MTA will reduce bus service this summer, according to agency

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Well ridership is typically lower during the summer. Makes sense to make some seasonal cut if there isn't a need to run as many buses.

[checkmatechamp13]

I meant DO NOT cut any bus service. That's what I meant, if you were confused.

 

So you're OK with higher fares to pay for emptier buses?

[bobtehpanda]

I meant DO NOT cut any bus service. That's what I meant, if you were confused.

 

Right, because the only way bus service is allowed to go is up, just like the MTA's revenue stream always does. Routes never lose riders or anything like that, ever.

[Cait Sith]

So you're OK with higher fares to pay for emptier buses?

 

 

Right, because the only way bus service is allowed to go is up, just like the MTA's revenue stream always does. Routes never lose riders or anything like that, ever.

 

Just know that you're speaking to a kid who doesn't yet know how some of the things work, only just looking through a window. You're wasting time debating with him because he refuses to understand.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just know that you're speaking to a kid who doesn't yet know how some of the things work, only just looking through a window. You're wasting time debating with him.

He does have a point though.  Bus service is deteriorating for a number of reasons... Traffic, changing demographics, etc., but a big reason is this bare bones approach that the has taken.  It's difficult to get people on buses if they are less frequent, packed, unreliable or all of the above. Ridership overall is less in the summer.  HOWEVER, there are exceptions to the rule, and I've seen numerous instances of long waits where scheduled buses don't show, and when they do, they're packed.  The has stayed with the status quo too long and they need to re-examine travel in NYC in general, which includes buses.The only thing they seem focused on is cutting service and trying to show that they're being fiscally sound, when in reality they aren't.  They've taken a hands off approach to fixing bus service, claiming that nothing can be done.  Same thing with the subways.  We can't do anything but raise the fares.  It's no wonder that there's no confidence in the system.

 

Over the years the loading guidelines have gone up on buses and it's definitely noticeable.  They do everything not to provide more service, even in instances when it is clearly necessary.  There is something very wrong with that. If you're going to cut service in one area since ridership isn't there, add service in other places to encourage ridership.  They've essentially curtailed most routes to end at 00:00 or thereabouts, in some cases FORCING and/or encouraging people to use alternative routes, taxis, Uber, get picked up etc. (and not just late at night, but other times as well when they could take the local bus), which means more congestion because those people say hey, why should I use the bus when the taxi, Uber, etc. is more comfortable/reliable, etc.?  The cuts may seem routine, but they go much deeper in terms of the overall perception of the system and how it should be used, and that is set by the to a great extent.

 

I see a generation that is interested in public transit, but only to a certain extent, and rather than complain, many will look for alternatives and stick with them, which means less people using the buses.  You could view that as a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstances, but in the long run, I see it as leading to more congestion.  No one seems to be talking about that, but more and more people are clearly driving and ditching buses, which is why it is so difficult to get around.

[Cait Sith]

He does have a point though.  Bus service is deteriorating for a number of reasons... Traffic, changing demographics, etc., but a big reason is this bare bones approach that the has taken.  It's difficult to get people on buses if they are less frequent, packed, unreliable or all of the above. Ridership overall is less in the summer.  HOWEVER, there are exceptions to the rule, and I've seen numerous instances of long waits where scheduled buses don't show, and when they do, they're packed.

 

Summer time also brings upon some of the worst operating conditions for buses. We've all seen what happens when they operate in such high heat and humidity conditions, as they break down a lot more often than the less milder seasons, causing those missing buses to happen. If they ran the same amount of buses during the summer like they do all year around, we'd have a lot more buses down and out during the summer time than usual.

 

Now that we have this new paint scheme with the DARKER colors....buses will be taking on more heat, hence even MORE breakdowns!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Summer time also brings upon some of the worst operating conditions for buses. We've all seen what happens when they operate in such high heat and humidity conditions, as they break down a lot more often than the less milder seasons, causing those missing buses to happen. If they ran the same amount of buses during the summer like they do all year around, we'd have a lot more buses down and out during the summer time than usual.

 

Now that we have this new paint scheme with the DARKER colors....buses will be taking on more heat, hence even MORE breakdowns!

That's a good point. This month is really the first time in years that I've been using local buses on a regular basis (albeit for relatively short rides (~10 minutes at the most generally speaking), and I must say that the newer models are built like crap (particularly the new artics (LFS and the New Flyer versions).  Climate control is awful as well.  They will certainly be having to invest more in new buses more often.  Getting 15-20 years out of a bus will be a thing of the past.

[Around the Horn]

They will certainly be having to invest more in new buses more often.  Getting 15-20 years out of a bus will be a thing of the past.

Not really if the MTA commits to a rigid series of 5 or 6 years "rehabs" a la SMS. Preventive maintenance can help stretch out bus life by as many as 5 years, however no bus should be running for 20 years. That's a sign of lack of transit funding and/or effective upper level management.

 

IMO, a bus series should have its replacement budgeted by its 14th year, ordered by its 15th year and fully delivered by its 17th year, at the latest.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not really if the MTA commits to a rigid series of 5 or 6 years "rehabs" a la SMS. Preventive maintenance can help stretch out bus life by as many as 5 years, however no bus should be running for 20 years. That's a sign of lack of transit funding and/or effective upper level management.

 

IMO, a bus series should have its replacement budgeted by its 14th year, ordered by its 15th year and fully delivered by its 17th year, at the latest.

Well that's the thing... The has some new depots, but I don't necessarily see buses being kept any better.  Maintenance still varies from depot to depot, and as I mentioned before, the newer buses aren't being built to last, as was the case in the past.  Unless NYC invests in better road materials, the newer buses will continue to take a pounding on city streets.  Some of the repaving that has been done of late has just been appalling.  A complete waste of money and a lack of oversight, and the answer seems to be to spend more money frivolously.  I admit that I like seeing the new buses, but as far as them being a major upgrade, I would say that they aren't overall. and I see more reliability issues coming down the road, which will serve to kill more ridership. 

[IAlam]

He does have a point though.  Bus service is deteriorating for a number of reasons... Traffic, changing demographics, etc., but a big reason is this bare bones approach that the has taken.  It's difficult to get people on buses if they are less frequent, packed, unreliable or all of the above. Ridership overall is less in the summer.  HOWEVER, there are exceptions to the rule, and I've seen numerous instances of long waits where scheduled buses don't show, and when they do, they're packed.  The has stayed with the status quo too long and they need to re-examine travel in NYC in general, which includes buses.The only thing they seem focused on is cutting service and trying to show that they're being fiscally sound, when in reality they aren't.  They've taken a hands off approach to fixing bus service, claiming that nothing can be done.  Same thing with the subways.  We can't do anything but raise the fares.  It's no wonder that there's no confidence in the system.

 

Over the years the loading guidelines have gone up on buses and it's definitely noticeable.  They do everything not to provide more service, even in instances when it is clearly necessary.  There is something very wrong with that. If you're going to cut service in one area since ridership isn't there, add service in other places to encourage ridership.  They've essentially curtailed most routes to end at 00:00 or thereabouts, in some cases FORCING and/or encouraging people to use alternative routes, taxis, Uber, get picked up etc. (and not just late at night, but other times as well when they could take the local bus), which means more congestion because those people say hey, why should I use the bus when the taxi, Uber, etc. is more comfortable/reliable, etc.?  The cuts may seem routine, but they go much deeper in terms of the overall perception of the system and how it should be used, and that is set by the to a great extent.

 

I see a generation that is interested in public transit, but only to a certain extent, and rather than complain, many will look for alternatives and stick with them, which means less people using the buses.  You could view that as a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstances, but in the long run, I see it as leading to more congestion.  No one seems to be talking about that, but more and more people are clearly driving and ditching buses, which is why it is so difficult to get around.

 

the problem is that the MTA wants buses to be at least 90% full if they are less than that, then they start slashing 

Well that's the thing... The has some new depots, but I don't necessarily see buses being kept any better.  Maintenance still varies from depot to depot, and as I mentioned before, the newer buses aren't being built to last, as was the case in the past.  Unless NYC invests in better road materials, the newer buses will continue to take a pounding on city streets.  Some of the repaving that has been done of late has just been appalling.  A complete waste of money and a lack of oversight, and the answer seems to be to spend more money frivolously.  I admit that I like seeing the new buses, but as far as them being a major upgrade, I would say that they aren't overall. and I see more reliability issues coming down the road, which will serve to kill more ridership. 

Especially the new XD40's if any thing they are so low they a simple bus or steep incline ends up scraping the bus. The XD60's, LFS, and LFSA's are a little better but not by much.

[B35 via Church]

So you're OK with higher fares to pay for emptier buses?

Right, because the only way bus service is allowed to go is up, just like the MTA's revenue stream always does. Routes never lose riders or anything like that, ever.

Again, "leaving the buses alone" means actually leaving them alone — i.e. no cuts, no adds, no adjusting running times due to changes in traffic conditions, no nothing.

Lol @ the three of you busting this dude's chops - Knowing full well whenever a *leave alone* chant emanates from some person and/or group regarding some public transportation service, it's referring to the disapproval of some proposed or ongoing change....

 

Teens still make plenty of trips via transit over the summer. They may not be as concentrated in the AM Rush and mid-afternoon hours as they are over the school year but let's not act like these people are disappearing during July and August. There's plenty of youngsters out on the subways and buses when I'm using them over the summer.

 

I find little difference between school travel amongst high schoolers and peak hour work trips amongst adults these days. 

During the summer time? Yeah right...

 

Regardless, the usage you're defending here is a] sporadic & b] random.... Not consistent & robust (like an AM rush & a PM rush for working adults, for example).....

 

In layman's, bus/subway usage during the summer from that specific demographic (teenagers) doesn't have to evaporate (or as you put it, disappear) for anyone that takes buses and/or rails to realize that said usage from said demographic significantly decreases..... To deny that would be intellectually dishonest...

[bobtehpanda]

the problem is that the MTA wants buses to be at least 90% full if they are less than that, then they start slashing 

 

Well, it's not as if the basic problems with the MTA's budget have gone away (extremely cyclical, no one wants to give it any actual money instead of just promising it, chants of "WASTE" and "TWO SETS OF BOOKS" despite the fact that these are not the fundamental problems with the budget, etc.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, it's not as if the basic problems with the MTA's budget have gone away (extremely cyclical, no one wants to give it any actual money instead of just promising it, chants of "WASTE" and "TWO SETS OF BOOKS" despite the fact that these are not the fundamental problems with the budget, etc.)

Yes, WASTE... When the public talks about "waste", we're NOT talking about service.  We're talking about lazy workers getting overpaid and under producing, but the continues to associate waste with bus and train service.  Spare me with the they don't have money routine.  They continue to hire inept managers and/or keep inept managers that cost them money (Michael Horodniceanu comes to mind).  He has run failure after failure of construction projects, and yet it seems as if there are no consequences for this actions or lack thereof.    In addition to that, you have numerous workers collecting goo-gobs of OT (enough that they could take that money and hire another worker (or two)).  

[Gotham Bus Co.]

...whenever a *leave alone* chant emanates from some person and/or group regarding some public transportation service, it's referring to the disapproval of some proposed or ongoing change....

 

 

I was merely taking the words "leave alone" at face value, since it's impossible to know exactly what a person is thinking. besides, one City Council member in the early 1990's actually forced the to commit in writing to "no service changes" — and got exactly what I described above (no cuts, no adds, no running time adjustments, no moving school trips to match changes in dismissal times, no changes of any kind).

 

The moral of this story is that the "letter of the law" is always more important than the "spirit of the law" because the letter is written.

[B35 via Church]

I was merely taking the words "leave alone" at face value, since it's impossible to know exactly what a person is thinking. besides, one City Council member in the early 1990's actually forced the to commit in writing to "no service changes" — and got exactly what I described above (no cuts, no adds, no running time adjustments, no moving school trips to match changes in dismissal times, no changes of any kind).

 

The moral of this story is that the "letter of the law" is always more important than the "spirit of the law" because the letter is written.

It's impossible to know exactly what a person is thinking, but "the "letter of the law" is always more important than the "spirit of the law" because the letter is written."... Correct?

 

If that's the case, then that very snippet illustrates that you knew what TransitJustice was referring to with that leave our buses alone statement..... Taking the phrase at face value is an attempt at feigning ignorance of his "spirit"....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's impossible to know exactly what a person is thinking, but "the "letter of the law" is always more important than the "spirit of the law" because the letter is written."... Correct?

 

If that's the case, then that very snippet illustrates that you knew what TransitJustice was referring to with that leave our buses alone statement..... Taking the phrase at face value is an attempt at feigning ignorance of his "spirit"....

lol... 

[checkmatechamp13]

the problem is that the MTA wants buses to be at least 90% full if they are less than that, then they start slashing 

 

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. See page 26.

 

They use average loads passing through the peak load point. And considering buses can usually hold around 70-80 people at a crush load, and the maximum allowable average load is 54 people, it's a lot less than 90%. 

 

Yes, WASTE... When the public talks about "waste", we're NOT talking about service.  We're talking about lazy workers getting overpaid and under producing, but the continues to associate waste with bus and train service.  Spare me with the they don't have money routine.  They continue to hire inept managers and/or keep inept managers that cost them money (Michael Horodniceanu comes to mind).  He has run failure after failure of construction projects, and yet it seems as if there are no consequences for this actions or lack thereof.    In addition to that, you have numerous workers collecting goo-gobs of OT (enough that they could take that money and hire another worker (or two)).  

 

When you have buses rolling around with 1 or 2 people on a regular basis, I'd definitely consider that waste. It's not the fault of the few people that do ride it (like some people like to imply) nor is it the fault of the operators. But the people who plan out the routes aren't running them in an efficient and effective way, resulting in waste for the agency overall. The way to fix that waste would be to restructure the routes properly instead of just cutting them.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

Are these buses rolling around with one or two passengers at the peak load points? Likely not unless there's some crazy bunching going on or the route in question has very low ridership. There's a lot more nuance then just screaming waste because buses are sometimes empty.

[checkmatechamp13]

Are these buses rolling around with one or two passengers at the peak load points? Likely not unless there's some crazy bunching going on or the route in question has very low ridership. There's a lot more nuance then just screaming waste because buses are sometimes empty.

 

Well, take the S55/56 for example. There's been times when I got on the S55 at Yukon Avenue and had the whole bus to myself, and then we picked up maybe 2-3 people at the ETC (this was during middays BTW). Granted, there were trips where we had say, 8-10 people at the peak load point, but at the same time I'm sure there's been buses where the B/O didn't pick up anybody during the whole trip (maybe not around that timeframe, but in general).

 

But at the same time, look at where those routes go. The MTA argues that the South Shore has a high rate of auto ownership (which completely ignores the riders who reside on the more transit-dependent North Shore (and even Mid-Island to a much lesser extent)) but at the same time, they meander around the South Shore and don't really serve the dense portions or ridership generators (e.g. Bricktown) particularly well. So the MTA provides bare-bones service (I mean, seriously in what other neighborhoods in NYC are you essentially stranded after 7pm if you use the local bus?)  and receives bare-bones ridership.

[IAlam]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. See page 26.

 

They use average loads passing through the peak load point. And considering buses can usually hold around 70-80 people at a crush load, and the maximum allowable average load is 54 people, it's a lot less than 90%. 

 

 

When you have buses rolling around with 1 or 2 people on a regular basis, I'd definitely consider that waste. It's not the fault of the few people that do ride it (like some people like to imply) nor is it the fault of the operators. But the people who plan out the routes aren't running them in an efficient and effective way, resulting in waste for the agency overall. The way to fix that waste would be to restructure the routes properly instead of just cutting them.

Yeah i looked at the loading guidelines before reading your post, consider we are supposed to get 3 ft of space the MTA should really be fill buses 75%-80%. But when we saw the report for the service adjustments they were making, (Idk where that is anymore) IIRC I remember them cutting service on lines that had loads in the 70's and 80's. 

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, WASTE... When the public talks about "waste", we're NOT talking about service.  We're talking about lazy workers getting overpaid and under producing, but the continues to associate waste with bus and train service.  Spare me with the they don't have money routine.  They continue to hire inept managers and/or keep inept managers that cost them money (Michael Horodniceanu comes to mind).  He has run failure after failure of construction projects, and yet it seems as if there are no consequences for this actions or lack thereof.    In addition to that, you have numerous workers collecting goo-gobs of OT (enough that they could take that money and hire another worker (or two)).  

 

There are inept managers, but what costs make up the majority of operating cost, which is what is being affected when you fiddle around with bus service?

 

Every couple years we go through the same contract waltz.

 

1. MTA proposes a contract with more employee contributions and reformed work rules, or part time positions, or whatever is going on. The relevant union, understandably, wants work rules to remain the same, contributions to remain the same, and retroactive COL pay.
2. Lots of rhetoric. Union might call a strike again.
3. Whoever is in the Governor's house at the time craps themself at the thought of a strike, so one of two things happens:
4. It either goes to arbitration, which usually decides in favor of the union because they think bonding money to pay for pensions is fair game, or somehow the MTA head is all of a sudden, with no political pressure from his boss at all, in favor of a contract that has retroactive pay and a small rise in contributions.

 

I'm not saying that no one "deserves" the existing labyrinth work rules or the generous pensions, but whether or not we as a public can actually afford these promises is an entirely different question.

 

(As far as OT goes, you have to consider that employing another person would require guaranteeing them a pension as well, healthcare, and the whole benefits package; what may seem like "gobs" of OT may actually be cheaper than the long-term cost of all those benefits. The MTA also can be run around if it slashes benefits, since part of the 2005 strike was a push to get the Legislature to legally mandate 20/50 pensions at MTA.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There are inept managers, but what costs make up the majority of operating cost, which is what is being affected when you fiddle around with bus service?

 

Every couple years we go through the same contract waltz.

 

 

• MTA proposes a contract with more employee contributions and reformed work rules, or part time positions, or whatever is going on. The relevant union, understandably, wants work rules to remain the same, contributions to remain the same, and retroactive COL pay.
• Lots of rhetoric. Union might call a strike again.
• Whoever is in the Governor's house at the time craps themself at the thought of a strike, so one of two things happens:
• It either goes to arbitration, which usually decides in favor of the union because they think bonding money to pay for pensions is fair game, or somehow the MTA head is all of a sudden, with no political pressure from his boss at all, in favor of a contract that has retroactive pay and a small rise in contributions.

I'm not saying that no one "deserves" the existing labyrinth work rules or the generous pensions, but whether or not we as a public can actually afford these promises is an entirely different question.

 

(As far as OT goes, you have to consider that employing another person would require guaranteeing them a pension as well, healthcare, and the whole benefits package; what may seem like "gobs" of OT may actually be cheaper than the long-term cost of all those benefits. The MTA also can be run around if it slashes benefits, since part of the 2005 strike was a push to get the Legislature to legally mandate 20/50 pensions at MTA.)

It's not a question of "if". Sustaining pensions on the backs of taxpayers is unsustainable. Just look at the changes happening in France. It's prohibitively expensive, and when work is done half-assed, that makes it even worse.

[bobtehpanda]

It's not a question of "if". Sustaining pensions on the backs of taxpayers is unsustainable. Just look at the changes happening in France. It's prohibitively expensive, and when work is done half-assed, that makes it even worse.

 

The issue is that the MTA or the State is never actually willing to have workers go on strike and would much rather cave in, and the unions know that the political support for allowing that to happen is not actually very strong (despite the rhetoric coming from officials at the state, local, and MTA), so they don't budge, the MTA has to cave in for lack of executive support, and then we sit around wondering why there's a gaping hole in the budget all of a sudden. I support pensions if we can pay for them, but the work rules are ridiculous (engineers getting paid for two shifts if they operate a diesel and an electric on the same day, station booth agents must stay in the confines of the booth, the insistence on conductors instead of POP fare collection and inspectors, etc.)

[checkmatechamp13]

the insistence on conductors instead of POP fare collection and inspectors, etc.)

 

Not sure how you could reasonably inspect fares on a packed subway train, or how it would be cheaper to hire a bunch of fare inspectors instead of a bunch of conductors. (I mean, to cover one train, you need 8-10 inspectors. Meanwhile, if a line runs 8-10 trains per hour, you're only inspecting around 10% of trains. Not to mention trains usually have 3-4 doors per car, so there's nothing to stop somebody from darting out at the next stop when they see an inspector).

[bobtehpanda]

Not sure how you could reasonably inspect fares on a packed subway train, or how it would be cheaper to hire a bunch of fare inspectors instead of a bunch of conductors. (I mean, to cover one train, you need 8-10 inspectors. Meanwhile, if a line runs 8-10 trains per hour, you're only inspecting around 10% of trains. Not to mention trains usually have 3-4 doors per car, so there's nothing to stop somebody from darting out at the next stop when they see an inspector).

 

It's more applicable to commuter rail (if you notice, I mention conductors collecting fares, which isn't a thing in the subway). That being said, POP-style fare collection is very common on both light-rail systems throughout America and in European subway systems; normally inspections only start once the doors are closed and the train is moving. The fine for skipping fares is usually set very high to deter farebeaters, and inspectors are usually plainclothes; when I was in Berlin one of the fare inspectors was a elderly woman who proceeded to lug a fare validator out of her giant bag.