MTA board member suggests off-peak bus discounts to woo back riders.

[East New York]

Off peak pricing would not even effect those of us with Unltd cards. This would only be good for the occasional leasure rider.

 

As far as smaller buses, that wouldnt be a good idea in New York. There are operators a fraction of the size of MTA that don't even have buses shorter than 40 feet. This would be horrible for interligning, depot swaps. This would limit the effectiveness of the buses, and because MTA has such a large fleet, buses smaller than 40 feet should not even be an option.

 

I personally can't stand riding those damn low floor Orions... No standing room whatsoever. Now I'll admit those Xcelsiors... Those are some BEAUTIFUL buses inside and out. Nice amount of room to stand, the bus rides incredibly smooth and the stop request buttons are nice and big. The should dump Orion and order more Xcelsiors. :tup:

 

The width of the Orion 7 and Xcelsior are the same, as is the seating arrangement on the new buses for the most part. Slightly different, but almost the same.

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[Fresh Pond]

Wait, "smaller buses"? Maybe 30-foot buses would work, but cutaway vans definitely won't. The off-peak discount isn't a good idea either for the local buses, but I think it might work for the express ones. Look at Metro-North and LIRR, they have peak and off-peak fares, and in most off-peak cases taking one of the railroads to Manhattan from an outer borough is much cheaper than taking an express bus, especially on the weekends with CityTicket. To me, they shouldn't be running express buses at off-peak hours to/from areas served by Metro-North or the LIRR unless the lowers the fare for the express bus. Since the train is much faster, the express bus should cost less than the train.

 

A cutawat fits at most 20 people (and I'm being generous there). I don't think any of our lines carry that little off-peak (except for some express lines, but that's a different story). I don't even think those little things could even stand up to what the goes through.

 

Why would that be a problem? Westchester, Nassau and Rockland (For example) have em. It i'll look like a cute baby

 

None of those companies ain't got sh1t on the . Keep those cute little babies where they at and don't send them to do a REAL bus job lol

[nostalgia]

"Originally Posted by AMNY

by Marc Beja/02-27-2012

 

An MTA board member is pushing some outside-the-box ideas to reverse the trend of dwindling bus ridership.

 

Charles Moerdler suggested during a transit committee hearing Monday that the MTA should use smaller buses where demand is lower and give commuters a break if they use the bus during off-peak hours."

 

Here's Washington, DC's "smaller bus"

 

WMATA Orion IIs

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The width of the Orion 7 and Xcelsior are the same, as is the seating arrangement on the new buses for the most part. Slightly different, but almost the same.

 

Maybe I'm thinking of those NGs... The configuration of those buses could be improved, particularly in the part before the stairs to allow better flow and more room to stand.

 

Yeah, it would definitely work on express buses, because of their nature of heavily peaked service.

 

As for express buses, I would endorse that fully.

 

I quite frankly don't see that plan generating any sort of explosion in ridership. Aside from that there aren't that many express buses running during off peak hours anyway, so while maybe it's a good idea, I don't see it generating very much. I think they're really talking about LOCAL bus service more than express bus service and I don't think the price is an issue. The speeds and the frequencies at which the buses travel are the real issues. If the cost were such an issue you wouldn't have a Bee-Line express bus getting good ridership even after they raised the fare from $5.50 to $7.50, so I don't buy all of that about it being so expensive that that's why ridership is down, be it on the express bus or the local bus.

 

Ridership didn't just start decreasing when the recession hit. It's been decreasing for years now, so it's not as economic related as the two of you keep trying to make it sound. The fact of the matter is bus service has become slower, less reliable and trips are taking longer. As a bus rider that is the one thing that I have noticed over the years. Every year the commutes seem to get WORSE, not better... More traffic, more delayed buses and more later buses. I used to be able to get home around 19:30 or so. I can't remember the last time that has happened in years... If anything I get home later and later each year. That has only improved slightly of late since Bus Time came about.

 

Let me make it clear: When I said "That's how I like my buses: Fast and crowded", I didn't mean "I like my buses so crowded that people are being left behind". Why? Because even if you want to look at it purely from a cost standpoint, more people means that the bus takes longer to load and unload at stops (and often that time isn't made up when the bus flags people). It's different for trippers because they're de facto drop-off only for most of their route, and also because they're full of students getting a free ride (and in case anybody else is looking, I'm a student who gets a Student MetroCard)

 

Anyway, from a passenger standpoint, it's obvious. You're not serving the public well when you're leaving behind a ton of people and making them wait a long time for the next bus (that's why B35 said that on a route already running more frequently than every 5 minutes, there isn't much you can do. At least when the passengers are flagged, there's another bus not too far behind that they can fit on)

 

As far as preferring longer routes, I'm talking from the perspective of a passenger, not a planner. Do you really think that if you asked any passenger "Do you want your route to take a direct path or a meandering path" that any passenger would honestly say "take the meandering path". Of course not. People want the best service possible, but sometimes it's not feasable to provide it, so the planner would prefer a meadering route if it meant that the route would significantly perform better.

 

Yes, it decreases ridership, but is that the worst thing in the world? Aside from the fact that the economy does have an impact on ridership, there are some things where a decline in ridership is unavoidable: If you reduce service to the bare bones in a certain area, of course ridership will drop.

 

And no, I'm not saying the MTA is perfect. I can think of a bunch of areas where there are a bunch of gaps that are unfilled, and connectivity is poor that the MTA is not addressing (and don't give me any crap of "Oh, well that's a change" because I've always felt that way and gave a ton of examples)

 

Let me make it clear as well... The point that I was making is that your definition of crowded and the average passenger's definition of crowded is very different. The average passenger expects to be able to get on the bus and get a seat. Whether or not he/she takes one is another story, but that is what they expect. You on the other hand would say well if some folks have to stand it's not a big deal, but again the topic here is why ridership on buses is decreasing, not well the economy is bad so cuts have to be made. No need to even discuss that. Now, another reason I suspect that passengers are not riding buses as much is because they are sick of getting on crowded buses. They want and should expect comfort for what they're paying and many of them also want speed, so they take cabs or drive instead of the bus. Yes transit is not only for the public, but the idea is to ENTICE people to use it. You don't entice people by having buses that are constantly SRO only and this has not just started since the economy went south. It's been going on for years now, so I don't want to hear that excuse.

 

Now to answer your other question about is a decrease in ridership good, I'd say no. While the may secretly want to reduce costs, there is a certain point where they must think that they need to do something simply because the subway is at maximum capacity and they need to try to alleviate the rapid growth on the subways by trying to spread out ridership to other sources where possible. Of course buses can't alleviate massive amounts of capacity, but it would certainly help, especially as they buy more articulated buses. The goal is also to reduce pollution and traffic. You most certainly don't do that if you have fewer people using buses.

 

 

 

I don't recall any real reduction in X14 service after the cuts were made. (I mean from immediately after service was cut vs. a few months later)

 

Well of course not. The cuts were made when the schedule was updated and you don't use the X14 so you wouldn't be paying attention to what was cut anyway, as opposed to someone like myself who uses the route and has been for years now.

 

In any case, you're right that a certain number of X14s should've served Midtown directly. If you think about it, it increased costs because now you have extra buses making additional stops and traveling further (I believe service to Midtown was increased slightly, though obviously everybody going to Midtown would prefer the old pattern with faster service). At the height of rush hour, they should've brought back the old pattern (seperate Downtown and Midtown buses).

 

But maybe part of the reason why they added so many buses to Lower Manhattan was because they were also trying to accomodate X16 riders, so there weren't many buses left that could bypass Lower Manhattan because then the buses serving Lower Manhattan would be overcrowded.

 

Well yeah, that's fine and good, but my point was that if they were really concerned about trying to keep those runs they would've looked to have studied why those runs weren't doing so well. I mean I'm no planner and I could see exactly what was going on. The X14 riders were going over to the X2 because they didn't want to put up with the additional Downtown run. The projected that additional portion to add just 10 minutes to the commute, when in reality it can add up to 30 minutes to the commute which is high when you consider that the average Staten Islander already has an hour commute.

[B35 via Church]

The thing is though they often times don't look to do anything to understand why a run is underperforming. Instead they just CUT it.

They run to the schedules, do their little minor behind the scenes tweaks, hoping a domino effect will be caused along the line - hopefully resulting in a rectification of why some route is underperforming.... Picking out a piece of broccoli stuck b/w someone's teeth isn't gonna cure the gum disease they have !

 

Of course, this process is dragged out for YEARS (let BrooklynBus tell it).... then when all else fails (because that lackadaisical attempt quantifies as "all else"), seek to trim service.....

 

This is a major reason why you'll never see me all gung ho (as you put it... lol) about the MTA.... It's their practices that get under my skin.... They don't do what they do with service changes with the rider in mind.....

 

 

Let's get this straight since this is about busses in general. I think the should really look at routes in some essence like how Veolia NICE does it, they should also explore streets and look at ridership data, pedestrian traffic, bike traffic, automobile traffic, and other forms of transit like Taxis and Limos.

 

Yeah, but it aint just how NICE is doing what they're doing in Nassau.... Every other major transit system in the tri-state area analyzes their routes to better serve the riders (in lieu of working with the total, physical amt. of buses that they have) except the MTA....

 

With the MTA, it is all about stats & figures (i.e. you having mentioned ridership data) - the rider in & of him/herself factors into nothing....

 

 

Ridership didn't just start decreasing when the recession hit. It's been decreasing for years now, so it's not as economic related as the two of you keep trying to make it sound.

I had to laugh at that...

I think it's nothin more than a copout to blame the recession as to why ridership on the buses has declined....

 

Didn't know the fare for the subway was cheaper than that for the local buses.... Learn somethin everyday.....

[B35 via Church]

As far as preferring longer routes, I'm talking from the perspective of a passenger, not a planner. Do you really think that if you asked any passenger "Do you want your route to take a direct path or a meandering path" that any passenger would honestly say "take the meandering path". Of course not.

 

People want the best service possible, but sometimes it's not feasable to provide it, so the planner would prefer a meadering route if it meant that the route would significantly perform better.

A planner would be forced to draw up the cheapest route possible because they have the suits breathing down their necks sticking stats & figures in their face.... it's like giving an artist three colors (RGB) to work with, and then tellin him to paint a masterpiece off that....

 

"there is no yellow... no orange... no black... no purple... no white - I cannot work like zhis"

That's not my problem...... Get to work !

 

 

Anyway, it's not about a route taking a meandering path vs a direct one... as much as it is a "long & drawn out" route (like a Q27 type routing) vs a "moderate/average length compact" route (like a Q4 type routing).... or even better, the short/compact route (like a B74... but a route w/ those efficiency numbers you can't expect to duplicate throughout an entire urban surface transit system).... when I say compact, I'm pretty much referring to a route that gets good usage from end to end.....

 

(then again, I don't know what you might mean by meandering.... so if it's semantical, just ignore it if you want)

 

Regardless, even from the perspective of a passenger, I would be adamant if the route I normally took were to be noticably elongated, affecting reliability..... Moreso if buses were crowded, on top of that.....

 

 

I don't see how anybody could think that it equals increasing ridership (maybe increased efficiency, but sometimes not even that), but I see your point. I mean, everybody knows that if you reduce service, ridership will decrease, though of course it depends how much you reduce the service by, among other factors.

In the perspective of that person trying to board a particular bus on their route..... All they see is the crowded bus in front of em (buses, if it's along a route that has a tendency to bunch).... they're not thinking about the occupancies of the buses that arrived before they got to the stop or the buses that arrive at the stop after they boarded a particular bus at that stop.....

 

In plain english... If their bus (meaning, a bus set to arrive when they normally arrive at a stop) is more crowded than normal; say for the past few months... You can absolutely get people to believe that ridership is increasing on a route.... We on the forums have a great interest in transit; even I have to take a step back sometimes & realize that the general riding public aren't that deeply interested in the isht we talk about on here & don't think on the level that we do......

 

Anyway, now if you're keen enough to realize that you aren't seeing buses as frequently as you used to... and you are seeing more crowded buses than you're normally used to, then you can attribute it to a decrease in service... If you ask me, this is the level of analyzation/thought the MTA doesn't want its riders doing.... because it's one way of exposing the crap out of em (well, at least it's operations planning dept. anyway)....

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[East New York]

They run to the schedules, do their little minor behind the scenes tweaks, hoping a domino effect will be caused along the line - hopefully resulting in a rectification of why some route is underperforming.... Picking out a piece of broccoli stuck b/w someone's teeth isn't gonna cure the gum disease they have !

 

Of course, this process is dragged out for YEARS (let BrooklynBus tell it).... then when all else fails (because that lackadaisical attempt quantifies as "all else"), seek to trim service.....

 

This is a major reason why you'll never see me all gung ho (as you put it... lol) about the MTA.... It's their practices that get under my skin.... They don't do what they do with service changes with the rider in mind.....

 

Well, you know I love me some MTA, but the thing you have to realize it that for the most part each different department and division does their own thing. Some are great, where others are piss poor. 98% of the time, their bosses just sign off on whatever it is they do.

 

The Planning Ops guys (which I have personally met) are only concerned with filling up buses. If they have to cut service to fill buses, then that's what they do. They are the coolest guys in the world, but my main issue with them is they don't have a clue where the average rider is coming from. Not only that, but they have been working for the MTA since the stone age, and are set in their ways. Trust and believe that they RARELY have ANYONE breathing down their necks. Most all the top guys in the MTA have been there for years, with the exception of the CEO's who come from other outfits.

 

Planning Ops needs to step into the 21st century, and maybe.... just maybe they will be alright.

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[Interested Rider]

They run to the schedules, do their little minor behind the scenes tweaks, hoping a domino effect will be caused along the line - hopefully resulting in a rectification of why some route is underperforming.... Picking out a piece of broccoli stuck b/w someone's teeth isn't gonna cure the gum disease they have !

 

Of course, this process is dragged out for YEARS (let BrooklynBus tell it).... then when all else fails (because that lackadaisical attempt quantifies as "all else"), seek to trim service.....

 

This is a major reason why you'll never see me all gung ho (as you put it... lol) about the MTA.... It's their practices that get under my skin.... They don't do what they do with service changes with the rider in mind.....

 

 

 

Yeah, but it aint just how NICE is doing what they're doing in Nassau.... Every other major transit system in the tri-state area analyzes their routes to better serve the riders (in lieu of working with the total, physical amt. of buses that they have) except the MTA....

 

With the MTA, it is all about stats & figures (i.e. you having mentioned ridership data) - the rider in & of him/herself factors into nothing....

 

 

 

I had to laugh at that...

I think it's nothin more than a copout to blame the recession as to why ridership on the buses has declined....

 

Didn't know the fare for the subway was cheaper than that for the local buses.... Learn somethin everyday.....

Thanks

[B35 via Church]

@ InterestedRider... :tup:

 

@ ENY.... I wasn't referring to the top guys in Operations Planning that have ppl. breathing down their necks....

 

@ Keystone.... having to deal w/ all the motorists in this city, I don't have a problem w/ the governors to be honest....

as for stats, they should be used as guidelines, not sole determinants to anything....

[checkmatechamp13]

1) I quite frankly don't see that plan generating any sort of explosion in ridership. Aside from that there aren't that many express buses running during off peak hours anyway, so while maybe it's a good idea, I don't see it generating very much. I think they're really talking about LOCAL bus service more than express bus service and I don't think the price is an issue. The speeds and the frequencies at which the buses travel are the real issues. If the cost were such an issue you wouldn't have a Bee-Line express bus getting good ridership even after they raised the fare from $5.50 to $7.50, so I don't buy all of that about it being so expensive that that's why ridership is down, be it on the express bus or the local bus.

 

2) Ridership didn't just start decreasing when the recession hit. It's been decreasing for years now, so it's not as economic related as the two of you keep trying to make it sound. The fact of the matter is bus service has become slower, less reliable and trips are taking longer. As a bus rider that is the one thing that I have noticed over the years. Every year the commutes seem to get WORSE, not better... More traffic, more delayed buses and more later buses. I used to be able to get home around 19:30 or so. I can't remember the last time that has happened in years... If anything I get home later and later each year. That has only improved slightly of late since Bus Time came about.

 

3) Let me make it clear as well... The point that I was making is that your definition of crowded and the average passenger's definition of crowded is very different. The average passenger expects to be able to get on the bus and get a seat. Whether or not he/she takes one is another story, but that is what they expect. You on the other hand would say well if some folks have to stand it's not a big deal, but again the topic here is why ridership on buses is decreasing, not well the economy is bad so cuts have to be made. No need to even discuss that. Now, another reason I suspect that passengers are not riding buses as much is because they are sick of getting on crowded buses. They want and should expect comfort for what they're paying and many of them also want speed, so they take cabs or drive instead of the bus. Yes transit is not only for the public, but the idea is to ENTICE people to use it. You don't entice people by having buses that are constantly SRO only and this has not just started since the economy went south. It's been going on for years now, so I don't want to hear that excuse.

 

4) Now to answer your other question about is a decrease in ridership good, I'd say no. While the may secretly want to reduce costs, there is a certain point where they must think that they need to do something simply because the subway is at maximum capacity and they need to try to alleviate the rapid growth on the subways by trying to spread out ridership to other sources where possible. Of course buses can't alleviate massive amounts of capacity, but it would certainly help, especially as they buy more articulated buses. The goal is also to reduce pollution and traffic. You most certainly don't do that if you have fewer people using buses.

 

5) Well of course not. The cuts were made when the schedule was updated and you don't use the X14 so you wouldn't be paying attention to what was cut anyway, as opposed to someone like myself who uses the route and has been for years now.

 

6) Well yeah, that's fine and good, but my point was that if they were really concerned about trying to keep those runs they would've looked to have studied why those runs weren't doing so well. I mean I'm no planner and I could see exactly what was going on. The X14 riders were going over to the X2 because they didn't want to put up with the additional Downtown run. The projected that additional portion to add just 10 minutes to the commute, when in reality it can add up to 30 minutes to the commute which is high when you consider that the average Staten Islander already has an hour commute.

 

1) On Staten Island, that's true that most routes are rush hour-only, but in the other boroughs there are a decent number of express routes that have off-peak service. Almost all the Bronx express routes have 7-day service, most of the Queens routes have at least some form of off-peak service, and the BMs and X27/28 have off-peak service (yes, I know the X27/28 don't run weekends)

 

Like I said, express buses have a greater tendancy to show very peaky service/ridership patterns than local buses do. A lot of express bus service involves running a ton of deadheads, or running reverse-peak buses empty, whereas that isn't the case for local buses (of course, there is deadheading and stuf like that involved, but it isn't as extensive as with express buses).

 

I mean, look at the X17 (I remember B35 mentioning his friend calling it the "Mid-Island subway"). At the height of rush hour, you have the X17J coming every 3 minutes, and the X17A coming every 5 minutes (often bunched together, but on a frequent route like that's it's to be expected). During middays, the X17C runs every 30 minutes (and it used to run every 45 minutes IIRC). The huge difference between peak and off-peak service means that there is a ton of deadheading involved, and you have drivers being paid 1/2 time to sit around during middays (I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, just that it occurs. I can see it from both sides of the coins). If you could shift some riders to travel off-peak, you can balance it out (especially if those peak riders shifted to off-peak, so you can reduce peak service while increasing off-peak service, which is a double win for the MTA)

 

Just to see, look at the cost per passenger for the X1, X10, and X17 on weekdays vs. weekends (on weekdays, they include their variants as well). Because of the tremendous peak:base ratio, the costs are much lower on the weekends. Now compare the costs on mosts SI local routes, and they're more or less the same on the weekdays and weekends.

 

2) I'm not saying that the recession was the only reason for the decrease, just that it played a role.

 

3) You remind me of Pinepower with the "That bus is packed because it has standees" bit. I wouldn't say that the "average rider" gets on the bus expecting a seat, not during rush hours anyway.

 

4) I never said that a decrease in ridership was good. Just that it isn't necessarily bad. If the extra ridership was due to running a bunch of empty buses, then it's really not bad if those riders disappeared. I mean, you do need a certain number of people per bus to make it less polluting than a car.

 

Now if the decrease is due to riders from moderately-used routes switching to the subway (even if it's more roundabout), then yeah, it's bad. Like for instance, BrooklynBus gave the example of Bay Ridge-Sheepshead Bay riders being forced to take the to the to the B44 rather than taking the B4 directly. That's definitely something that's bad.

 

If it's something where bus riders are switching to a parallel subway route (say, from the B25 to the ), I have no problem with as long as the remaining bus service runs decently for the riders who choose to stick with the bus.

 

5) So give me an example of runs that were reduced (just say, from __ runs to __ runs)

 

6) Actually, the average commute is 41 minutes. Check the Census data.

 

I'm just joking with you. I see the point you were trying to make (that the average SI-Manhattan commute takes over an hour, depending of course on where the exact origin and destination are)

 

And I don't think they mentioned the amount of time it would add to the Midtown X14 riders' trips. In any case, I thought the schedule added in an extra 20 minutes, so they knew it would make the trips longer.

 

1) A planner would be forced to draw up the cheapest route possible because they have the suits breathing down their necks sticking stats & figures in their face.... it's like giving an artist three colors (RGB) to work with, and then tellin him to paint a masterpiece off that....

 

"there is no yellow... no orange... no black... no purple... no white - I cannot work like zhis"

That's not my problem...... Get to work !

 

2) Anyway, it's not about a route taking a meandering path vs a direct one... as much as it is a "long & drawn out" route (like a Q27 type routing) vs a "moderate/average length compact" route (like a Q4 type routing).... or even better, the short/compact route (like a B74... but a route w/ those efficiency numbers you can't expect to duplicate throughout an entire urban surface transit system).... when I say compact, I'm pretty much referring to a route that gets good usage from end to end.....

 

(then again, I don't know what you might mean by meandering.... so if it's semantical, just ignore it if you want)

 

Regardless, even from the perspective of a passenger, I would be adamant if the route I normally took were to be noticably elongated, affecting reliability..... Moreso if buses were crowded, on top of that.....

 

3) In the perspective of that person trying to board a particular bus on their route..... All they see is the crowded bus in front of em (buses, if it's along a route that has a tendency to bunch).... they're not thinking about the occupancies of the buses that arrived before they got to the stop or the buses that arrive at the stop after they boarded a particular bus at that stop.....

 

In plain english... If their bus (meaning, a bus set to arrive when they normally arrive at a stop) is more crowded than normal; say for the past few months... You can absolutely get people to believe that ridership is increasing on a route.... We on the forums have a great interest in transit; even I have to take a step back sometimes & realize that the general riding public aren't that deeply interested in the isht we talk about on here & don't think on the level that we do......

 

Anyway, now if you're keen enough to realize that you aren't seeing buses as frequently as you used to... and you are seeing more crowded buses than you're normally used to, then you can attribute it to a decrease in service... If you ask me, this is the level of analyzation/thought the MTA doesn't want its riders doing.... because it's one way of exposing the crap out of em (well, at least it's operations planning dept. anyway)....

 

1) LMAO at the French accent.

 

2) I think he's referring to making routes have more diversions. The one I can think of off the top of my head is combining the BxM6/BxM10 on the weekends. I can't recall making a plan that would involve creating a Q27-type route. I have proposed things like sending the B31 to Bay Ridge (via Avenue P, 65th Street, and Bay Ridge Avenue, and then I'd make the routes in the Bay Ridge area more direct), similar to BrooklynBus' plan, but I can't recall making a plan that would really make long extensions to routes. (Of course, we all know one user who's famous for long extensions of his "rtes" )

 

But in any case, I don't think any of my plans would've made routes significantly more unreliable.

 

3) I'm not sure the passengers are that naive (for lack of a better term). I think if they notice that buses are coming less frequently, the increased crowds aren't due to increased ridership, but rather decreased service. But then again, being a transit fan, it's hard to see things purely from the average rider's perspective.

 

Yeah, but it aint just how NICE is doing what they're doing in Nassau.... Every other major transit system in the tri-state area analyzes their routes to better serve the riders (in lieu of working with the total, physical amt. of buses that they have) except the MTA....

 

With the MTA, it is all about stats & figures (i.e. you having mentioned ridership data) - the rider in & of him/herself factors into nothing....

 

 

Well, that's the thing that they pick and choose which stats and figures they want to use. They put out all of the stats just to say "Well, technically we did put out the information on the cost per passenger", but I don't think the average rider looks at them. Hell, aside from myself, Amtrak,and maybe BrooklynBus and a few others, there are very few transit fans who bother to actually analyze the stats.

 

Anyway, my point is that they think "Well, we put out the numbers, but nobody's going to really look at them, so we'll just do what we want". I mean for instance, the B71 saw a 5-year increase in ridership of almost 30%, and the cost per passenger was around $3: Not particularly great, but still worth looking into ways to keep it around, and yet they axed it like it was nothing. And their guidelines say that you shouldn't have to walk more than 1/4 mile to an east-west bus route, and yet there's a 1 mile gap between 9th Street and Bergen Street (which means some people are walking 1/2 mile to get to a bus route)

 

And the same thing for the B4: Ridership was decent east of the subway station, and the cost per passenger was around $2.50 per passenger. The B36 is 1/2 mile from Emmons Avenue (and you can only cross Shore Parkway at certain points), so that's a stat they chose to ignore.

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[B35 via Church]

1) I think he's referring to making routes have more diversions. The one I can think of off the top of my head is combining the BxM6/BxM10 on the weekends. I can't recall making a plan that would involve creating a Q27-type route. I have proposed things like sending the B31 to Bay Ridge (via Avenue P, 65th Street, and Bay Ridge Avenue, and then I'd make the routes in the Bay Ridge area more direct), similar to BrooklynBus' plan, but I can't recall making a plan that would really make long extensions to routes. (Of course, we all know one user who's famous for long extensions of his "rtes" )

 

But in any case, I don't think any of my plans would've made routes significantly more unreliable.

 

2) I'm not sure the passengers are that naive (for lack of a better term). I think if they notice that buses are coming less frequently, the increased crowds aren't due to increased ridership, but rather decreased service.

 

But then again, being a transit fan, it's hard to see things purely from the average rider's perspective.

 

1) I didn't get (the sense) that Via was talking about route diversions; I got the sense that he was referring to lengthening routes by w/e means, including what I call super-routes, and forcing people to take such routes.... resulting in increased crowding.... Which is what I'm also against....

 

...and please don't even bring whatshisface up; he's marred enough threads on this forum.... this is a good one we got going thus far.....

 

 

2) Yet another reason why I routefan.... to get the perspective of the average rider of a particular route... for one, makes it a hell of a lot easier to come up with some change/idea that better suits them.....

 

and two, just in case I end up moving to (whatever) area, I know what I'm up against.... Via having moved to Riverdale can tell you all about that perspective & process....

 

 

 

Well, that's the thing that they pick and choose which stats and figures they want to use. They put out all of the stats just to say "Well, technically we did put out the information on the cost per passenger", but I don't think the average rider looks at them. Hell, aside from myself, Amtrak,and maybe BrooklynBus and a few others, there are very few transit fans who bother to actually analyze the stats.

 

Anyway, my point is that they think "Well, we put out the numbers, but nobody's going to really look at them, so we'll just do what we want".

Not only that (picking & choosing), but I think some stats are skewed to support the moves/changes they want to make.... I think I made a mention of that in my little breakdown of the 2010 cuts....

 

But yeh, that's a point I made a while back, about the MTA putting out all those stats.... You're right in that the avg. rider aint goin sit there & analyze stats, but the fact is, the stats are there - Such of which the avg. rider can't claim there was nothin shown/illustrated as to how they came to the conclusions that they did, which resulted in the detrimental changes in service....

[Nova RTS 9147]

Off peak fares sound like a good idea (not really since the cries poverty every six months, but they seem to ignore that), but if they have the money for that then might as well restore the bus service that was cut.

 

In fact, heres a list of things that would actually help.

 

1. DONT get smaller buses. It serves no real purpose in the city, and it suggests that these board members are either out of touch or just don't take the issue seriously.

 

2. Have the schedules be worth the paper they're printed on. While to us its a no brainer, the doesnt connect that some bus riders don't ride buses for the simple fact that the buses show up whenever they feel like.

 

3. Expand on inter-borough and premium fare routes. One of the main problems in the city is how difficult it is to go borough to borough without going into Manhattan.

 

4. Expand bus lanes throughout Manhattan and busy outer borough thoroughfares. This will help increase reliability on routes. Expanding POP should also be considered.

 

5. More SBS, but actual new SBS routes and not merely eliminating the limited runs on busy routes.

[checkmatechamp13]

Off peak fares sound like a good idea (not really since the cries poverty every six months, but they seem to ignore that), but if they have the money for that then might as well restore the bus service that was cut.

 

In fact, heres a list of things that would actually help.

 

1. DONT get smaller buses. It serves no real purpose in the city, and it suggests that these board members are either out of touch or just don't take the issue seriously.

 

2. Have the schedules be worth the paper they're printed on. While to us its a no brainer, the doesnt connect that some bus riders don't ride buses for the simple fact that the buses show up whenever they feel like.

 

3. Expand on inter-borough and premium fare routes. One of the main problems in the city is how difficult it is to go borough to borough without going into Manhattan.

 

4. Expand bus lanes throughout Manhattan and busy outer borough thoroughfares. This will help increase reliability on routes. Expanding POP should also be considered.

 

5. More SBS, but actual new SBS routes and not merely eliminating the limited runs on busy routes.

 

They don't necessarily mean that they have to lower the off-peak fare right now. They could wait until the next fare hike and then the "discount" is the fact that they raise the fare during rush hours but keep it the same off-peak.

 

1) Yeah, I could agree with that. They're better off with a uniform fleet, and there probably aren't many savings, if any.

 

2) Like you said, a no brainer.

 

3) Well, I assume by "premium fare", you mean express buses. Like I said, they have to find a way to bring up the farebox recovery ratio on them before they start expanding into new areas (unless it's an area where there's a clear demand that the service would be cost-efficient)

 

4) Bus lanes I can agree with. I don't think POP would be worth it, though. You'd have to install a bunch of machines at every single local stop, and the cost just wouldn't be worth it.

 

5) What corridors did you have in mind?

[LTA1992]

All I have to say is:

 

1-It's a cycle. In the past, we have seen where bus ridership has gone down, same with subways, and then a few years later, gone back up. It's not that serious.

 

2-Buses arent slow just because they are slow. They have to deal with regular street traffic as well. Bus lanes don't always help. If people are going to stop driving in them, the NYPD has to do their part.

 

3-When gas goes up to 5 bucks this summer, that will be your spike in bus ridership.

 

That is all.

[checkmatechamp13]

All I have to say is:

 

1-It's a cycle. In the past, we have seen where bus ridership has gone down, same with subways, and then a few years later, gone back up. It's not that serious.

 

2-Buses arent slow just because they are slow. They have to deal with regular street traffic as well. Bus lanes don't always help. If people are going to stop driving in them, the NYPD has to do their part.

 

3-When gas goes up to 5 bucks this summer, that will be your spike in bus ridership.

 

That is all.

 

1) The thing is that you can't really call it a "cycle". There were reasons for the increases and declines. Subway ridership started declining from the 1950s until around the 1990s due to suburbanization and white flight. Bus ridership declined for the same reason, except that when bus-subway transfers were introduced, ridership went up. The thing is that from that point onward, subway ridership has increased, whereas bus ridership remained stagnant from that point.

 

Part of it is that you've seen high growth because of development. For instance, areas along the have seen large increases in population. But then again, some areas have seen large amounts of growth and large increases in ridership as well. I'm too lazy to look up current numbers, but the 2005-2009 change in ridership on the S79 was close to 15%, and it was close to 30% on the S53/93. I'm sure those trends have continued.

 

So I agree with you in some respects, but not others. I don't think it's just a random cycle: There's a reason behind these changes in ridership. But if you look away from the big picture, you'll find that there are plenty of areas where ridership is still increasing despite all the issues mentioned earlier. Areas like the NE Bronx, the North Shore of SI, NE Queens, and a few other areas. A lot of the loss (at least the overall long-term trend) is in areas near Manhattan.

 

2) If that's the case then they should have more enforcement in the bus lanes, and make more of them in certain areas.

 

3) We'll see about that. Hopefully, you're right.

[nostalgia]

Perhaps the entire fare structure should be changed. The Washington, DC transit system, METRO, has a convoluted fare system. The bus and subway fares are DIFFERENT. The subway fare is based on distance and time of day. There are peak, peak-of-the-peak, and off-peak fares. Farebox recovery is 75% of cost. Bus fares are much less and don't change during the day.

 

The Washington subway uses a farecard and fare gate system. You dip your card into the faregate at entry and at exit. When leaving, the system deducts the trip's cost based on the time of day. It's more complicated than New York's system which has ONE fare for the entire day.

 

To go to off-peak fare fares would require reprogamming EVERY farebox on the buses. Then there's another winkle. If the off peak fare was implemented, what would happen when a passenger transferred to a NICE bus which has a higher fare?

[LTA1992]

1) The thing is that you can't really call it a "cycle". There were reasons for the increases and declines. Subway ridership started declining from the 1950s until around the 1990s due to suburbanization and white flight. Bus ridership declined for the same reason, except that when bus-subway transfers were introduced, ridership went up. The thing is that from that point onward, subway ridership has increased, whereas bus ridership remained stagnant from that point.

 

Part of it is that you've seen high growth because of development. For instance, areas along the have seen large increases in population. But then again, some areas have seen large amounts of growth and large increases in ridership as well. I'm too lazy to look up current numbers, but the 2005-2009 change in ridership on the S79 was close to 15%, and it was close to 30% on the S53/93. I'm sure those trends have continued.

 

So I agree with you in some respects, but not others. I don't think it's just a random cycle: There's a reason behind these changes in ridership. But if you look away from the big picture, you'll find that there are plenty of areas where ridership is still increasing despite all the issues mentioned earlier. Areas like the NE Bronx, the North Shore of SI, NE Queens, and a few other areas. A lot of the loss (at least the overall long-term trend) is in areas near Manhattan.

 

2) If that's the case then they should have more enforcement in the bus lanes, and make more of them in certain areas.

 

3) We'll see about that. Hopefully, you're right.

 

Those factors contribute to the cycle sir. In this case, it's rising fares and service cuts. Not to mention that more people are commuting AWAY from the city to work. In about 10-15 years, I see that flipping.

[checkmatechamp13]

To go to off-peak fare fares would require reprogamming EVERY farebox on the buses. Then there's another winkle. If the off peak fare was implemented, what would happen when a passenger transferred to a NICE bus which has a higher fare?

 

That's why it should probably wait until the next fare hike. Maybe if they could hold off on the fare hike until they get SmartCards implemented, it would save both them and the riders money (since they wouldn't have to reprogram them once for the fare hike and once for the SmartCard)

 

As far as passengers transferring to NICE, just charge them the higher fare. It's not going to be a big deal. It's like an express bus transfer: You pay $5.50 total whether it's express bus-express bus or subway-express bus. In this case, it shouldn't be much of an issue because the off-peak fare would likely only be $0.25 - $0.50 lower than the peak fare.

[QM1to6Ave]

Oh please. If they are able to reprogram the fare boxes and replace all the signs the night. That a fare hike goes into effect, they can program them to charge lower rates off peak. There is already a clock in the system, and the old people metrocards are checked against the clock to determine what rate they pay on express buses, etc.

[checkmatechamp13]

Oh please. If they are able to reprogram the fare boxes and replace all the signs the night. That a fare hike goes into effect, they can program them to charge lower rates off peak. There is already a clock in the system, and the old people metrocards are checked against the clock to determine what rate they pay on express buses, etc.

 

You sound like VG8 with the "Oh please" crap. :tdown:

 

In any case, how do you know there isn't preliminary work that needs to be done so that the fare can be changed when the clock strikes 3AM? Plus, you need a bunch of hearings and stuff like that (with the way government is run, it wouldn't surprise me if you needed hearings for a fare reduction). You might as well make it all part of one package. Plus, it makes it sound better to the public: Once they implement the fare hike, they'll forget all about the off-peak discount they got.

[Olegkha]

Source Link : MTA board member suggests off-peak bus discounts to woo back riders - am New York

 

People already pay what ever they want 24 hours a day ( 0$-2.24$). how about enforcing the fare. Cops on buses.

Thats where the revenue is