Today is the first anniversary of the devastating bus cuts

[checkmatechamp13]

In that case, I would just use the suburban buses for all express routes (aren't they a little more comfortable to stand on as well)?

 

With the savings that come from this, I would increase service on lines that are overcrowded.

[Cait Sith]

In that case, I would just use the suburban buses for all express routes (aren't they a little more comfortable to stand on as well)?

 

With the savings that come from this, I would increase service on lines that are overcrowded.

 

Kinda sorta, the aisle space is a little more and a little less than an MCI.

[LRG]

Seats five less than an MCI which is about 55-58 people. Costs were much lower when we had suburban RTSs and Orion Vs IIRC.

 

Exactly my point! These OTR buses are overkill.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Okay, you have a point about MTA Bus lending NYCT buses. However what's slipping through the cracks here is that the cost of the routes between two to four times are off the charts.

 

Excuse me for thinking that some express routes do not need OTR buses...it's my humble opinion but there's a hint of truth to it. The X90 for example was fine with standard suburban buses but when the line converted to MCIs the route fell apart, and look: it's gone! The route has been in existence for over 20 years and now it ceases to exist because of the MTA's decision to 1. increase frequency to the point the bus is carrying more air than people, 2. conversion of the route's fleet to MCIs, and 3. cutting the route instead of reducing the frequency to an average of 12-15 minutes compared to the 10 minutes the route had.

 

I'm not saying that all express lines should lose their OTR fleet but it's clear-cut that the routes that have an operating cost of $20 per rider is hurting the MTA and the OTR buses are contributing to that problem because they are expensive, both when it comes to maintenance and even purchasing the buses.

 

I don't know if I agree about that. I personally don't trust their numbers. For example, how can the X1 - X9 cost $15.23??? Is that an average of all of the express lines or what? I just don't trust their numbers. Also, I have a hard time believing that the X30 could cost them more than the X14, when I would think that ridership on the X30 would be higher than on the X14. Also, a line like the X16 cost less than many of the other express buses according to the , yet they totally axe the line? Makes no sense to me.

[Gorgor]

About those numbers... do they include the driver's pay and benefits, cost of maintaining the bus and repairs, and all those other indirect costs?

 

Assuming that the average express run carries 20 passengers, that means it's costing the MTA around $400 for each express run?

 

Just thinking about DIRECT operating costs... I have no idea how many mpg a bus gets so I'll just say $50 for gas, $50 for the driver, and what other costs are there?

 

HYPOTHETICALLY, if a private operator was to operate a specific line they might actually make money because there won't be any wasteful spending. Basically what I'm trying to say is that it SHOULD NOT COST $400 to operate one express run one way.

[qjtransitmaster]

About those numbers... do they include the driver's pay and benefits, cost of maintaining the bus and repairs, and all those other indirect costs?

 

Assuming that the average express run carries 20 passengers, that means it's costing the MTA around $400 for each express run?

 

Just thinking about DIRECT operating costs... I have no idea how many mpg a bus gets so I'll just say $50 for gas, $50 for the driver, and what other costs are there?

 

HYPOTHETICALLY, if a private operator was to operate a specific line they might actually make money because there won't be any wasteful spending. Basically what I'm trying to say is that it SHOULD NOT COST $400 to operate one express run one way.

 

they get about 9MPG on the MCI buses a little more than or equal to the transit buses. Motorcoaches are sometimes more fuel efficient.

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't know if I agree about that. I personally don't trust their numbers. For example, how can the X1 - X9 cost $15.23??? Is that an average of all of the express lines or what? I just don't trust their numbers. Also, I have a hard time believing that the X30 could cost them more than the X14, when I would think that ridership on the X30 would be higher than on the X14. Also, a line like the X16 cost less than many of the other express buses according to the , yet they totally axe the line? Makes no sense to me.

 

Those costs are the total costs, including things like depot maintainance, dispatchers, bureaucracy, fixed benefits, and other costs that don't very based on service.

 

The X30 probably costs more than the X14 (though I don't think it was that much more) because it is a longer route.

 

Like I've said, I've been trying to figure out the case with the X16.

 

About those numbers... do they include the driver's pay and benefits, cost of maintaining the bus and repairs, and all those other indirect costs?

 

Assuming that the average express run carries 20 passengers, that means it's costing the MTA around $400 for each express run?

 

Just thinking about DIRECT operating costs... I have no idea how many mpg a bus gets so I'll just say $50 for gas, $50 for the driver, and what other costs are there?

 

HYPOTHETICALLY, if a private operator was to operate a specific line they might actually make money because there won't be any wasteful spending. Basically what I'm trying to say is that it SHOULD NOT COST $400 to operate one express run one way.

 

Direct operating costs include pay, variable benefits, variable maintainance, and things like that. Total costs include what I mentioned above.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Those costs are the total costs, including things like depot maintainance, dispatchers, bureaucracy, fixed benefits, and other costs that don't very based on service.

 

The X30 probably costs more than the X14 (though I don't think it was that much more) because it is a longer route.

 

Like I've said, I've been trying to figure out the case with the X16.

 

 

 

Direct operating costs include pay, variable benefits, variable maintainance, and things like that. Total costs include what I mentioned above.

 

I agree w/Gorgor. Take a route like the X90. There is no reason why going from those sh*tty Orions to using MCIs should suddenly cost an arm and a leg in terms of maintenance. Why would it cost so much more to maintain an MCI as opposed to an Orion? Granted they're different buses, but I don't think the costs should be that significant. In terms of gas, MCIs are supposed to be as fuel efficient as any other bus, so I would really like to some of these costs broken down. One other thing that I didn't know is that B/Os are paid more to drive express buses than local buses usually. Not sure how that works out or why either, but I would have to think that if more express buses were cut you would certainly have some B/Os laid off so those calling for cutting of express buses seem to overlook that. You can reassign all of those B/Os.

[LRG]

MCIs have more parts than an Orion/RTS therefore the total costs increase because of that, and like I said before the sticker price for the OTR bus costs more. Case in point the costs for an OTR is higher.

 

And from what I'm aware of, drivers aren't paid more to drive an OTR bus versus a standard bus...however they are paid more to drive the accordion buses, but only like an extra quarter or 50 cents.

[engineerboy6561]

I believe this argument has alread been had at least ten times as far as the X90 is concerned. I have no problem with a PBL like TransitAzumah operating whatever lines it wishes at whatever fares it wishes and quite frankly I wish Mr. Azumah luck in his enterprise. However:

 

There are two different reasons for a publicly funded entity to operate a bus line through specific areas:

 

1) To meet the needs of the areas being served

2) To raise money for the agency, thus allowing it to augment service across the board.

 

If (or any other agency for that matter) had been able to operate the X90 at a profit, then unless the riders are out-and-out abusive to the drivers let it run! They were not able to do this; whether the route was intrinsically a dud or ran it into the red through mismanagement is immaterial. Once the line becomes unprofitable its continued existence should hinge solely on the opportunity cost to riders of using the next best option compared to the opportunity costs of other unprofitable lines.

 

Here's the thing: the round of cuts in which we lost the X90 was an ugly one, and judging by the breadth of the cuts I would assume Walder set a dollar target for cost savings and turned his people loose on the system with the only rule being that the value of all cuts must sum to that target number. In that case, we have two different categories of routes from which we can cut: local buses and express buses.

 

The subway was built to run radially outward from Manhattan, so in the outer boroughs there are whole groups of neighborhoods that may not even be that far apart that the subway doesn't connect without taking you way out of your way (UES and UWS in Manhattan, Bensonhurst and Kings Plaza in Brooklyn, etc.) between which local buses can provide a far quicker and more direct route. Even along subway corridors stops may be spaced out enough or poorly designed (i.e. ADA inaccessibile in a neighborhood of retirees) such that a bus either on or parallel to the corridor is necessary to complement it. In some areas (southern and eastern Queens come first to mind, but there are others) the subway doesn't serve large swaths of area and buses are necessary simply to get people to a subway. Cut cross-corridor routes and a twenty-minute run to and from school becomes forty or fifty, or a half-hour commute to work at the local hospital or office building becomes fifty minutes to an hour. Cut feeder routes and a whole bunch of people can't even get to work in Manhattan without a car because they're too far from the subway. Thus, any local bus cuts should be undertaken with an incredible amount of care if at all.

 

Now, express buses. These are intended to provide service between outlying areas and Manhattan, particularly in situations where a bus-to-subway commute would take way too long or the buses aren't reliable or both (ex. QM5, QM6, QM8, BxM10, and the vast majority of SI express buses because SI doesn't have any subway access other than the S53/79/93 to the and that's not exactly an option for someone living in Oakwood Heights) Cutting routes like those isn't really a good idea either because a 60- to 75-minute express bus commute from one of those areas balloons to two hours or more.

 

Then you have the X90: 48 minutes end-to-end compared to 60 (100 St to South Ferry) on the M15SBS, meaning actual commute time along the route wouldn't be more than 10 (maybe 15) minutes longer without the X90 serving it. That's not much of a big deal when you consider the fact that cutting comparable local routes could double commute times, and slashing routes on Queens or SI could conceivably produce 105+ minute commutes. You could also beat the X90 schedule by walking to the Lexington Ave lines and going to any station below Canal St. From there, most if not all office buildings are a 3-5 minute walk. Thus, the M15SBS and the Lexington Ave lines really are viable alternatives until Mr. Azumah gets his service up and running.

 

On a slightly different note, I do feel like OTR coaches are a bit much for a lot of express services runs; most lesser-used routes could use suburban-style transit buses like 9250-9349, 101-172, 611-630, or even 801-836 over at Bee-Line to cut down on maintenance costs, while more heavily used services such as the Hylan Blvd expresses would be better with suburban artics like NJT has (10-12 more seats than an MCI and more standing room to boot) especially if transit versions of the same artics were used on heavy local/LTD routes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

MCIs have more parts than an Orion/RTS therefore the total costs increase because of that, and like I said before the sticker price for the OTR bus costs more. Case in point the costs for an OTR is higher.

 

And from what I'm aware of, drivers aren't paid more to drive an OTR bus versus a standard bus...however they are paid more to drive the accordion buses, but only like an extra quarter or 50 cents.

 

I talked to someone and they were saying that the express runs pay more or better put that the express runs were the only ones worth doing during at certain times of the year. He didn't elaborate and I didn't want to be nosy per se so I didn't ask him to provide further details.

 

Aside from that I really don't see how a regular city bus can hold up on the expressway. The Orions did okay, but quite frankly an MCI moves much better on the expressway. They seem to to be able to accelerate quicker and gain more speed than the Orions or an RTS do at least from my experiences) and I would think that they would hold up better than say an Orion or an RTS or whatever and would be able to eat up more miles.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I believe this argument has alread been had at least ten times as far as the X90 is concerned. I have no problem with a PBL like TransitAzumah operating whatever lines it wishes at whatever fares it wishes and quite frankly I wish Mr. Azumah luck in his enterprise. However:

 

There are two different reasons for a publicly funded entity to operate a bus line through specific areas:

 

1) To meet the needs of the areas being served

2) To raise money for the agency, thus allowing it to augment service across the board.

 

If (or any other agency for that matter) had been able to operate the X90 at a profit, then unless the riders are out-and-out abusive to the drivers let it run! They were not able to do this; whether the route was intrinsically a dud or ran it into the red through mismanagement is immaterial. Once the line becomes unprofitable its continued existence should hinge solely on the opportunity cost to riders of using the next best option compared to the opportunity costs of other unprofitable lines.

 

Here's the thing: the round of cuts in which we lost the X90 was an ugly one, and judging by the breadth of the cuts I would assume Walder set a dollar target for cost savings and turned his people loose on the system with the only rule being that the value of all cuts must sum to that target number. In that case, we have two different categories of routes from which we can cut: local buses and express buses.

 

The subway was built to run radially outward from Manhattan, so in the outer boroughs there are whole groups of neighborhoods that may not even be that far apart that the subway doesn't connect without taking you way out of your way (UES and UWS in Manhattan, Bensonhurst and Kings Plaza in Brooklyn, etc.) between which local buses can provide a far quicker and more direct route. Even along subway corridors stops may be spaced out enough or poorly designed (i.e. ADA inaccessibile in a neighborhood of retirees) such that a bus either on or parallel to the corridor is necessary to complement it. In some areas (southern and eastern Queens come first to mind, but there are others) the subway doesn't serve large swaths of area and buses are necessary simply to get people to a subway. Cut cross-corridor routes and a twenty-minute run to and from school becomes forty or fifty, or a half-hour commute to work at the local hospital or office building becomes fifty minutes to an hour. Cut feeder routes and a whole bunch of people can't even get to work in Manhattan without a car because they're too far from the subway. Thus, any local bus cuts should be undertaken with an incredible amount of care if at all.

 

Now, express buses. These are intended to provide service between outlying areas and Manhattan, particularly in situations where a bus-to-subway commute would take way too long or the buses aren't reliable or both (ex. QM5, QM6, QM8, BxM10, and the vast majority of SI express buses because SI doesn't have any subway access other than the S53/79/93 to the and that's not exactly an option for someone living in Oakwood Heights) Cutting routes like those isn't really a good idea either because a 60- to 75-minute express bus commute from one of those areas balloons to two hours or more.

 

Then you have the X90: 48 minutes end-to-end compared to 60 (100 St to South Ferry) on the M15SBS, meaning actual commute time along the route wouldn't be more than 10 (maybe 15) minutes longer without the X90 serving it. That's not much of a big deal when you consider the fact that cutting comparable local routes could double commute times, and slashing routes on Queens or SI could conceivably produce 105+ minute commutes. You could also beat the X90 schedule by walking to the Lexington Ave lines and going to any station below Canal St. From there, most if not all office buildings are a 3-5 minute walk. Thus, the M15SBS and the Lexington Ave lines really are viable alternatives until Mr. Azumah gets his service up and running.

 

On a slightly different note, I do feel like OTR coaches are a bit much for a lot of express services runs; most lesser-used routes could use suburban-style transit buses like 9250-9349, 101-172, 611-630, or even 801-836 over at Bee-Line to cut down on maintenance costs, while more heavily used services such as the Hylan Blvd expresses would be better with suburban artics like NJT has (10-12 more seats than an MCI and more standing room to boot) especially if transit versions of the same artics were used on heavy local/LTD routes.

 

 

Your numbers are just that... Numbers... 48 minutes means nothing on paper and you're not factoring in anything in terms of traffic or anything of the sort. It's like running a bus from one end of the route to the other end with no passengers and saying that the run takes one hour when in reality that bus will always take more than one hour due to bus loads, traffic and so forth. I love how non-chalantly folks talk about these things as if they are so straightforward.

[Gorgor]

I believe this argument has alread been had at least ten times as far as the X90 is concerned. I have no problem with a PBL like TransitAzumah operating whatever lines it wishes at whatever fares it wishes and quite frankly I wish Mr. Azumah luck in his enterprise. However:

 

There are two different reasons for a publicly funded entity to operate a bus line through specific areas:

 

1) To meet the needs of the areas being served

2) To raise money for the agency, thus allowing it to augment service across the board.

 

If (or any other agency for that matter) had been able to operate the X90 at a profit, then unless the riders are out-and-out abusive to the drivers let it run! They were not able to do this; whether the route was intrinsically a dud or ran it into the red through mismanagement is immaterial. Once the line becomes unprofitable its continued existence should hinge solely on the opportunity cost to riders of using the next best option compared to the opportunity costs of other unprofitable lines.

 

Here's the thing: the round of cuts in which we lost the X90 was an ugly one, and judging by the breadth of the cuts I would assume Walder set a dollar target for cost savings and turned his people loose on the system with the only rule being that the value of all cuts must sum to that target number. In that case, we have two different categories of routes from which we can cut: local buses and express buses.

 

The subway was built to run radially outward from Manhattan, so in the outer boroughs there are whole groups of neighborhoods that may not even be that far apart that the subway doesn't connect without taking you way out of your way (UES and UWS in Manhattan, Bensonhurst and Kings Plaza in Brooklyn, etc.) between which local buses can provide a far quicker and more direct route. Even along subway corridors stops may be spaced out enough or poorly designed (i.e. ADA inaccessibile in a neighborhood of retirees) such that a bus either on or parallel to the corridor is necessary to complement it. In some areas (southern and eastern Queens come first to mind, but there are others) the subway doesn't serve large swaths of area and buses are necessary simply to get people to a subway. Cut cross-corridor routes and a twenty-minute run to and from school becomes forty or fifty, or a half-hour commute to work at the local hospital or office building becomes fifty minutes to an hour. Cut feeder routes and a whole bunch of people can't even get to work in Manhattan without a car because they're too far from the subway. Thus, any local bus cuts should be undertaken with an incredible amount of care if at all.

 

Now, express buses. These are intended to provide service between outlying areas and Manhattan, particularly in situations where a bus-to-subway commute would take way too long or the buses aren't reliable or both (ex. QM5, QM6, QM8, BxM10, and the vast majority of SI express buses because SI doesn't have any subway access other than the S53/79/93 to the and that's not exactly an option for someone living in Oakwood Heights) Cutting routes like those isn't really a good idea either because a 60- to 75-minute express bus commute from one of those areas balloons to two hours or more.

 

Then you have the X90: 48 minutes end-to-end compared to 60 (100 St to South Ferry) on the M15SBS, meaning actual commute time along the route wouldn't be more than 10 (maybe 15) minutes longer without the X90 serving it. That's not much of a big deal when you consider the fact that cutting comparable local routes could double commute times, and slashing routes on Queens or SI could conceivably produce 105+ minute commutes. You could also beat the X90 schedule by walking to the Lexington Ave lines and going to any station below Canal St. From there, most if not all office buildings are a 3-5 minute walk. Thus, the M15SBS and the Lexington Ave lines really are viable alternatives until Mr. Azumah gets his service up and running.

 

On a slightly different note, I do feel like OTR coaches are a bit much for a lot of express services runs; most lesser-used routes could use suburban-style transit buses like 9250-9349, 101-172, 611-630, or even 801-836 over at Bee-Line to cut down on maintenance costs, while more heavily used services such as the Hylan Blvd expresses would be better with suburban artics like NJT has (10-12 more seats than an MCI and more standing room to boot) especially if transit versions of the same artics were used on heavy local/LTD routes.

 

You've actually made some pretty good points about bus service in the outer-boroughs that I never realized.

 

Well regarding the X90, if it says a trip from END TO END is 48 minutes, then a trip from one end down to Wall Street would be about 38 minutes because it loops around the tip of Manhattan to go to the World Financial Center. Also, remember on the X90 you GET A SEAT and have personal space. Getting to the subway requires walking 4 avenue blocks, which is a little over half a mile, and getting to the World Financial Center is an additional half a mile or more.

 

So this so called "alternative" requires walking over a mile.

[JAzumah]

I believe this argument has alread been had at least ten times as far as the X90 is concerned. I have no problem with a PBL like TransitAzumah operating whatever lines it wishes at whatever fares it wishes and quite frankly I wish Mr. Azumah luck in his enterprise. However:

 

There are two different reasons for a publicly funded entity to operate a bus line through specific areas:

 

1) To meet the needs of the areas being served

2) To raise money for the agency, thus allowing it to augment service across the board.

 

If (or any other agency for that matter) had been able to operate the X90 at a profit, then unless the riders are out-and-out abusive to the drivers let it run! They were not able to do this; whether the route was intrinsically a dud or ran it into the red through mismanagement is immaterial. Once the line becomes unprofitable its continued existence should hinge solely on the opportunity cost to riders of using the next best option compared to the opportunity costs of other unprofitable lines.

 

Here's the thing: the round of cuts in which we lost the X90 was an ugly one, and judging by the breadth of the cuts I would assume Walder set a dollar target for cost savings and turned his people loose on the system with the only rule being that the value of all cuts must sum to that target number. In that case, we have two different categories of routes from which we can cut: local buses and express buses.

 

The subway was built to run radially outward from Manhattan, so in the outer boroughs there are whole groups of neighborhoods that may not even be that far apart that the subway doesn't connect without taking you way out of your way (UES and UWS in Manhattan, Bensonhurst and Kings Plaza in Brooklyn, etc.) between which local buses can provide a far quicker and more direct route. Even along subway corridors stops may be spaced out enough or poorly designed (i.e. ADA inaccessibile in a neighborhood of retirees) such that a bus either on or parallel to the corridor is necessary to complement it. In some areas (southern and eastern Queens come first to mind, but there are others) the subway doesn't serve large swaths of area and buses are necessary simply to get people to a subway. Cut cross-corridor routes and a twenty-minute run to and from school becomes forty or fifty, or a half-hour commute to work at the local hospital or office building becomes fifty minutes to an hour. Cut feeder routes and a whole bunch of people can't even get to work in Manhattan without a car because they're too far from the subway. Thus, any local bus cuts should be undertaken with an incredible amount of care if at all.

 

Now, express buses. These are intended to provide service between outlying areas and Manhattan, particularly in situations where a bus-to-subway commute would take way too long or the buses aren't reliable or both (ex. QM5, QM6, QM8, BxM10, and the vast majority of SI express buses because SI doesn't have any subway access other than the S53/79/93 to the and that's not exactly an option for someone living in Oakwood Heights) Cutting routes like those isn't really a good idea either because a 60- to 75-minute express bus commute from one of those areas balloons to two hours or more.

 

Then you have the X90: 48 minutes end-to-end compared to 60 (100 St to South Ferry) on the M15SBS, meaning actual commute time along the route wouldn't be more than 10 (maybe 15) minutes longer without the X90 serving it. That's not much of a big deal when you consider the fact that cutting comparable local routes could double commute times, and slashing routes on Queens or SI could conceivably produce 105+ minute commutes. You could also beat the X90 schedule by walking to the Lexington Ave lines and going to any station below Canal St. From there, most if not all office buildings are a 3-5 minute walk. Thus, the M15SBS and the Lexington Ave lines really are viable alternatives until Mr. Azumah gets his service up and running.

 

On a slightly different note, I do feel like OTR coaches are a bit much for a lot of express services runs; most lesser-used routes could use suburban-style transit buses like 9250-9349, 101-172, 611-630, or even 801-836 over at Bee-Line to cut down on maintenance costs, while more heavily used services such as the Hylan Blvd expresses would be better with suburban artics like NJT has (10-12 more seats than an MCI and more standing room to boot) especially if transit versions of the same artics were used on heavy local/LTD routes.

 

Your post is a thoughtful post. However, we have the following realities:

 

1) The M15SBS does not reliably make the trip between South Ferry and 100 Street in 60 minutes. In addition, the actual area of overlap would be 37 versus 60 minutes. I assure you that the X90s made those times regularly under MTA operation. 23 minutes to start is a big deal. The FDR below 23 Street works pretty well.

 

2) There is no question that expresses should be cut before locals. It cost 3 to 4 times as much per passenger to run an express as a local. However, much could be done to speed bus loading. Why can't an SBS setup be implemented at major hubs to speed boarding? The crosstown lines can go all proof of payment to cut their lengthy dwell times. There is more efficiency available out of the local bus system than the express system. The peak to base ratio and number of doubles assigned to buses determine the operating cost of an express route.

 

3) MCIs are not too much bus. They allow the MTA to run express routes without building new garages. The seating capacity of an articulated bus averages 65 passengers in a 60 foot platform, while 57 fit on an MCI in only 45 feet. Compare with the 43 passengers in 40 feet on the Orions and it is a no brainer why OTR coaches are being used. Schedules have been adjusted on SI to account for the bigger equipment, but I don't think Queens schedules have been adjusted yet.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

MCIs have more parts than an Orion/RTS therefore the total costs increase because of that, and like I said before the sticker price for the OTR bus costs more. Case in point the costs for an OTR is higher.

 

And from what I'm aware of, drivers aren't paid more to drive an OTR bus versus a standard bus...however they are paid more to drive the accordion buses, but only like an extra quarter or 50 cents.

 

Yeah well for all of the complaining about the cost of the express bus no one wants to pay for light rail or additional subways either and Jazumah made an excellent point about MCIs being just 45 feet and having 57 seats, when the standard local bus is 40 feet.

[LRG]

Yeah well he doesn't take into consideration that the seat setup on the local buses is different from the suburban setup...an Orion 5.501 has roughly 40 seats in the standard arrangement, yet if you were to put a suburban setup on those Orions, like the 2008 800-series Bee-Line has, the amount of seats would add up to around 45.

 

I do not even know what a suburban arrangement would look like on a New Flyer D60HF...probably awkward to say the least, but hypothetically speaking, if suburban seating were placed in those buses, my guess is the seating would add up to roughly 80.

 

Btw you do realize how long it takes to build a subway line right? If one of the East Side Els weren't untouched the demand for an X90 would be just the same as the X25: unneeded.

[LRG]

I talked to someone and they were saying that the express runs pay more or better put that the express runs were the only ones worth doing during at certain times of the year. He didn't elaborate and I didn't want to be nosy per se so I didn't ask him to provide further details.

 

Aside from that I really don't see how a regular city bus can hold up on the expressway. The Orions did okay, but quite frankly an MCI moves much better on the expressway. They seem to to be able to accelerate quicker and gain more speed than the Orions or an RTS do at least from my experiences) and I would think that they would hold up better than say an Orion or an RTS or whatever and would be able to eat up more miles.

 

That's because the MCIs are MADE for the highway whereas the standard buses are made for stop-and-go, or local use. However, local buses do have to use the highway to deadhead to the depot or it's starting point, depending on the route.

 

You and I are first-hand witnesses that the local buses in Staten Island tend to move much faster and don't do a lot of stopping and going because of the suburban environment in which not everyone in Staten Island use the local bus. You get on an S78 west of Richmond Avenue and it's a wrap, bottom line.

 

Even with governs in place I rode an Orion 5 over the Verrazano and we pulled an easy 60 miles...and that was going UP the incline! Doing down the incline we pulled an easy 70.

 

The governs the MTA places on their buses really pisses me off...needless to say don't underestimate the power of the local buses just because they appear to drive slower than the MCIs...they're doing a different task than the MCIs because that what they were put in place for. But a standard bus can cover an express run just as well as an OTR, PROVIDED that suburban seats are put in place. I'm willing to go that extra mile just because it's the right thing to do.

[B35 via Church]

For example, how can the X1 - X9 cost $15.23???

Throwing out the disbelief I (also) have for their stats for a second....

 

That is one thing that bugs me when the MTA puts out statistics.... The grouping of routes & appending a numerical figure to it (whether it's a cost of some sort, a time/duration of some sort, or a ridership figure of some sort)

 

In this particular case, tell me the figure for the x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x7, x8, & x9 and be done with it....

Not "x1-x9" & BAM, 'x' amount of dollars....

 

I'm glad someone pointed that out.... I've been screamin about that for the longest now.... and I don't wanna hear that they're essentially the same route...

 

It's one thing if we're talking about the hylan routes & someone posts "x1-x9" for the sake of discussion.... It's quite another when you're putting out statistics that are regarding separate entities.... Don't tell me they all have Hylan blvd in common b/c all 8 of those routes do not take the exact same path for 100% of their respective routes..... That's basically what that's telling me when it's grouped like that, which I find to be nothin short of stupid.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Throwing out the disbelief I (also) have for their stats for a second....

 

That is one thing that bugs me when the MTA puts out statistics.... The grouping of routes & appending a numerical figure to it (whether it's a cost of some sort, a time/duration of some sort, or a ridership figure of some sort)

 

In this particular case, tell me the figure for the x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x7, x8, & x9 and be done with it....

Not "x1-x9" & BAM, 'x' amount of dollars....

 

I'm glad someone pointed that out.... I've been screamin about that for the longest now.... and I don't wanna hear that they're essentially the same route...

 

It's one thing if we're talking about the hylan routes & someone posts "x1-x9" for the sake of discussion.... It's quite another when you're putting out statistics that are regarding separate entities.... Don't tell me they all have Hylan blvd in common b/c all 8 of those routes do not take the exact same path for 100% of their respective routes..... That's basically what that's telling me when it's grouped like that, which I find to be nothin short of stupid.....

 

I agree... There is no way in hell that the X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X7 X8 and X9 all cost the same amount and as you said they certainly do not all go the same way. If that were the case then the wouldn't have reworked the X1. They're quicker to add an X2 than they are to add an X1 and based on the distance of the X2 vs. the X1 that would make perfect sense, but break down the routes individually. They're clearly doing this with the bus restructuring that they did with these lines, yet they don't break down the numbers financially. It's a perfect way to slash service and then argue that the cost of the routes as a whole are too high when that may not be the case if you had a breakdown on a route by route basis.

 

You have to give it to them though. They're very sneaky with the underhanded sh*t like this. This is why I question the way in which they come up with these figures because they apparently don't use the same method with each route.

 

Another thing that is puzzling the hell out of me is you add service to a line like the X10 and the overcrowding is getting WORSE. Last night I waited almost 50 minutes for an X10 to come then the X10s are scheduled 20 minutes apart. Now here's the real kicker. How is that the X17s all came on time when the X17 and X10 both come through Manhattan the same way (the X17 is also spaced 20 minutes apart at this time) and yet the X10 constantly has problems? This is an ongoing problem that I've noticed too when comparing the X17 and the X10. There is something fishy going on at Castleton Depot and I plan on writing my local representatives to see if an investigation can be done as to what is up with this line and why management at Castleton can't do any better in terms of supervision. It is a perfect example of waste.

 

You spend more money by adding service and yet you don't have any supervision on the line to ensure that spacing is enforced accordingly so that you don't have sardine filled buses unnecessarily. Part of the problem is that the buses show up too early and then the next one shows up late and you simply can't have one bus show up 20 minutes late then the next one show up on time and then the next one comes early. It's a recipe for disaster and quite frankly Castleton Depot encourages this stuff because the dispatchers will let the buses go early! I've seen it happen with the X30 where the bus will arrive 10 minutes early (back when the X30 was out of Castleton) and then some passengers would call up Castleton to be told that the bus was sent out and already came, leaving folks stranded unnecessarily or forcing to take another line. That is ridiculous.

 

These sorts of things add to expenses over time and then the express bus rider is blamed because of the sloppiness that has nothing to do with us.

 

That's because the MCIs are MADE for the highway whereas the standard buses are made for stop-and-go, or local use. However, local buses do have to use the highway to deadhead to the depot or it's starting point, depending on the route.

 

You and I are first-hand witnesses that the local buses in Staten Island tend to move much faster and don't do a lot of stopping and going because of the suburban environment in which not everyone in Staten Island use the local bus. You get on an S78 west of Richmond Avenue and it's a wrap, bottom line.

 

Even with governs in place I rode an Orion 5 over the Verrazano and we pulled an easy 60 miles...and that was going UP the incline! Doing down the incline we pulled an easy 70.

 

The governs the MTA places on their buses really pisses me off...needless to say don't underestimate the power of the local buses just because they appear to drive slower than the MCIs...they're doing a different task than the MCIs because that what they were put in place for. But a standard bus can cover an express run just as well as an OTR, PROVIDED that suburban seats are put in place. I'm willing to go that extra mile just because it's the right thing to do.

 

60-70 huh?? Wow... Well maybe that's possible. I mean the NGs certainly move a lot quicker and accelerate better, but we've blown by those on the Verrazano as well. I'm just wondering do the local buses have to keep lower speeds say on the expressway or on the bridges than the express bus?? I ask this because we always blow by them. lol

[checkmatechamp13]

I believe this argument has already been had at least ten times as far as the X90 is concerned. I have no problem with a PBL like TransitAzumah operating whatever lines it wishes at whatever fares it wishes and quite frankly I wish Mr. Azumah luck in his enterprise. However:

 

There are two different reasons for a publicly funded entity to operate a bus line through specific areas:

 

1) To meet the needs of the areas being served

2) To raise money for the agency, thus allowing it to augment service across the board.

 

If (or any other agency for that matter) had been able to operate the X90 at a profit, then unless the riders are out-and-out abusive to the drivers let it run! They were not able to do this; whether the route was intrinsically a dud or ran it into the red through mismanagement is immaterial. Once the line becomes unprofitable its continued existence should hinge solely on the opportunity cost to riders of using the next best option compared to the opportunity costs of other unprofitable lines.

 

Here's the thing: the round of cuts in which we lost the X90 was an ugly one, and judging by the breadth of the cuts I would assume Walder set a dollar target for cost savings and turned his people loose on the system with the only rule being that the value of all cuts must sum to that target number. In that case, we have two different categories of routes from which we can cut: local buses and express buses.

 

The subway was built to run radially outward from Manhattan, so in the outer boroughs there are whole groups of neighborhoods that may not even be that far apart that the subway doesn't connect without taking you way out of your way (UES and UWS in Manhattan, Bensonhurst and Kings Plaza in Brooklyn, etc.) between which local buses can provide a far quicker and more direct route. Even along subway corridors stops may be spaced out enough or poorly designed (i.e. ADA inaccessibile in a neighborhood of retirees) such that a bus either on or parallel to the corridor is necessary to complement it. In some areas (southern and eastern Queens come first to mind, but there are others) the subway doesn't serve large swaths of area and buses are necessary simply to get people to a subway. Cut cross-corridor routes and a twenty-minute run to and from school becomes forty or fifty, or a half-hour commute to work at the local hospital or office building becomes fifty minutes to an hour. Cut feeder routes and a whole bunch of people can't even get to work in Manhattan without a car because they're too far from the subway. Thus, any local bus cuts should be undertaken with an incredible amount of care if at all.

 

Now, express buses. These are intended to provide service between outlying areas and Manhattan, particularly in situations where a bus-to-subway commute would take way too long or the buses aren't reliable or both (ex. QM5, QM6, QM8, BxM10, and the vast majority of SI express buses because SI doesn't have any subway access other than the S53/79/93 to the and that's not exactly an option for someone living in Oakwood Heights) Cutting routes like those isn't really a good idea either because a 60- to 75-minute express bus commute from one of those areas balloons to two hours or more.

 

Then you have the X90: 48 minutes end-to-end compared to 60 (100 St to South Ferry) on the M15SBS, meaning actual commute time along the route wouldn't be more than 10 (maybe 15) minutes longer without the X90 serving it. That's not much of a big deal when you consider the fact that cutting comparable local routes could double commute times, and slashing routes on Queens or SI could conceivably produce 105+ minute commutes. You could also beat the X90 schedule by walking to the Lexington Ave lines and going to any station below Canal St. From there, most if not all office buildings are a 3-5 minute walk. Thus, the M15SBS and the Lexington Ave lines really are viable alternatives until Mr. Azumah gets his service up and running.

 

On a slightly different note, I do feel like OTR coaches are a bit much for a lot of express services runs; most lesser-used routes could use suburban-style transit buses like 9250-9349, 101-172, 611-630, or even 801-836 over at Bee-Line to cut down on maintenance costs, while more heavily used services such as the Hylan Blvd expresses would be better with suburban artics like NJT has (10-12 more seats than an MCI and more standing room to boot) especially if transit versions of the same artics were used on heavy local/LTD routes.

 

Bold #1: Those two things go hand in hand. The profitable routes are generally the ones that benefit many riders relative to their length.

 

Bold #2: Could you explain that a little better?

 

Bold #3: I would agree. The thing is that there were/are reductions that could've been done instead. I'm not necessarily referring to actually eliminating routes ("Cut Route X instead of Route Y"), but there were (and still are) lines that see excess service. They could've cut their costs in half by reducing the frequency of the X90 to the proper levels, and the other costs could've been reduced by spreading the cuts a bit: I feel the Midtown Manhattan routes receive a little too much service relative to their crowding levels (from experience). I'm not asking for them to be crushloaded, but a couple of standees wouldn't hurt.

 

Bold #4: Generally, buses that connect those types of neighborhoods tend to have high ridership. Since the subway doesn't travel crosstown north of Midtown, the buses that cross Central Park see high ridership and are unlikely to get eliminated.

 

Bold #5: Yes and no. On most non-SI express routes, the travel time of bus->subway is comparable (or in some cases, better) than the travel time on an express bus. The problem is that you have to make a transfer right in the middle of your trip. A passenger with, say a 90 minute travel time would generally prefer to spend 80 minutes on an express bus and 10 minutes on the subway than to spend 45 minutes on a local bus and 45 minutes on the subway.

 

There are some cases in which the MTA can make the bus->subway commute easier to handle. For example, implementing +SBS+ on key routes would help some people feel more comfortable on the local bus->subway commute. For example, +SBS+ on the B3, B6 or B41 (just three random routes that serve similar areas as express buses) would help speed up the travel time and make the bus->subway commute more attractive, which would lessen the need for express buses in those areas to an extent.

 

Bold #6: Agreed.

 

Your numbers are just that... Numbers... 48 minutes means nothing on paper and you're not factoring in anything in terms of traffic or anything of the sort. It's like running a bus from one end of the route to the other end with no passengers and saying that the run takes one hour when in reality that bus will always take more than one hour due to bus loads, traffic and so forth. I love how non-chalantly folks talk about these things as if they are so straightforward.

 

They do take traffic and ridership into consideration, but on routes in high-traffic areas, they often don't factor it in enough.

 

You've actually made some pretty good points about bus service in the outer-boroughs that I never realized.

 

Well regarding the X90, if it says a trip from END TO END is 48 minutes, then a trip from one end down to Wall Street would be about 38 minutes because it loops around the tip of Manhattan to go to the World Financial Center. Also, remember on the X90 you GET A SEAT and have personal space. Getting to the subway requires walking 4 avenue blocks, which is a little over half a mile, and getting to the World Financial Center is an additional half a mile or more.

 

So this so called "alternative" requires walking over a mile.

 

It doesn't require walking over a mile. If you have an Unlimited MetroCard, you can take a crosstown bus to the subway, and then take a bus in Lower Manhattan at the other end.

 

Your post is a thoughtful post. However, we have the following realities:

 

1) The M15SBS does not reliably make the trip between South Ferry and 100 Street in 60 minutes. In addition, the actual area of overlap would be 37 versus 60 minutes. I assure you that the X90s made those times regularly under MTA operation. 23 minutes to start is a big deal. The FDR below 23 Street works pretty well.

 

2) There is no question that expresses should be cut before locals. It cost 3 to 4 times as much per passenger to run an express as a local. However, much could be done to speed bus loading. Why can't an SBS setup be implemented at major hubs to speed boarding? The crosstown lines can go all proof of payment to cut their lengthy dwell times. There is more efficiency available out of the local bus system than the express system. The peak to base ratio and number of doubles assigned to buses determine the operating cost of an express route.

 

3) MCIs are not too much bus. They allow the MTA to run express routes without building new garages. The seating capacity of an articulated bus averages 65 passengers in a 60 foot platform, while 57 fit on an MCI in only 45 feet. Compare with the 43 passengers in 40 feet on the Orions and it is a no brainer why OTR coaches are being used. Schedules have been adjusted on SI to account for the bigger equipment, but I don't think Queens schedules have been adjusted yet.

 

Bold #1: That would be too complicated. The bus driver wouldn't remember who got on at a hub and who got on at a regular stop when the fare enforcement officers show up.

 

Bold #2: If the MTA can find the space to accomodate those buses, it will save them money in labor costs. Also, I'm sure a lot of passengers on the Hylan Blvd routes are used to standing, and the articulated buses (assuming they were suburban buses) accomodate them better.

 

Yeah well for all of the complaining about the cost of the express bus no one wants to pay for light rail or additional subways either and Jazumah made an excellent point about MCIs being just 45 feet and having 57 seats, when the standard local bus is 40 feet.

 

Who said that? I certainly wouldn't mind taxpayer dollars funding subway construction, even when I grow older and pay more in taxes (more than a small part-time job).

 

In any case, like I said, there are still NIMBY issues to overcome.

 

Throwing out the disbelief I (also) have for their stats for a second....

 

That is one thing that bugs me when the MTA puts out statistics.... The grouping of routes & appending a numerical figure to it (whether it's a cost of some sort, a time/duration of some sort, or a ridership figure of some sort)

 

In this particular case, tell me the figure for the x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x7, x8, & x9 and be done with it....

Not "x1-x9" & BAM, 'x' amount of dollars....

 

I'm glad someone pointed that out.... I've been screamin about that for the longest now.... and I don't wanna hear that they're essentially the same route...

 

It's one thing if we're talking about the hylan routes & someone posts "x1-x9" for the sake of discussion.... It's quite another when you're putting out statistics that are regarding separate entities.... Don't tell me they all have Hylan blvd in common b/c all 8 of those routes do not take the exact same path for 100% of their respective routes..... That's basically what that's telling me when it's grouped like that, which I find to be nothin short of stupid.....

 

They want to show that they are short-turn/super-express variants of each other, though I agree that the X5 is nothing like the X9.

 

What they should've done for all of the express routes (as well as the S89 and S93) is to list their costs seperately and make a footnote that they are variants of each other, so the ridership may not be evenly split.

 

JAzumah has a theory that they are trying to hide the cost of some sacred cow-type routes, so they mix them into the other routes (for example, he says that the S89 is mixed in with the S59's numbers to hide the true expenses of the route, but that's another story)

 

 

Another thing that is puzzling the hell out of me is you add service to a line like the X10 and the overcrowding is getting WORSE. Last night I waited almost 50 minutes for an X10 to come. Now here's the real kicker. How is that the X17s all came on time when the X17 and X10 both come through Manhattan the same way and yet the X10 constantly has problems? This is an ongoing problem that I've noticed too when comparing the X17 and the X10. There is something fishy going on at Castleton Depot and I plan on writing my local representatives to see if an investigation can be done as to what is up with this line and why management at Castleton can't any better in terms of supervision. It is a perfect example of waste.

 

You spend more money by adding service and yet you don't have any supervision on the line to ensure that spacing is enforced accordingly so that you don't sardine filled buses. Part of the problem is that the buses show up too early and then the next one shows up late and you simply can't have one bus show up 20 minutes late then the next one show up on time and then the next one come early. It's a recipe for disaster and quite frankly Castleton Depot encourages this stuff because the dispatchers will let the buses go early! I've seen it happen with the X30 where the bus will arrive 10 minutes early (back when the X30 was out of Castleton) and then some passengers would call up Castleton to be told that the bus was sent out and already came. That is ridiculous.

 

These sorts of things add to expenses over time and then the express rider is blamed because of the sloppiness that has nothing to do with us.

 

Bold #1: I've noticed that with the S46. I remember, at one of their meetings, they mentioned that the headways would be reduced from 6.5 minutes to 5.5 minutes, and yet, the next school year, I've had many more experiences with buses flagging me. For some reason, the frequency increased, but I feel that bunching has gotten worse.

 

On a side note, I think that section of Mariners' Harbor should be served by the S53, rather than the S46 (the S40 is much faster, and S98 service would be added so that Forest Avenue service is faster as well), but that's another story.

 

Bold #2: Agreed. Like I said, if a route can't be made stronger, and isn't necessary for coverage, it should be eliminated, but the ridership shouldn't be driven away and the costs shouldn't be driven up.

[JAzumah]

They want to show that they are short-turn/super-express variants of each other, though I agree that the X5 is nothing like the X9.

 

What they should've done for all of the express routes (as well as the S89 and S93) is to list their costs seperately and make a footnote that they are variants of each other, so the ridership may not be evenly split.

 

JAzumah has a theory that they are trying to hide the cost of some sacred cow-type routes, so they mix them into the other routes (for example, he says that the S89 is mixed in with the S59's numbers to hide the true expenses of the route, but that's another story)

 

The X1 through X9 are scheduled as essentially "one service". The ridership bases overlap to the extent that it is appropriate to do that.

 

The S89 carries 918 passengers and by burying it, masks the fact that it is a local bus with express bus style costs. Ridership isn't kept separately for any other limiteds except the Bx55, M98, and S93. No one argues that these routes are independent routes, despite sharing substantial portions of the route with other buses. The Bx55 has been hacked away at for years. The M98 got hit hard last summer. If the true S89 numbers were included, the route would have been a target.

[LRG]

60-70 huh?? Wow... Well maybe that's possible. I mean the NGs certainly move a lot quicker and accelerate better, but we've blown by those on the Verrazano as well. I'm just wondering do the local buses have to keep lower speeds say on the expressway or on the bridges than the express bus?? I ask this because we always blow by them. lol

 

The NG's weak BAE HybriDrive (this substitutes the transmission found in CNG/straight-diesel buses) does no good on the incline on the Verrazano, or most hills for the matter. I don't think I've gone any faster than 30 on that incline heading into Staten Island, MAYBE 35.

 

As for the question about the bus speeds, it depends on the driver as well as the bus. I had a B/O who floored his Orion 5 on the S79 and left the NG S93 in the dust as we were going over the bridge...that didn't surprise me at all because the Orions always had kickass power to boot.

 

Some bus operators can't help that they have a bus that has weak acceleration. You may see the MCIs blow past the standard buses but make no mistake...you put an MTA MCI and a long-distance bus company's MCI like Greyhound and guaranteed the Greyhound bus would leave the MTA bus in the dust.

[checkmatechamp13]

The X1 through X9 are scheduled as essentially "one service". The ridership bases overlap to the extent that it is appropriate to do that.

 

The S89 carries 918 passengers and by burying it, masks the fact that it is a local bus with express bus style costs. Ridership isn't kept separately for any other limiteds except the Bx55, M98, and S93. No one argues that these routes are independent routes, despite sharing substantial portions of the route with other buses. The Bx55 has been hacked away at for years. The M98 got hit hard last summer. If the true S89 numbers were included, the route would have been a target.

 

The S93 was kept with the S53's ridership.

 

I doubt they would've eliminated the S89 entirely: That would get rid of the only SI-NJ link.

 

Like I said, the MTA could've achieved enough savings to keep some of the routes if they were willing to reduce some of the frequencies. For example, at the end of the PM rush hour, the ridership on the S89 is very low, so it should run every 20-30 minutes rather than every 15-20 minutes.

[LRG]

The S93 has independent data from the S53 due to the bus routes having different northern terminals and don't share the same travel path. The S93 ranked 178 out of the entire local bus network, whereas the S53 ranked 90.

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters