azspeedbullet Posted April 15, 2016 Share #1 Posted April 15, 2016 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-reduce-bus-service-summer-article-1.2601770 I take the bus to work, does this mean that i will be waiting even longer for a bus and my commute time will increase to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted April 15, 2016 Share #2 Posted April 15, 2016 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-reduce-bus-service-summer-article-1.2601770 I take the bus to work, does this mean that i will be waiting even longer for a bus and my commute time will increase to? In other news, water is wet. Seriously, they do this every single quarter (and $27,000, that's nothing). It's nothing new. It says directly in the article: As part of routine adjustments to meet rider demand, the MTA is planning 34 cuts and 21 additions to service across 48 routes, according to a letter from the agency. The changes would save $27,000 a year, an MTA spokesman said. They're going to be released in the committee materials tomorrow. You'll see if your route is getting an increase or cut in service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted April 15, 2016 Share #3 Posted April 15, 2016 If they really wanted to meet customer demand, they would not be making net decrease in service. They would take the saved money and apply it to overcrowded routes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future ENY OP Posted April 15, 2016 Share #4 Posted April 15, 2016 Summer pick is looking dismual. I wonder what summer cuts will be in effect. Also, this could mean more buses shifting to unwanted territory in regards to some cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DetSMART45 Posted April 15, 2016 Share #5 Posted April 15, 2016 If they really wanted to meet customer demand, they would not be making net decrease in service. They would take the saved money and apply it to overcrowded routes. Yes, if it were only that easy. But you forget that overcrowded routes still play a significant role in the MTA/DOT/Mayor's Office attempts to convince you to part with more of your money to convert routes to SBS or build tram lines. Keep your frustration level just enough on edge, so that if someone comes along with those ideas, you'll be more apt to say, "Hell, yes! We need that!" Last year's June changes supposedly saved $1 million, and this year's only $27,000 ----- should tell you something. 2015: 50 route changes, 38 reductions, 12 increases in frequency. Chart: pgs 136-138 So does that mean this year the MTA is operating sooooo efficiently and effectively that just minor changes are warranted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JubaionBx12+SBS Posted April 15, 2016 Share #6 Posted April 15, 2016 The MTA is less about meeting customer demands and more about meeting the demand from the customers it can most conveniently serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted April 15, 2016 Share #7 Posted April 15, 2016 Yes, if it were only that easy. But you forget that overcrowded routes still play a significant role in the MTA/DOT/Mayor's Office attempts to convince you to part with more of your money to convert routes to SBS or build tram lines. Keep your frustration level just enough on edge, so that if someone comes along with those ideas, you'll be more apt to say, "Hell, yes! We need that!" Last year's June changes supposedly saved $1 million, and this year's only $27,000 ----- should tell you something. 2015: 50 route changes, 38 reductions, 12 increases in frequency. Chart: pgs 136-138 So does that mean this year the MTA is operating sooooo efficiently and effectively that just minor changes are warranted? Laughing so hard after reading your last paragraph! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limitednyc Posted April 15, 2016 Share #8 Posted April 15, 2016 all weekend service changers Laughing so hard after reading your last paragraph! btw thats last years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JubaionBx12+SBS Posted April 15, 2016 Share #9 Posted April 15, 2016 Given these are all weekend changes on routes I don't use I have no shits to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted April 16, 2016 Share #10 Posted April 16, 2016 Can someone please explain to me how a route change that removes the bus route from stopping directly at the subway station is revenue neutral? When you take away the stop at the station and place it a considerable distance away, don't you lose revenue as riders find alternate ways to get closer to the station? I think that anyone in their right mind would ask the same question as it makes no sense. This is another one of those cases where I land up shaking my head in total disbelief as it proved once again why I insist that everyone of these great and fine outstanding citizens who come up with these great ideas and fancy words which are meaningless will have to drive a bus to and from work every day or as I say, welcome to the real world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted April 16, 2016 Share #11 Posted April 16, 2016 I think this thread should be merged with the other one regarding the April 2015 committee materials. If they really wanted to meet customer demand, they would not be making net decrease in service. They would take the saved money and apply it to overcrowded routes. IMO, they shouldn't just apply it to overcrowded routes, but also to necessary and well-executed service improvements. For example, I fully support the idea of improving coverage in areas like Spring Creek & Hunts Point. However, creating little dinky shuttles on 30 minute headways only serves the most transit-dependent people who are actually willing to wait around, or plan their lives around the schedule. So ridership and revenue are lower, and fewer people actually benefit from the money invested into these new services. AFAIC, if the MTA managed to get the bus system to the point where the routes were structured perfectly (and kept pace with the changing neighborhoods so that the "perfect system" were maintained), I wouldn't mind if they saved a few million here and there from routine schedule changes. The bus system needs to be more balanced. We have too many areas served by super-busy routes that are often overcrowded, and too many areas where they have either bare-bones service, or no service at all (in other words, the MTA isn't tapping into the latent ridership that's present). And then not enough of the plain, old middle-ridership routes where they get a respectable amount of ridership to maintain a decent frequency, but not so much that they're overcrowded. And because of this distribution, overall ridership doesn't reach its full potential. Can someone please explain to me how a route change that removes the bus route from stopping directly at the subway station is revenue neutral? When you take away the stop at the station and place it a considerable distance away, don't you lose revenue as riders find alternate ways to get closer to the station? I think that anyone in their right mind would ask the same question as it makes no sense. This is another one of those cases where I land up shaking my head in total disbelief as it proved once again why I insist that everyone of these great and fine outstanding citizens who come up with these great ideas and fancy words which are meaningless will have to drive a bus to and from work every day or as I say, welcome to the real world! They often don't include revenue in these calculations. But in any case, I think the idea is that since they're making East 15th Street into a pedestrian plaza, it'll make it more pleasant for the passengers to walk along as they make their transfer (while the bus change improves reliability on the rest of the route). I mean, if you take the to Utica and catch the B46, the southbound stop is one short block south of Eastern Parkway and that's one of the most popular bus-subway transfers in the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted April 16, 2016 Share #12 Posted April 16, 2016 Can someone please explain to me how a route change that removes the bus route from stopping directly at the subway station is revenue neutral? When you take away the stop at the station and place it a considerable distance away, don't you lose revenue as riders find alternate ways to get closer to the station? I think that anyone in their right mind would ask the same question as it makes no sense..... They are speaking solely in terms of mileage traveled...... They don't factor in collateral damage whatsoever when they speak of revenue neutrality..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted April 16, 2016 Share #13 Posted April 16, 2016 What do we need a pedestrian plaza on East 15th Street between Avenue Z and Sheepshead Bay Road? Nobody asked for it and since this is not Manhattan, the community does not have the lunch time crowd and the tourists who love to eat on this wonderful block of absolute nothing. The route change makes a big difference as the B/36's passenger make up includes many elderly residents who really cannot walk the extra block for the bus. Going toward Coney Island, the stop location is more dangerous as compared with the present location and it will involve two crossings of streets, not one and even with the lights, it is not safe. There are considerable differences between the relocation of the B/36 and the B/46 at Eastern Parkway as the B/46 stop is on the same side of the street as the subway entrance so that riders do not have to cross streets, the B/46 route does not have the high proportion of senior citizens that the B/36 carries as this area has the highest number of senior citizens in the borough and the B/46 schedule is far more frequent as compared with the B/36. The problem here is that the paper pushers just look at the printouts and all the other junk that goes into coming up with an idea that is not practical. They start running for cover when their bosses get called on the carpet by the politicians and the mainstream media for making a useless suggestion that the paper pushers called revenue neutral and right after itis implemented it turns out to be quite revenue negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limitednyc Posted April 16, 2016 Share #14 Posted April 16, 2016 What do we need a pedestrian plaza on East 15th Street between Avenue Z and Sheepshead Bay Road? Nobody asked for it and since this is not Manhattan, the community does not have the lunch time crowd and the tourists who love to eat on this wonderful block of absolute nothing. The route change makes a big difference as the B/36's passenger make up includes many elderly residents who really cannot walk the extra block for the bus. Going toward Coney Island, the stop location is more dangerous as compared with the present location and it will involve two crossings of streets, not one and even with the lights, it is not safe. There are considerable differences between the relocation of the B/36 and the B/46 at Eastern Parkway as the B/46 stop is on the same side of the street as the subway entrance so that riders do not have to cross streets, the B/46 route does not have the high proportion of senior citizens that the B/36 carries as this area has the highest number of senior citizens in the borough and the B/46 schedule is far more frequent as compared with the B/36. The problem here is that the paper pushers just look at the printouts and all the other junk that goes into coming up with an idea that is not practical. They start running for cover when their bosses get called on the carpet by the politicians and the mainstream media for making a useless suggestion that the paper pushers called revenue neutral and right after itis implemented it turns out to be quite revenue negative. a men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted April 16, 2016 Share #15 Posted April 16, 2016 Can someone please explain to me how a route change that removes the bus route from stopping directly at the subway station is revenue neutral? When you take away the stop at the station and place it a considerable distance away, don't you lose revenue as riders find alternate ways to get closer to the station? I think that anyone in their right mind would ask the same question as it makes no sense. This is another one of those cases where I land up shaking my head in total disbelief as it proved once again why I insist that everyone of these great and fine outstanding citizens who come up with these great ideas and fancy words which are meaningless will have to drive a bus to and from work every day or as I say, welcome to the real world! Just how "considerable" is the one-block walk compared to other subway-bus connections? NYCT describes the walk along East 15th Street from Sheepshead Bay Road to Avenue Z as 275 feet in length, and that block of East 15th will be pedestrianized. Contrast that with Main Street station, where some walking distances to connecting bus stops are slightly longer... - 300 feet (along Main Street from center of station to Q20/Q44 southbound), - 500 feet (along Main Street from center of station to Q20/Q44 northbound) - 500 feet (along Roosevelt Avenue and Lippmann Plaza from escalator to Q13 eastbound) - 600 feet (along Roosevelt Avenue, Lippmann Plaza, and 39th Avenue from escalator to Q16 eastbound) - 700 feet (along Roosevelt Avenue, Lippmann Plaza, and 39th Avenue from escalator to Q28 eastbound) - 800 feet (along Main Street from center of station to Q58 westbound) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 16, 2016 Share #16 Posted April 16, 2016 Just how "considerable" is the one-block walk compared to other subway-bus connections? NYCT describes the walk along East 15th Street from Sheepshead Bay Road to Avenue Z as 275 feet in length, and that block of East 15th will be pedestrianized. Contrast that with Main Street station, where some walking distances to connecting bus stops are slightly longer... - 300 feet (along Main Street from center of station to Q20/Q44 southbound), - 500 feet (along Main Street from center of station to Q20/Q44 northbound) - 500 feet (along Roosevelt Avenue and Lippmann Plaza from escalator to Q13 eastbound) - 600 feet (along Roosevelt Avenue, Lippmann Plaza, and 39th Avenue from escalator to Q16 eastbound) - 700 feet (along Roosevelt Avenue, Lippmann Plaza, and 39th Avenue from escalator to Q28 eastbound) - 800 feet (along Main Street from center of station to Q58 westbound) I'd also like to add that the walk to the Q58, specifically, is shoulder-to-shoulder pedestrian crush and extremely unpleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted April 16, 2016 Share #17 Posted April 16, 2016 Each and every community is different and what is practical and workable for one does not and will not work in another community. Each community has different wants and needs so the idea that it looks good on paper and works in one community does not mean that it can be applied to another community. I live in this community and I have rode the B/36 bus on a fairly regular basis before and after the route change was made in November 1978 so I know about the stops as well as its passengers. Our community has the highest proportion of senior citizens in the borough and the B/36 is the route of choice for many of us including myself (I am one of the Seniors) going to and from the station. The only group that will benefit from this change will be the ubiquitous cab drivers who use the location as the best place to get passengers and based on this move, there will be a lot more of them very soon as those that normally take the B/36 will start going five to a cab instead of walking to the new stop. At night these cab drivers will be out in force as who wants to spend time waiting in a dark location where the new stops will be located. The route change is not revenue neutral but politically naive and should be placed in the long file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted April 16, 2016 Share #18 Posted April 16, 2016 ....The problem here is that the paper pushers just look at the printouts and all the other junk that goes into coming up with an idea that is not practical. They start running for cover when their bosses get called on the carpet by the politicians and the mainstream media for making a useless suggestion that the paper pushers called revenue neutral and right after it is implemented it turns out to be quite revenue negative. The route change is not revenue neutral but politically naive and should be placed in the long file. I get that you're vehemently opposed to this (with good reason), but the change to the actual B36 routing itself isn't revenue negative (so to speak); there isn't any mileage being gained (which is what revenue negative would mean) on the B36 as a result of this whole thing.... The route isn't traveling any further a distance with this change, than the distance the current route travels.... If that was the case, then the argument would be quite different.... You're speaking of lost revenue as it relates to a loss of ridership (which translates to a loss of fares being collected) on the route.... That is not what the MTA is referring to when they tout about being cost neutral; they are not referring to any gains/increases or losses/decreases of anyone utilizing or not utilizing the route... In a nutshell, they're referring to an operation cost - It won't cost them any more or less funds to have the B36 run along Av. Z, compared to leaving the route alone... I agree with your argument, but at the same time, you can't use it to claim that the direct change to the B36 route itself isn't cost-neutral.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAlam Posted April 16, 2016 Share #19 Posted April 16, 2016 http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/160418_1000_Transit.pdf I like how everyone shot on the Q77 and now the report came out and now there is proposed decrease in wait time P125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted April 16, 2016 Share #20 Posted April 16, 2016 http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/160418_1000_Transit.pdf I like how everyone shot on the Q77 and now the report came out and now there is proposed decrease in wait time P125 Don't know what you're referring to with this...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted April 16, 2016 Share #21 Posted April 16, 2016 Can someone please explain to me how a route change that removes the bus route from stopping directly at the subway station is revenue neutral? When you take away the stop at the station and place it a considerable distance away, don't you lose revenue as riders find alternate ways to get closer to the station? I think that anyone in their right mind would ask the same question as it makes no sense. This is another one of those cases where I land up shaking my head in total disbelief as it proved once again why I insist that everyone of these great and fine outstanding citizens who come up with these great ideas and fancy words which are meaningless will have to drive a bus to and from work every day or as I say, welcome to the real world! They are speaking solely in terms of mileage traveled...... They don't factor in collateral damage whatsoever when they speak of revenue neutrality..... With PPR they get a free transfer. With unlimited it doesn't matter, so if they use another way to get to the subway don't the MTA still get the same amount of money? And does the route "lose" money? Is the fare "split" between the bus and subway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted April 16, 2016 Share #22 Posted April 16, 2016 The route change is not revenue neutral but politically naive and should be placed in the long file. In other words, has no right to reroute the bus just because East 15th Street will be closed to traffic and buses won't be able to return to Avenue Z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAlam Posted April 17, 2016 Share #23 Posted April 17, 2016 Don't know what you're referring to with this...... I think remember it happening a while ago in Queens proposals Everyone was talking about the Q77 sucking and how it should have been replaced or removed entirely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted April 17, 2016 Share #24 Posted April 17, 2016 With PPR they get a free transfer. With unlimited it doesn't matter, so if they use another way to get to the subway don't the MTA still get the same amount of money? And does the route "lose" money? Is the fare "split" between the bus and subway? FTR, My sole stance in this particular discussion is that there is a difference between operating costs & farebox revenue... With that said, there being this conveyance or implication that a routing change isn't cost-neutral because it could/may/will result in a loss of riders (finding alternate ways to get to the subway via a cab or whatever) IMO is grossly conflating things.... I'll opine on your question anyway: - In terms of fares, yes the same amt. of monies would be obtained.... - The route would lose money (so to speak) if there are less people taking the thing.... Hence, the cost/rider increases... - No, the fare isn't split... It's still the same 2.75 for the primary ride & the secondary ride is free (transfer)... I think remember it happening a while ago in Queens proposals Everyone was talking about the Q77 sucking and how it should have been replaced or removed entirely I remember one guy stating the route should be eliminated, and everyone else giving their reasons why it should remain..... If this is the same discussion that's being referred to, where you suggested it should be extended to connect to the 111/114...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted April 17, 2016 Share #25 Posted April 17, 2016 Thank you B35 for helping clarify what I had to say on the B/36 route change. The East 15th Street Plaza has no support and will do nothing to help this community. The idea came out of the geniuses in the City Department of Transportation and the Manhattan centric friends that are trying to apply Manhattan ideas to Brooklyn and it has no place in this community. We don't have the millenials or yuppies in this area who would use the plaza as the developments close by have mini-parks with greenery and benches. The MTA is a bad position because these idiots are pushing for it and their boss has the blessing from the top who does not care this community as this genius sits on the MTA Board. In fact there is so much building going on very close to the Station (On Voorhies, Sheepshead Bay Road on both sides of Voorhies as well as closer to the station that the big issue is now where are they going to build next and will there be enough parking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.