Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Around the Horn

Governor Cuomo Announces Significant Upgrade of MTA Bus Fleet, With More Than 2,000 New State-of-the

Recommended Posts

Exactly, the people here may very well use it. We are always looking to save a bit of money and if we can use free WiFi on the go, that's a plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One TA has nothing to do with the other.... Just saying.

I don't believe technical equipment going out of date is a particularly unique concern for any one TA. Who, exactly, is going to pay for the sudden expense of the data plans required? As far as I know MTA does not run a cellular network above ground.

 

Subway wifi makes sense because it's handled by a private partner and the onus is on them to keep it up to date and running. This does not.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One TA has nothing to do with the other.... Just saying.

 

It's still a waste of money, because Wi-Fi equipment is still Wi-Fi equipment that costs money and becomes obsolete overnight, and is still reliant on cell towers for service. The MTA then also has to pay the cell network for said service. The year is 2016 and everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone already hooked up to the same networks the buses would use for Wi-Fi.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe technical equipment going out of date is a particularly unique concern for any one TA. Who, exactly, is going to pay for the sudden expense of the data plans required? As far as I know MTA does not run a cellular network above ground.

 

Subway wifi makes sense because it's handled by a private partner and the onus is on them to keep it up to date and running. This does not.

They may have been able to get a deal. I mean, I'm sure the company wants to make money as much as the (MTA) wants to save.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound Transit out here in the Puget Sound area used to install wi-fi on their buses. They have since discovered it's a gigantic waste of time and money, since the equipment is obsolete within a year or two and nobody uses it anyways. They will not be putting wi-fi on any new buses.

 

 

It's still a waste of money, because Wi-Fi equipment is still Wi-Fi equipment that costs money and becomes obsolete overnight, and is still reliant on cell towers for service. The MTA then also has to pay the cell network for said service. The year is 2016 and everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone already hooked up to the same networks the buses would use for Wi-Fi.

 

It still makes me smh that King County Metro is putting Wi-Fi in the new RapidRide buses.

 

But I agree. Wi-Fi at the end of the day is nothing more than another cell phone signal. My rides on BoltBus to Portland and Vancouver has taught me that it's essentially useless, since the Wi-Fi drops at the same areas a phone drops.

 

It would gain traction here for customers on pre-paid plans and such, but soon, people will realize that the quality of the Wi-Fi will be ass. Complete waste imo.

 

 

They may have been able to get a deal. I mean, I'm sure the company wants to make money as much as the (MTA) wants to save.

I'd like to think that it might be the same company that's sticking Wi-Fi into over 1,000 of NJ Transit's new MCIs. Hopefully some information comes out soon.

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the new color scheme and the (MTA) logo around the bus, I would also add "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" on the side of the bus, maybe above the window where ads usually go. I would also remove the "I NY" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the new color scheme and the (MTA) logo around the bus, I would also add "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" on the side of the bus, maybe above the window where ads usually go. I would also remove the "I NY" .

I agree with the I <3 NY but the I'm pretty sure the reason why you only see the Mta logo and no MTA bus or MTA New York City transit is because this unit is going to  MTAB and since the merger is going on it can't be named MTAB anymore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the I love NY logo and I think its in the perfect spot above the back door.

 

I agree with Q113's post about the name too. That MTA logo on the door side is in a virtual blind spot. Very few people are going to see that section of the bus first or look there for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remeber, The city is also installing wifi hotspots up and down third Ave in Manhattan.

 

The idea is that low income families tend to only have internet access via cell phones rather than laptops and hardwired connections. Since unlimited data plans are now few and far between, these free Wi-Fi areas are supposed to save money for the lowest income citizens in NYC. That's the idea I've heard, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about automated announcement it going to be like a subway or going to be like M34 select announcement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remeber, The city is also installing wifi hotspots up and down third Ave in Manhattan.

 

The idea is that low income families tend to only have internet access via cell phones rather than laptops and hardwired connections. Since unlimited data plans are now few and far between, these free Wi-Fi areas are supposed to save money for the lowest income citizens in NYC. That's the idea I've heard, at least.

 

Those are very much likely (I'm about 99.9% certain on this) hooked up to fiber lines and are in no way a comparison to flaky cell-signal based wi-fi that gets put on buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are very much likely (I'm about 99.9% certain on this) hooked up to fiber lines and are in no way a comparison to flaky cell-signal based wi-fi that gets put on buses.

 

Right, but the free bus Wi-Fi will still give people the chance to use the internet for free, even if it is not a great signal.

 

And to be honest, when I've taken Amtrak or Bolt bus with cell-signal based Wi-Fi, it certainly isn't the best internet in the world, but it still works fairly quickly most of the time (I'd say roughly 80% of the time it works for me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but the free bus Wi-Fi will still give people the chance to use the internet for free, even if it is not a great signal.

 

And to be honest, when I've taken Amtrak or Bolt bus with cell-signal based Wi-Fi, it certainly isn't the best internet in the world, but it still works fairly quickly most of the time (I'd say roughly 80% of the time it works for me)

 

Amtrak/Acela Express Wi-fi. definitely 70-75% of the time does work

forget bolt bus.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amtrak/Acela Express Wi-fi. definitely 70-75% of the time does work

forget bolt bus.

 

LOL. I guess I've gotten lucky with Bolt and Megabus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but the free bus Wi-Fi will still give people the chance to use the internet for free, even if it is not a great signal.

 

And to be honest, when I've taken Amtrak or Bolt bus with cell-signal based Wi-Fi, it certainly isn't the best internet in the world, but it still works fairly quickly most of the time (I'd say roughly 80% of the time it works for me)

 

I seriously doubt people are going to be riding the bus to use the damn wifi. At that point getting a damn cheapo DSL or the slowest cable internet package becomes cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing the wifi on the subway I doubt the MTA would get cheap shitty wifi They'll probably outsource their wifi to a private company the the subway. I'd be glad if it was the same company considering how good their wifi is. I remember for about 6 months there was wifi at Flushing without cellphone service for some stupid reason. So I probably sit for 10 minutes during rush hour and connect to their wifi. From first hand experience as long as you're in the right spot, its great although I haven't tested it yet I think the MTA wifi is faster than my home wifi.  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt people are going to be riding the bus to use the damn wifi. At that point getting a damn cheapo DSL or the slowest cable internet package becomes cost effective.

The idea is not that people will pay $2.75 to use the WiFi. Rather, the idea is that since many people take the bus, and check their email, Facebook, etc while traveling, now they will be able to do so without using up their data. Frankly, I think it is a nice idea.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is not that people will pay $2.75 to use the WiFi. Rather, the idea is that since many people take the bus, and check their email, Facebook, etc while traveling, now they will be able to do so without using up their data. Frankly, I think it is a nice idea.

While it may seem nice I don't think it's needed. I can understand underground subway stations, but buses, come on now. Cellular plans are getting cheaper as more people are buying cellphones so I don't think this should be considered. Hey maybe I'm being a little biased being on a 30GB AT&T family plan but I don't think it's worth the investment for the MTA. Who are the people requesting wifi on city buses? This is not some big coach bus company like Greyhound that travel around many places in the states. The average passenger is only on the bus for about 15 minutes and unless you are rocking an iPod Touch or a wifi only tablet there will be no need for it. Instead the MTA should focus on service improvements. I am still waiting for more frequent service for the Q25 and various other routes. Edited by NewFlyer 230
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may seem nice I don't think it's needed. I can understand underground subway stations, but buses, come on now. Cellular plans are getting cheaper as more people are buying cellphones so I don't think this should be considered. Hey maybe I'm being a little biased being on a 30GB AT&T family plan but I don't think it's worth the investment for the MTA. Who are the people requesting wifi on city buses? This is not some big coach bus company like Greyhound that travel around many places in the states. The average passenger is only on the bus for about 15 minutes and unless you are rocking an iPod Touch or a wifi only tablet there will be no need for it. Instead the MTA should focus on service improvements. I am still waiting for more frequent service for the Q25 and various other routes.

 

This. Local bus wi-fi is just a bad investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may seem nice I don't think it's needed. I can understand underground subway stations, but buses, come on now. Cellular plans are getting cheaper as more people are buying cellphones so I don't think this should be considered. Hey maybe I'm being a little biased being on a 30GB AT&T family plan but I don't think it's worth the investment for the MTA. Who are the people requesting wifi on city buses? This is not some big coach bus company like Greyhound that travel around many places in the states. The average passenger is only on the bus for about 15 minutes and unless you are rocking an iPod Touch or a wifi only tablet there will be no need for it. Instead the MTA should focus on service improvements. I am still waiting for more frequent service for the Q25 and various other routes.

You can understand underground subway stations having it (where the average wait time is usually 6 minutes at rush hour), but not a bus trip that lasts 15 minutes or more?

 

Just because cellphone plans are getting cheaper doesn't not mean they are getting cheap enough for everyone, including me right now, to afford it. And even if you can afford it, people use a LOT of data. I'm sure most of it goes to streaming services and YouTube. As stated numerous times, this will save people money at the end of the day. On top of that, you're comparing the city need for wifi on buses to a long distance bus service that passes through more dead zones than actual city.

 

Apples to Oranges.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing the wifi on the subway I doubt the MTA would get cheap shitty wifi They'll probably outsource their wifi to a private company the the subway. I'd be glad if it was the same company considering how good their wifi is. I remember for about 6 months there was wifi at Flushing without cellphone service for some stupid reason. So I probably sit for 10 minutes during rush hour and connect to their wifi. From first hand experience as long as you're in the right spot, its great although I haven't tested it yet I think the MTA wifi is faster than my home wifi.  :mellow:

 

I imagine the same setup as "Transit Wireless" in underground stations — a provider pays (MTA) for the right to provide wi-fi in exchange for advertising revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can understand underground subway stations having it (where the average wait time is usually 6 minutes at rush hour), but not a bus trip that lasts 15 minutes or more?

 

Just because cellphone plans are getting cheaper doesn't not mean they are getting cheap enough for everyone, including me right now, to afford it. And even if you can afford it, people use a LOT of data. I'm sure most of it goes to streaming services and YouTube. As stated numerous times, this will save people money at the end of the day. On top of that, you're comparing the city need for wifi on buses to a long distance bus service that passes through more dead zones than actual city.

 

Apples to Oranges.

Yeah but at the end of the day what is more important wifi on buses or service improvements? The MTA is so good at doing everything else than improving service. Like I said before there are plenty of routes that I know of that need improving. Wifi on bus is a luxury so while it's nice to have, it's not totally necessary. The MTA's only responsibility is to get you from point A to point B in a timely fashion. They shouldn't be providing people with WIFI, they are only a bus company. That right there should be the cities responsibility to do. What the MTA should do is provide better service and make sure their service is reliable. That is all a bus company should have to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but at the end of the day what is more important wifi on buses or service improvements? The MTA is so good at doing everything else than improving service. Like I said before there are plenty of routes that I know of that need improving. Wifi on bus is a luxury so while it's nice to have, it's not totally necessary. The MTA's only responsibility is to get you from point A to point B in a timely fashion. They shouldn't be providing people with WIFI, they are only a bus company. That right there should be the cities responsibility to do. What the MTA should do is provide better service and make sure their service is reliable. That is all a bus company should have to do.

Dude. Service improvements are coming. If recent posts from East New York are an indication, extra buses than what is actually needed are coming and service improvements will come then.

 

And on top of that, unlike subways that run on their own rights of way, completely grade separated, buses run on the city streets. There is more to it than just the buses not running on time for the sake of being late. And I think that's what a good percentage of you here seem to forget. If any real relief is to be had, it will take a coordination of both the MTA and the DOT to make it happen. You can add all the extra service you want but it won't mean a thing if buses are still getting caught up in the same snarls and problems they do today. At least with a smart card, the issue of MetroCards not reading immediately will be gone and will save a good amount of time at stops. That is the literal first step to all-door boarding across the system as you could place readers at the back doors as well. This takes time.

 

Lastly, all a bus company should do is provide the service? Are you saying it is not the responsibility of the transit provider to provide the most pleasant experience for its customers as they travel to their destination? WiFi is a part of that, my friend. Service amenities. By that logic, we don't need to know how far our bus is from the stop nor do we even need seats since we can easily see where the bus is from our spot on the floor.

Edited by LTA1992
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude. Service improvements are coming. If recent posts from East New York are an indication, extra buses than what is actually needed are coming and service improvements will come then.

 

And on top of that, unlike subways that run on their own rights of way, completely grade separated, buses run on the city streets. There is more to it than just the buses not running on time for the sake of being late. And I think that's what a good percentage of you here seem to forget. If any real relief is to be had, it will take a coordination of both the MTA and the DOT to make it happen. You can add all the extra service you want but it won't mean a thing if buses are still getting caught up in the same snarls and problems they do today. At least with a smart card, the issue of MetroCards not reading immediately will be gone and will save a good amount of time at stops. That is the literal first step to all-door boarding across the system as you could place readers at the back doors as well. This takes time.

 

Lastly, all a bus company should do is provide the service? Are you saying it is not the responsibility of the transit provider to provide the most pleasant experience for its customers as they travel to their destination? WiFi is a part of that, my friend. Service amenities. By that logic, we don't need to know how far our bus is from the stop nor do we even need seats since we can easily see where the bus is from our spot on the floor.

I read everything so I am aware that new buses are coming. I know that it will help provide more service and the smart card system could help speed up boarding.

 

I can understand if the MTA was to say they would put WIFI on the LIRR and Metro North trains just because of the type of service it is and the premium price you pay. I mean come on dude what else do you want the MTA to provide on buses with your payment of $2.75?

You can't be serious with the last point you made about not having seats and not needing knowing where your bus is. You are basically taking what I said and giving your own meaning to it.

Bustime is different in which it actually helps you track the bus down so you will know how far it is. If the bus arrives late and is crowded and I know that another bus is behind I will instead wait for the second bus. This will actually keep people from ditching the bus all together because they have a chance of getting a seat on the second bus giving if it's not crowded. It is also good to have bus time if you are wondering if you should take an alternative route to your destination. So yeah of course the MTA would want to have something like that because they want people to continue to use their service. As far a bus not having seats what transit company doesn't have seats on their buses. If transit systems didn't have seats you are losing a good portion of the ridership. You are basically saying that the comfort of people especially the disabled and elder don't matter and you are telling them that they are not welcomed to use this service. Having seats on the bus is something that is obviously necessary.

Wifi on a city bus is a total luxury to have and in my opinion I feel like it's a waste. My stance is that the MTA is a company that provides bus service and as long as they do that and provide route information and basic requires like seats, and air conditioning they are doing what they should be doing. The MTA will probably go ahead with the whole wifi thing anyway and if so good for them. They are so quick say they offer wifi on buses but do not added QM3 service or make effective short turns on some routes. They do not improve the reliability of several routes like the B4, B6, Q24, Q25, Bx6 and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing the wifi on the subway I doubt the MTA would get cheap shitty wifi They'll probably outsource their wifi to a private company the the subway. I'd be glad if it was the same company considering how good their wifi is. I remember for about 6 months there was wifi at Flushing without cellphone service for some stupid reason. So I probably sit for 10 minutes during rush hour and connect to their wifi. From first hand experience as long as you're in the right spot, its great although I haven't tested it yet I think the MTA wifi is faster than my home wifi.  :mellow:

 

The wireless service is provided by AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon. However, we don't have WiFi on trains. Only in stations. The R211 will likely be the first "wired" train car. We know they will have outlets and cameras.

 

The buses will be different than the subway, and it is likely 1 company that will be providing the WiFi network. I will pull the contract when I get a chance.

 

Yeah but at the end of the day what is more important wifi on buses or service improvements? The MTA is so good at doing everything else than improving service. Like I said before there are plenty of routes that I know of that need improving. Wifi on bus is a luxury so while it's nice to have, it's not totally necessary. The MTA's only responsibility is to get you from point A to point B in a timely fashion. They shouldn't be providing people with WIFI, they are only a bus company. That right there should be the cities responsibility to do. What the MTA should do is provide better service and make sure their service is reliable. That is all a bus company should have to do.

 

Both are equally important. You have the primary responsibilities of the MTA confused. That's a profit, and to attract riders, and provide reliable service.

 

For starters, we need more buses to improve service in many areas. Schedules need to be revised on several routes. Especially in Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx. There will never be perfect service due to unknown traffic conditions and incidents.

 

This is not ONLY a "bus company." Its (MTA) New York City Transit. They are the agency that all other agencies look to and compare their operations to at many times. While other agencies are advancing, we are just now starting to get there. MTA has a long way to go, but much progress has been made. They are managing more routes than ever before with the integration of MTA Bus. That was a whole string of bus companies that needed new equipment. 

 

Not only that, but our radio system is ancient! TA and BC are on separate frequencies, which right there alone decreases efficiency of the system. Progress is a slow process when it comes to the biggest of them all. WiFi and outlets are long overdue. It's 2016 and the MTA has to compete with Uber and everyone else. Any other marketing majors (such as myself) would cringe at the statement you made. By those standards, if you were the CEO of the MTA and had an "this is only a bus company" attitude, ridership would slowly but surely decrease. 

 

I would also assume your service would never attract new passengers because you say it should be "basic" in your words. Basic doesn't bring in bucks! You are 100% right when you say these things are a luxury. However, this is MTA and this is New York City. No other agency on the planet (arguably) moves the class or amount of people we do. Basic is a thing of the past. Basic will have you go bankrupt, and all your passengers on the next Uber available. 

 

What MTA is doing now is about 5 years overdue. Agencies that offer their customer amenities have higher satisfaction rates and ridership numbers than ones that don't. You bring up a valid point, but it goes against everything a "service provider" should stand for. 

 

Ironically, every line you mentioned above (except the B6) is on the list to have service improvements.

 

Now the B6 is my home line and it's not that bad actually. Much better than it used to be. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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