

BM2 Saturday (235 riders)

QM15 Saturday (170 riders)

QM2 Sunday (228 riders)

BxM3 Sunday (207 riders)

 

Notice how only one Bronx route is on the list. I guess that's why Bronx express bus service is as much as it is? A 50% farebox recovery ratio for direct operating cost is pretty good compared to other systems.

 

In comparison, local routes in NYC:

 

Over 5 times:

 

Q67 Saturday (257)

Q67 Sunday (117)

S55/56 weekday (1860)

 

Over 4 times:

 

S57 weekend (1680 Sat and Sun)

 

Over 3 times:

 

S57 weekday (1950)

 

I don't think direct service to City Island should be eliminated. If the BxM7 can only handle Co-Op City during rush hours, that means that the BxM7A is going to have to run anyway, so the marginal cost of going to City Island isn't that much.

 

I don't think the BxM2 should be entirely eliminated off-peak. I think a headway reduction to 60 minutes off-peak should suffice (like you said, it didn't even make the list of routes that cost over 3 times what they bring in).

 

Out of the routes that you mentioned, I would keep the BM1 and BM2 on Saturdays: The elimination of the BM3, BM4, and BM5 should shift enough passengers over to them to justify keeping them around.

 

For the rest of the routes, I would eliminate weekend QM4 and QM15 service, and reduce the BM4 and BM5 to rush hours only (with the BM5 being replaced by a BM2 extension off-peak). I would eliminate the BxM3 on Sundays (riders can take the BxM1 to the Bx9), but I would keep the QM2.

 

As far as the local routes go, I would reduce the S54, S55, S56, and S57 to run every 60 minutes (except for school hours). I'm not sure about the Q67.

[Cait Sith]

As much as I like the express bus, you don't need an express bus route from Rego Park to Midtown. It simply isn't long enough. However, an express bus route from Rego Park to Lower Manhattan is needed. As for the BM5, its ridership is low, but not low enough to be eliminated (kinda like the X64). It serves an area that lacks direct access to Midtown. Perhaps it can have limited rush hour service (5 runs to and from the city).

 

For the most part, you dont really need one to the Rego Park area, but it provides as a nice alternative in case the Queens Blvd lines screw up one way or another.

[Forest Glen]

Eliminate City Island service

 

 

How would eliminating two runs save that much money? I can understand if it was a stand alone route, but the City Island runs are simply extended BxM7A's. It's an extra 20 minute trip from Pelham Bay Park. All this would do is inconvenience City Island residents.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't think direct service to City Island should be eliminated. If the BxM7 can only handle Co-Op City during rush hours, that means that the BxM7A is going to have to run anyway, so the marginal cost of going to City Island isn't that much.

 

I don't think the BxM2 should be entirely eliminated off-peak. I think a headway reduction to 60 minutes off-peak should suffice (like you said, it didn't even make the list of routes that cost over 3 times what they bring in).

 

Out of the routes that you mentioned, I would keep the BM1 and BM2 on Saturdays: The elimination of the BM3, BM4, and BM5 should shift enough passengers over to them to justify keeping them around.

 

For the rest of the routes, I would eliminate weekend QM4 and QM15 service, and reduce the BM4 and BM5 to rush hours only (with the BM5 being replaced by a BM2 extension off-peak). I would eliminate the BxM3 on Sundays (riders can take the BxM1 to the Bx9), but I would keep the QM2.

 

As far as the local routes go, I would reduce the S54, S55, S56, and S57 to run every 60 minutes (except for school hours). I'm not sure about the Q67.

 

What exactly is the purpose of all of these cuts that you're proposing? As I said before cuts are being made where necessary, so I don't see why you're proposing this anyway. Just about all of the lines you're mentioning has seen cuts and will see more cuts, so what is your point?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I forgot to add the BxM4 (weekend service) to the list.

 

There won't be any more (significant) cuts this summer. If anything, they'll be adding service. Remember the extra X22 service and the restoration of the X37/X38.

 

There could also be some frequency reductions on some reverse-peak routes (though, admittedly, some of the buses would otherwise be deadheading so there might not be that many savings). The BxM2 and BxM11 could be reduced to run every 60 minutes rather than every 30 on Saturdays, and the BxM6 and BxM10 could be combined off-peak (this would give Parkchester an increase in service, as the BxM10 is generally more frequent).

 

By the way, does anybody know if any of those rush hour BxM7 trips from the different parts of Co-Op City could be combined?

 

Yeah there will be. I mentioned yesterday that more cuts are coming in the summer schedule.

[checkmatechamp13]

How would eliminating two runs save that much money? I can understand if it was a stand alone route, but the City Island runs are simply extended BxM7A's. It's an extra 20 minute trip from Pelham Bay Park. All this would do is inconvenience City Island residents.

 

It's still approximately the same amount of time (the only thing you lose is the amount of time you spend transferring to the Bx29), but I agree that it isn't worth the small amount of savings that could come from that.

 

What exactly is the purpose of all of these cuts that you're proposing? As I said before cuts are being made where necessary, so I don't see why you're proposing this anyway. Just about all of the lines you're mentioning has seen cuts and will see more cuts, so what is your point?

 

The purpose is to reduce service to reflect the ridership of the route. The service is being reduced, but there is still wasteful service.

 

Yeah there will be. I mentioned yesterday that more cuts are coming in the summer schedule.

 

So which lines will see reductions? And will they be permanant or just a couple of runs that will be restored in the fall?

[FamousNYLover]

Slightly off-topic, when I took Rockland Coach's Awful 5:20pm Palisade Mall departure on Route #20, it only had front door and it got delay because people getting off and on.

 

I also remember when I was on Tappan Zee Express in Rockland County, it was open door in county at bus stop, and one of Coach Bus I was on only had front door and it got little delay.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's still approximately the same amount of time (the only thing you lose is the amount of time you spend transferring to the Bx29), but I agree that it isn't worth the small amount of savings that could come from that.

 

 

 

The purpose is to reduce service to reflect the ridership of the route. The service is being reduced, but there is still wasteful service.

 

 

 

So which lines will see reductions? And will they be permanant or just a couple of runs that will be restored in the fall?

 

 

And so what you think every line that is underperforming is going to just be axed immediately? I'm trying to understand your logic. You're advocating for routes to be slashed left and right but you do realize that these routes will more than likely not return correct? All you're looking at is numbers and saying lets slash this and cut that and I really don't think you have any idea why certain routes carry the way they do nor do you seem to care. For example, what is the point of reducing the S54 to run once an hour? The answer is obvious, but at that rate who is going to use it? There is no weekend service and weekday service was also slashed. One of the main reasons fewer folks are using it is that is unreliable. If you're going to run a local bus every half hour then have it come when it is schedule. That is a route that the is clearly trying to kill and has destroyed by simply not sending buses that are scheduled. Naturally if you have a bus that is unreliable people won't use it unless they have absolutely no other alternatives. Now you'll argue that they have alternatives and I'd say of course they do. They can make several transfers and spend more money trying to get from point A to point B, or they can walk if walking is an option or they can stay home and not go anywhere and get nothing done.

 

The main issue I have with you is your obsession with cutting and talking about saving yet you fail to see the impact that these cuts will have. Maybe the is saving in the short term, but they are losing in the long term and so are the passengers. The knows this and that's why they're not just axing lines immediately as you'd like to see happen. Their primary function is to provide service, not slash service because once that service is eliminated it is gone which means no transportation at all for some neighbourhoods. And you're to come back and argue again that the lines are not carrying anyone and again I'll point out that you are looking solely at numbers and no other factors.

 

To answer your question, I know for a fact that the BM1, BM2 and BM3 at the minimum will lose more Saturday service and the BM4 could be cut even more. The is reducing the service on those equally so as not to play favourtism to one area because despite your argument that alternatives exist. The point is that these areas are far out and have no subway access, which means longer commutes for those who will lose service. Clearly you don't see the importance of people's commuting times and your sole focus is to point out waste by focusing solely on ridership numbers. I can see other routes having reduced service as well and not just for the summer either.

 

And why bring up the X22 for? Did you forget that the main reason for the bump in service is because folks lost their other express bus? Naturally some service would be added and it's not as if it is a waste because the service will be used. The same thing goes for the X37 and X38. You yourself said that restoring the X37/X38 was a neutral cost overall rather than running deviants of the X27 and X28.

[checkmatechamp13]

And so what you think every line that is underperforming is going to just be axed immediately? I'm trying to understand your logic. You're advocating for routes to be slashed left and right but you do realize that these routes will more than likely not return correct? All you're looking at is numbers and saying lets slash this and cut that and I really don't think you have any idea why certain routes carry the way they do nor do you seem to care. For example, what is the point of reducing the S54 to run once an hour? The answer is obvious, but at that rate who is going to use it? There is no weekend service and weekday service was also slashed. One of the main reasons fewer folks are using it is that is unreliable. If you're going to run a local bus every half hour then have it come when it is schedule. That is a route that the is clearly trying to kill and has destroyed by simply not sending buses that are scheduled. Naturally if you have a bus that is unreliable people won't use it unless they have absolutely no other alternatives. Now you'll argue that they have alternatives and I'd say of course they do. They can make several transfers and spend more money trying to get from point A to point B, or they can walk if walking is an option or they can stay home and not go anywhere and get nothing done.

 

The main issue I have with you is your obsession with cutting and talking about saving yet you fail to see the impact that these cuts will have. Maybe the is saving in the short term, but they are losing in the long term and so are the passengers. The knows this and that's why they're not just axing lines immediately as you'd like to see happen. Their primary function is to provide service, not slash service because once that service is eliminated it is gone which means no transportation at all for some neighbourhoods. And you're to come back and argue again that the lines are not carrying anyone and again I'll point out that you are looking solely at numbers and no other factors.

 

To answer your question, I know for a fact that the BM1, BM2 and BM3 at the minimum will lose more Saturday service and the BM4 could be cut even more. The is reducing the service on those equally so as not to play favourtism to one area because despite your argument that alternatives exist. The point is that these areas are far out and have no subway access, which means longer commutes for those who will lose service. Clearly you don't see the importance of people's commuting times and your sole focus is to point out waste by focusing solely on ridership numbers. I can see other routes having reduced service as well and not just for the summer either.

 

And why bring up the X22 for? Did you forget that the main reason for the bump in service is because folks lost their other express bus? Naturally some service would be added and it's not as if it is a waste because the service will be used. The same thing goes for the X37 and X38. You yourself said that restoring the X37/X38 was a neutral cost overall rather than running deviants of the X27 and X28.

 

1) Did you see me mention the S54 in that post? I said one solution could be to bring it back north of Seaview Hospital and extend it to St. George, either straight down Richmond Terrace, or through a combination with the S42. The extra ridership gained through the connections available at St. George would partially offset the cost of the extension.

 

And I don't see how weekday service was "slashed" when all they did was eliminate the last 2 buses of the night.

 

2) Unless somebody is traveling between two extremities of the outer boroughs (say, Staten Island and the Woodhaven Blvd corridor), they wouldn't have to pay extra. I don't know where you're getting that from. Unless you're thinking that they'll drive into Manhattan.

 

3) As I said before, name one area where I proposed something that would leave an area without any service at all. The QM4 has the Q64, the QM15 has the Q11/21/53, and the BM3/4/5 can be reached from the BM1/2 or the subway.

 

4) I didn't say the X37/X38 being restored would be cost-neutral. I just said that the savings that would be obtained wouldn't be worth it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Did you see me mention the S54 in that post? I said one solution could be to bring it back north of Seaview Hospital and extend it to St. George, either straight down Richmond Terrace, or through a combination with the S42. The extra ridership gained through the connections available at St. George would partially offset the cost of the extension.

 

And I don't see how weekday service was "slashed" when all they did was eliminate the last 2 buses of the night.

 

2) Unless somebody is traveling between two extremities of the outer boroughs (say, Staten Island and the Woodhaven Blvd corridor), they wouldn't have to pay extra. I don't know where you're getting that from. Unless you're thinking that they'll drive into Manhattan.

 

3) As I said before, name one area where I proposed something that would leave an area without any service at all. The QM4 has the Q64, the QM15 has the Q11/21/53, and the BM3/4/5 can be reached from the BM1/2 or the subway.

 

4) I didn't say the X37/X38 being restored would be cost-neutral. I just said that the savings that would be obtained wouldn't be worth it.

 

Am I blind or what? This is what you posted:

 

"As far as the local routes go, I would reduce the S54, S55, S56, and S57 to run every 60 minutes (except for school hours). I'm not sure about the Q67."

 

So no weekend service and then it's supposed to run every 60 minutes except for school hours. As I asked before, who is supposed to use the S54 with 60 minute headways most of the day?? And yeah it's very easy for you to say it's just two runs because you don't use so what would you care about the folks without those buses. Like I said all you care about looking at stats to propose slashing service solely on numbers in an attempt to reduce the fare so you can pay less. I would like to address what the primary function of the in terms of providing service because you have yet to do so.

 

Regarding the X37/X38, the cost savings is so little that you could certainly call it cost-neutral. They're not spending more to restore the service and that's the point.

[checkmatechamp13]

Am I blind or what? This is what you posted:

 

"As far as the local routes go, I would reduce the S54, S55, S56, and S57 to run every 60 minutes (except for school hours). I'm not sure about the Q67."

 

So no weekend service and then it's supposed to run every 60 minutes except for school hours. As I asked before, who is supposed to use the S54 with 60 minute headways most of the day?? And yeah it's very easy for you to say it's just two runs because you don't use so what would you care about the folks without those buses. Like I said all you care about looking at stats to propose slashing service solely on numbers in an attempt to reduce the fare so you can pay less. I would like to address what the primary function of the in terms of providing service because you have yet to do so.

 

Regarding the X37/X38, the cost savings is so little that you could certainly call it cost-neutral. They're not spending more to restore the service and that's the point.

 

There are people who manage to use routes with 60 minute headways. Like those people in Long Island whose service you would like to eliminate entirely because they don't pay enough in taxes. To be honest, the S54 serves the same demographic of riders: Despite traveling through "well-to-do" areas as you describe them, most of its riders are people without other options: Seniors, students, and the people who can't afford a car.

 

As far as the S54 goes, you said that they slashed the service, implying that they took a significant number of runs off of the route. For those few people who took the S54 at that time of the night, it stinks, but two runs isn't slashing the service.

 

As far as the X37/X38 go, that cost $300,000, so that is far from cost-neutral. Is it worth it? Yes, but it isn't cost neutral.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There are people who manage to use routes with 60 minute headways.

 

As far as the S54 goes, you said that they slashed the service, implying that they took a significant number of runs off of the route. For those few people who took the S54 at that time of the night, it stinks, but two runs isn't slashing the service.

 

As far as the X37/X38 go, that cost $300,000, so that is far from cost-neutral. Is it worth it? Yes, but it isn't cost neutral.

 

According to the it was. Would you have rathered them go to court over 300k for two express bus lines that have very high ridership and sit 3rd and 4th respectively in the express bus system?

 

 

It is cost neutral in that all of they are getting is what they had prior to the cuts established in 2010.

 

As for the S54, slashed, cut, a cut is a cut period. I love how you try to gloss over the cuts as if they aren't a big deal. It's interesting though how you make sure to not to propose cutting anything for students though. Talk about self interests. You're acting is if you're concerned about the overall system when in fact you're not. If you were, you would be proposing cuts all around and not just in select situations.

 

You want to talk about savings. Let's talk about what could be cut with regards to students traveling, especially since they get school passes.

[checkmatechamp13]

According to the it was. Would you have rathered them go to court over 300k for two express bus lines that have very high ridership and sit 3rd and 4th respectively in the express bus system?

 

 

It is cost neutral in that all of they are getting is what they had prior to the cuts established in 2010.

 

As for the S54, slashed, cut, a cut is a cut period. I love how you try to gloss over the cuts as if they aren't a big deal. It's interesting though how you make sure to not to propose cutting anything for students though. Talk about self interests. You're acting is if you're concerned about the overall system when in fact you're not. If you were, you would be proposing cuts all around and not just in select situations.

 

You want to talk about savings. Let's talk about what could be cut with regards to students traveling, especially since they get school passes.

 

What are you talking about? I've always said that there are way too many trippers serving schools. You haven't heard me complain about all of the additional buses running down Richmond Avenue (from a cost perspective, of course, not a NIMBY perspective)????? There are 5 S44 trippers at my school, and I'm glad that they cut it back to 3, but I'm hoping they'll cut it to one. It'll give me an excuse to strangle the kids who take up 2 seats or put their feet up on the seats.

 

Basically, since students aren't paying, at times when resources are scarce (when it is getting close to the rush hour, or even times when the buses could be better used for other purposes), we should be packed in and flagged like the paying adults are.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What are you talking about? I've always said that there are way too many trippers serving schools. You haven't heard me complain about all of the additional buses running down Richmond Avenue (from a cost perspective, of course, not a NIMBY persepctive)?????

 

Complaining and advocating to cut are two different things. So let's hear it then Mr. Cost saver. You've got the express buses and several local buses all set up. Let's talk about cuts to school trippers and Richmond Avenue...

[checkmatechamp13]

Complaining and advocating to cut are two different things. So let's hear it then Mr. Cost saver. You've got the express buses and several local buses all set up. Let's talk about cuts to school trippers and Richmond Avenue...

 

I just did. You know how I revise my posts (plus I mentioned Richmond Avenue, which coincidentally has a lot of trippers) in the post you quoted.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I just did. You know how I revise my posts (plus I mentioned Richmond Avenue, which coincidentally has a lot of trippers) in the post you quoted.

 

Ay yay yay lol... That seems a bit drastic IMO. Why can't they just eithe short turn some of them or run them like limited stop buses where they make select stops and drop-off only? I would think that would be far better than packing folks in like sardines.

[checkmatechamp13]

Ay yay yay lol... That seems a bit drastic IMO. Why can't they just eithe short turn some of them or run them like limited stop buses where they make select stops and drop-off only? I would think that would be far better than packing folks in like sardines.

 

That would also make sense...of course the problem is that it wouldn't save as much money, but I've asked for that as well. For example, out of those 5 buses, 2 of them could've run as super-expresses, bypassing all of the stops north of the SIE and bypassing the traffic on Morningstar Road.

 

Believe me, my philosophy that service should be reduced in exchange for lower fares applies everywhere, especially considering the fact that we're not paying for the bus.

 

They already do drop-off only to an extent. I think they take it too far. I remember once I left early and took the 1 S44 tripper that was waiting, and we passed about 6 customers along Morningstar Road, 12 passengers at Forest Avenue, and 1 passenger at Marc Street. In the meantime, less than 3/4 of the seats were full, and there was no other bus nearby.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That would also make sense...of course the problem is that it wouldn't save as much money, but I've asked for that as well. For example, out of those 5 buses, 2 of them could've run as super-expresses, bypassing all of the stops north of the SIE and bypassing the traffic on Morningstar Road.

 

Believe me, my philosophy that service should be reduced in exchange for lower fares applies everywhere, especially considering the fact that we're not paying for the bus.

 

 

Even so, I think your plans are a bit too aggressive. Cuts should be made gradually and only when absolutely necessary.

[checkmatechamp13]

Even so, I think your plans are a bit too aggressive. Cuts should be made gradually and only when absolutely necessary.

 

I don't think that it is right that entire routes were eliminated when they could've cut some trippers instead (of course, I'm referring to routes like the B4, B64, B71, etc that actually carried a decent number of people)