State controller says MTA needs more money to avoid fare hikes

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

for the record you publicly posted your salary on here when I offered to bet you a whole paycheck. I'd find it but, I'm bored. 

I know what you're referring to.  I posted my net salary, not my gross and that fluctuates because part of my salary is commission based in addition to contributions made before taxes are taken out, so no you don't know how much I make in gross. I didn't include things like bonuses and so on, just a rough net salary.

[itmaybeokay]

This station is: Pedantic Avenue - Specific Street. 

(I said it was *about* the same. It's about the same. I didn't include freelance, I didn't include income from my business*. Nobody cares about either of our incomes. I was just trying to make a point.)

((* yes, a liberal business owner. what are the odds)) 

Anyway, moving on from the sideshow: everyone of these stories is like "Breaking: Railroad costs money, everyone upset about it." 

Is it really so hard for so many to understand that transit is the blood of the economic engine that is NY?

(I'm fully aware that engines don't have blood - just run with the analogy and we'll all be fine).

Without transit, economic output is lower. I would love to see a statistical comparison of reliability of subway service with economic factors of the city, but I don't think data goes back very far. Hrm tho, perhaps state contribution to transit operating costs vs economic factors. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

19 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

This station is: Pedantic Avenue - Specific Street. 

(I said it was *about* the same. It's about the same. I didn't include freelance, I didn't include income from my business*. Nobody cares about either of our incomes. I was just trying to make a point.)

((* yes, a liberal business owner. what are the odds)) 

Anyway, moving on from the sideshow: everyone of these stories is like "Breaking: Railroad costs money, everyone upset about it." 

Is it really so hard for so many to understand that transit is the blood of the economic engine that is NY?

(I'm fully aware that engines don't have blood - just run with the analogy and we'll all be fine).

Without transit, economic output is lower. I would love to see a statistical comparison of reliability of subway service with economic factors of the city, but I don't think data goes back very far. Hrm tho, perhaps state contribution to transit operating costs vs economic factors. 

Good, just as long as we're clear because quite frankly I don't think we can compare salaries, hours or anything, even if you think it's about the same, since you don't know the full picture and vice versa.  Now regarding your other comment, you seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth.  I think commuters certainly contribute more than enough towards transit aren't getting what they pay for.  The State and City can put forth more sure, but there is definitely mismanagement overall from this agency.

[itmaybeokay]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Good, just as long as we're clear because quite frankly I don't think we can compare salaries, hours or anything, even if you think it's about the same, since you don't know the full picture and vice versa.  

boolean doesAnybodyCare;
const int peopleWhoCare = 0;  

void loop(){
  while (peopleWhoCare == 0){
  	doesAnybodyCare = FALSE; 
	}
}
  	

 

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Now regarding your other comment, you seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth.  I think commuters certainly contribute more than enough towards transit aren't getting what they pay for.  The State and City can put forth more sure, but there is definitely mismanagement overall from this agency.

I can have nuanced positions - I don't think I've contradicted myself. 

There is certainly some degree of mismanagement, sure  - but I think the larger problem is that the agency is constantly being asked to do more with less. This forces any given organization into triage mode - you're in a reactive stance in that position and even if you fix every problem when it appears, you will always be suffering the symptoms of that problem as they appear. To get out of this, you have to start clearing backlog of issues while simultaneously beginning proactive procedures - and this process temporarily increases operational costs though it would likely decrease them in the long run. 

Should be no-brainer funding - whatever it takes. Wherever the money comes from in the grand scheme of things - macroeconomically thinking - it will pay for itself. But we're talking about a course of decades and we're talking about broad analysis of city economics. 

------------------------------

Even if the argument is they should be able to do more with less - even if that argument is prima facie irrefutable - now would not be the time to cut the budget. We can all agree they're playing catch-up in a big way here. Audit the budget down to every molecule of ink on the ledger when the system is in a proactive stance - fine. But if the catch-up work gets delayed because people are bickering about how to pay for it, it only gets more expensive and catastrophic. 

----------------------------

I visited a ghost town in PA last month and the story behind it bears some relevance: 

In May of 1962, in the town of Centralia PA, with the cause still under debate, a fire started in the coal mines under the town. July 2nd, when it was still small and near the surface, a local offered to dig out the fire for $175 - but the city council argued about who's responsibility paying for such a project would be, and the bid was rejected. 

When firefighting efforts finally began in August of that year the estimates had ballooned to $20,000, and costs rapidly exceeded estimates. 

And, do you know what? It ended up costing millions upon millions of dollars. The state was compelled to buyout hundreds of residents from their homes. It's still on fire today, and will be for decades more. 

-------------------------

My point is simple: arguing over who is paying for it now will only make things more expensive and worse, and there's a town in Pennsylvania that would admonish us to quickly extinguish the metaphorical fire in the tunnels beneath our feet if it were still around to warn us. 

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

18 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

boolean doesAnybodyCare;
const int peopleWhoCare = 0;  

void loop(){
  while (peopleWhoCare == 0){
  	doesAnybodyCare = FALSE; 
	}
}
  	

 

I can have nuanced positions - I don't think I've contradicted myself. 

There is certainly some degree of mismanagement, sure  - but I think the larger problem is that the agency is constantly being asked to do more with less. This forces any given organization into triage mode - you're in a reactive stance in that position and even if you fix every problem when it appears, you will always be suffering the symptoms of that problem as they appear. To get out of this, you have to start clearing backlog of issues while simultaneously beginning proactive procedures - and this process temporarily increases operational costs though it would likely decrease them in the long run. 

Should be no-brainer funding - whatever it takes. Wherever the money comes from in the grand scheme of things - macroeconomically thinking - it will pay for itself. But we're talking about a course of decades and we're talking about broad analysis of city economics. 

------------------------------

Even if the argument is they should be able to do more with less - even if that argument is prima facie irrefutable - now would not be the time to cut the budget. We can all agree they're playing catch-up in a big way here. Audit the budget down to every molecule of ink on the ledger when the system is in a proactive stance - fine. But if the catch-up work gets delayed because people are bickering about how to pay for it, it only gets more expensive and catastrophic. 

----------------------------

I visited a ghost town in PA last month and the story behind it bears some relevance: 

In May of 1962, in the town of Centralia PA, with the cause still under debate, a fire started in the coal mines under the town. July 2nd, when it was still small and near the surface, a local offered to dig out the fire for $175 - but the city council argued about who's responsibility paying for such a project would be, and the bid was rejected. 

When firefighting efforts finally began in August of that year the estimates had ballooned to $20,000, and costs rapidly exceeded estimates. 

And, do you know what? It ended up costing millions upon millions of dollars. The state was compelled to buyout hundreds of residents from their homes. It's still on fire today, and will be for decades more. 

-------------------------

My point is simple: arguing over who is paying for it now will only make things more expensive and worse, and there's a town in Pennsylvania that would admonish us to quickly extinguish the metaphorical fire in the tunnels beneath our feet if it were still around to warn us. 

 

 

No, I think the real issue is their costs are out of control.  That's the real problem, and they cut the wrong things. When they cut it's always service or cleaners.  Cut some of the upper level management and go from there.  Let's look at the cost to keep the stations clean.  They released some astronomical number just to sweep and occasionally power wash the stations.  It's like the cost of a broom tripled overnight.  Of course there's more to the cleaning - machinery, increased wages for workers and so on, but really, if the costs are that high then they need to figure out something because their costs seem overly inflated.

[bobtehpanda]

On 11/29/2017 at 12:29 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No, I think the real issue is their costs are out of control.  That's the real problem, and they cut the wrong things. When they cut it's always service or cleaners.  Cut some of the upper level management and go from there.  Let's look at the cost to keep the stations clean.  They released some astronomical number just to sweep and occasionally power wash the stations.  It's like the cost of a broom tripled overnight.  Of course there's more to the cleaning - machinery, increased wages for workers and so on, but really, if the costs are that high then they need to figure out something because their costs seem overly inflated.

For things like cleaning that aren't skilled jobs, I don't really see what the point of keeping it in-house is. Customer service, train operators, conductors, track and signals maintenance, sure. But cleaners? I would rather see the MTA contract that out like every other normal corporation.

[B35 via Church]

On 11/27/2017 at 2:38 PM, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Personally, service cuts that take bad buses and lines out of service would be fairer than increasing the fare.

I've suggested route lengthening or merging in the past, but I've consistenly received blowback saying it would take longer. There's nothing wrong with a longer route, but there is something wrong with the roads they travel on.

Most suburban routes have operators travel in pairs. This makes switching easier and adds a sense of security knowing you have a colleague literally on board with you.

 

The average length of a NYCT route is about six miles, which takes an average of forty-nine minutes to complete. Top speed allowed is 25 MPH, and buses at best attain a speed of 17 MPH at best. Bus stops are placed between 90 - 210 feet of each other. less than 5% of local and limited buses have highway access despite all buses having the authority to use HOV lanes.

The average length of a Bee-Line route is fourteen miles, which takes an average of forty-five minutes to complete. Top speed allowed is 55 MPH, with buses reaching 47 MPH overall after local speed restrictions are baked in (with Downtown Yonkers being the lowest at 30 MPH). Bus stops are placed 260 - 520 feet of each other. 47% of Bee-Line buses use expressways and dedicated service roads, and all of their buses can utilize HOV lanes thanks to their passes, as well.

 

As I make the suggestion to lengthen or merge going forward, keep in mind that the road makes the bus, not the length.

I've seen one of your shouts about a week or so ago, where you've said you're not the same person you were when you first came here (or something to that effect).... So I've noticed... That's good, keep it up...

With that said, you still have this knack for trying to draw parallels between suburban bus routes & local urban bus routes.... The problem with NYC's bus routes isn't the fact that they don't travel on highways..... You're also implicating that there's this myriad of different roads that buses can travel on without them having to endure/experience much of the mess that plague them.... This is also not the case....

You're not considering the amount of vehicles that are on these roads, the major thoroughfares, side streets, or on the city's highways..... You're not going to get bus routes in the city (on average) moving at a rate anywhere near some 30 mph & there are multiple reasons for that....

While fare increases affect more people than taking some "bad bus route" (which the MTA was more than happy going all draconian with, back in 2010) off the "map", what "makes" a bus route is:

* the road{s} it travels on...
* the amount of usage it gets...
* the area{s} it serves, and...
* its length (duration-wise & length-wise)...

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

11 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I've seen one of your shouts about a week or so ago, where you've said you're not the same person you were when you first came here (or something to that effect).... So I've noticed... That's good, keep it up...

With that said, you still have this knack for trying to draw parallels between suburban bus routes & local urban bus routes.... The problem with NYC's bus routes isn't the fact that they don't travel on highways..... You're also implicating that there's this myriad of different roads that buses can travel on without them having to endure/experience much of the mess that plague them.... This is also not the case....

You're not considering the amount of vehicles that are on these roads, the major thoroughfares, side streets, or on the city's highways..... You're not going to get bus routes in the city (on average) moving at a rate anywhere near some 30 mph & there are multiple reasons for that....

While fare increases affect more people than taking some "bad bus route" (which the MTA was more than happy going all draconian with, back in 2010) off the "map", what "makes" a bus route is:

* the road{s} it travels on...
* the amount of usage it gets...
* the area{s} it serves, and...
* its length (duration-wise & length-wise)...

I have a better understanding of the community "bent". Each forum I've joined has a unique awareness to it.

With the exception of SBS, which has done some good, the system needs to be revised, especially Richmond buses.

It can't be helped. While the scale of service and population served are different, it's important to satisfy the population you have. Hemorrhaging 100M riders over a decade is certainly not reflective of that.

When I stated the city and MTA lack cohesion in the planning process, this includes the ability to manage traffic, enable TSP, and enforce violators. The buses may very well be what a neighborhood wants, but so long as NYCDOT chooses the warring path, bus service will continue to be affected.

 

I just hope I'm not a resident when things finally go sour. I give it a decade.

 

 

[B35 via Church]

On 12/1/2017 at 3:45 PM, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

I have a better understanding of the community "bent". Each forum I've joined has a unique awareness to it.

With the exception of SBS, which has done some good, the system needs to be revised, especially Richmond buses.

It can't be helped. While the scale of service and population served are different, it's important to satisfy the population you have. Hemorrhaging 100M riders over a decade is certainly not reflective of that.

When I stated the city and MTA lack cohesion in the planning process, this includes the ability to manage traffic, enable TSP, and enforce violators. The buses may very well be what a neighborhood wants, but so long as NYCDOT chooses the warring path, bus service will continue to be affected.

 

I just hope I'm not a resident when things finally go sour. I give it a decade.

....and putting more buses on highways like that of Bee-Line here in the city won't have much of any of that gargantuan amt. of riders over a decade's time revert back to taking buses in whatever manner they used to... The problem isn't the roads the routes are traveling on by themselves/singularly, but moreso the amt. of vehicles on the roads & the measures that's been taken to slow down (if you ask me, cripple) average speeds.....

The network needs to be revised, period....

You may not be able to help juxtaposing the two, but you need to snap out of it if you want to try to get the full grasp of what's going on.... Matters will only get worse as long as these new-age cab services (and more drivers willing to work for them) continue flourishing at the rate they currently are... All the ongoing construction on street level isn't exactly helping either.... I want to say that it's a new day & people are resorting to other methods to get around, but at the same time, the masses still opt for public transportation....

When draconian cuts starts happening in the subway system across multiple lines as fares increase (much more [money] for less [service] than what riders are getting now), I don't wanna be around this city, because things are going to get ugly.... I can only hope it never gets to that point....

[46Dover]

5 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

....and putting more buses on highways like that of Bee-Line here in the city won't have much of any of that gargantuan amt. of riders over a decade's time revert back to taking buses in whatever manner they used to... The problem isn't the roads the routes are traveling on by themselves/singularly, but moreso the amt. of vehicles on the roads & the measures that's been taken to slow down (if you ask me, cripple) average speeds.....

The network needs to be revised, period....

You may not be able to help juxtaposing the two, but you need to snap out of it if you want to try to get the full grasp of what's going on.... Matters will only get worse as long as these new-age cab services (and more drivers willing to work for them) continue flourishing at the rate they currently are... All the ongoing construction on street level isn't exactly helping either.... I want to say that it's a new day & people are resorting to other methods to get around, but at the same time, the masses still opt for public transportation....

When draconian cuts starts happening in the subway system across multiple lines as fares increase (much more [money] for less [service] than what riders are getting now), I don't wanna be around this city, because things are going to get ugly.... I can only hope it never gets to that point....

I hope it doesn’t as well.  But I already got a head start moving to New Jersey 

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

18 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

....and putting more buses on highways like that of Bee-Line here in the city won't have much of any of that gargantuan amt. of riders over a decade's time revert back to taking buses in whatever manner they used to... The problem isn't the roads the routes are traveling on by themselves/singularly, but moreso the amt. of vehicles on the roads & the measures that's been taken to slow down (if you ask me, cripple) average speeds.....

The network needs to be revised, period....

You may not be able to help juxtaposing the two, but you need to snap out of it if you want to try to get the full grasp of what's going on.... Matters will only get worse as long as these new-age cab services (and more drivers willing to work for them) continue flourishing at the rate they currently are... All the ongoing construction on street level isn't exactly helping either.... I want to say that it's a new day & people are resorting to other methods to get around, but at the same time, the masses still opt for public transportation....

When draconian cuts starts happening in the subway system across multiple lines as fares increase (much more [money] for less [service] than what riders are getting now), I don't wanna be around this city, because things are going to get ugly.... I can only hope it never gets to that point....

I have quite the grasp. I spent a great deal of my summer reading up on the shortcomings of this system. Sadly, even I understand that while my suggestions are out of touch, the electorate is far more so. Any ideas are better than none at all. I've spent more of my life in the suburbs than in the city. Again, it cannot be helped. My perspective is as it shall be.

You're right about that. And it requires an open mind, something the city has not been blessed with over the decades.

I don't see them being corralled in as the law is taking too long to catch up and unlike Riders Alliance, UBER is much better at rallying public support.

Let's hope it stays that way.

A natural consequence of low voter turnout causing more of the same. We have a mayor that is in the pockets of real estate than he is "in your borough".

You and me both.

That would be the most counterproductive thing ever. I would support cuts if the fare went down, not up. We shouldn't be running services that are deplorable and set us further in the red. I would be supportive of SBS being exempt from any cuts and a double down on eligible routes.

[B35 via Church]

7 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

I have quite the grasp. I spent a great deal of my summer reading up on the shortcomings of this system. Sadly, even I understand that while my suggestions are out of touch, the electorate is far more so. Any ideas are better than none at all. I've spent more of my life in the suburbs than in the city. Again, it cannot be helped. My perspective is as it shall be.

 

....

I would support cuts if the fare went down, not up. We shouldn't be running services that are deplorable and set us further in the red. I would be supportive of SBS being exempt from any cuts and a double down on eligible routes.

What's good with these  color choices though, killin me over here......

Anyway, It sounds like you think you've grasped enough.... Any amount of reading is not going to trump first-hand experience.... You can remain to be stuck on this perspective you have instilled into you from being a suburbanite for as long as you have, but just realize that it is so far out of touch, even an incompetent agency like the MTA wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.... Drivers here are already vociferous on just how much of a PITA it is to get around in this city now with this vision zero bit & they've been so before it as well.... The concept of putting any swathe of local buses on highways being some solution, will be rendered as being NO solution by not just myself, but many many others here in the boroughs....

Any ideas being better than none at all, is nothing more than a farcical concept.... Status quo isn't always detrimental.... Status quo makes more sense than what you're suggesting.... Try to tell a Bronxite for example, that putting the Bx36 on the Cross Bronx parking lot Expressway would make their commute less stressful.... You better hope them 'boys at the 4-3 or the 4-8 (precincts) are around to haul you off in one piece .... This aint the BL-14 or BL-15 & 9A/Saw Mill River rd. we're talking about here with what us city folks have to deal with....

I support cuts that do away with antiquity or otherwise severely low usage with little to no hope of latent, or any future demand to keep it operable.... Fare alterations doesn't factor into whether I support a service cut or not..... AFAIC, fare decreases tied into service cuts is immaterial & fare increases tied into service cuts is the ultimate slap in the face......

If you were to tell me that the MTA were to cut a route like the B46 tomorrow & that the base fare were to drop back down to 2 bucks, I wouldn't be any less livid....

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

20 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What's good with these  color choices though, killin me over here......

Anyway, It sounds like you think you've grasped enough.... Any amount of reading is not going to trump first-hand experience.... You can remain to be stuck on this perspective you have instilled into you from being a suburbanite for as long as you have, but just realize that it is so far out of touch, even an incompetent agency like the MTA wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.... Drivers here are already vociferous on just how much of a PITA it is to get around in this city now with this vision zero bit & they've been so before it as well.... The concept of putting any swathe of local buses on highways being some solution, will be rendered as being NO solution by not just myself, but many many others here in the boroughs....

Any ideas being better than none at all, is nothing more than a farcical concept.... Status quo isn't always detrimental.... Status quo makes more sense than what you're suggesting.... Try to tell a Bronxite for example, that putting the Bx36 on the Cross Bronx parking lot Expressway would make their commute less stressful.... You better hope them 'boys at the 4-3 or the 4-8 (precincts) are around to haul you off in one piece .... This aint the BL-14 or BL-15 & 9A/Saw Mill River rd. we're talking about here with what us city folks have to deal with....

I support cuts that do away with antiquity or otherwise severely low usage with little to no hope of latent, or any future demand to keep it operable.... Fare alterations doesn't factor into whether I support a service cut or not..... AFAIC, fare decreases tied into service cuts is immaterial & fare increases tied into service cuts is the ultimate slap in the face......

If you were to tell me that the MTA were to cut a route like the B46 tomorrow & that the base fare were to drop back down to 2 bucks, I wouldn't be any less livid....

The B46 is SBS and shouldn't even be considered for cuts. Transit serving Arteries and Boulevards shouldn't even be considered for cuts. The buses need to be apportioned to who needs them most, and what roadways are most welcoming, and despite 278 local routes, some communities are underserved. If not cuts, reassignments.

It makes it easier to follow what I'm replying to. I'm using the default set.

The remainder of your reply I won't dispute as it isn't something I can. 

 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

The B46 is SBS and shouldn't even be considered for cuts. Transit serving Arteries and Boulevards shouldn't even be considered for cuts. The buses need to be apportioned to who needs them most, and what roadways are most welcoming, and despite 278 local routes, some communities are underserved. If not cuts, reassignments.

Yes, of course - it was an example; the B46 was the first route that came to mind... The point was, I wouldn't be any more satisfied with a service cut if the fare were to decrease....

As for the rest of your reply here.... You say transit serving arterial roads, etc. shouldn't be considered for cuts.... Earlier though (which is what sparked this little side discussion b/w the both of us), you stated that "there's nothing wrong with a longer route, but there is something wrong with the roads they travel on"....

If the roads a lot of these routes are traveling on are infact problematic, then how do you plan on rectifying anything when a lot of these same routes would be exempt from cuts? Shifting some route from some problematic road onto some less problematic road, is a service cut from off that problematic road.... Unless you're talking about routes that run along residential streets instead of major arteries, etc. - which to be honest, aren't the (portions of) routes that are really  causing the mass exodus of riders over this past decade to have sought out & utilized other means of transportation (or got the hell out of this city altogether)...

In laymens, it's paradoxical..... You can't shift something somewhere if it's exempt from being so.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

On 12/5/2017 at 7:04 PM, B35 via Church said:

Yes, of course - it was an example; the B46 was the first route that came to mind... The point was, I wouldn't be any more satisfied with a service cut if the fare were to decrease....

As for the rest of your reply here.... You say transit serving arterial roads, etc. shouldn't be considered for cuts.... Earlier though (which is what sparked this little side discussion b/w the both of us), you stated that "there's nothing wrong with a longer route, but there is something wrong with the roads they travel on"....

If the roads a lot of these routes are traveling on are infact problematic, then how do you plan on rectifying anything when a lot of these same routes would be exempt from cuts? Shifting some route from some problematic road onto some less problematic road, is a service cut from off that problematic road.... Unless you're talking about routes that run along residential streets instead of major arteries, etc. - which to be honest, aren't the (portions of) routes that are really  causing the mass exodus of riders over this past decade to have sought out & utilized other means of transportation (or got the hell out of this city altogether)...

In laymens, it's paradoxical..... You can't shift something somewhere if it's exempt from being so.

Some New Yorkers seem to forget that the bus network hasn't been updated in over a half century. This is especially true for Richmond County riders. The system cannot function reliably from a business or strap-hanger standpoint. I know my opinions seem out of place, but transit is like any other business. You cannot provide service that cannot be paid for and not expect financial repercussions.

The suburbs may serve a smaller population, but that population is served well. NYCT Buses are the worst in the nation. The has been given numerous warnings, audits and even rider feedback (I literally watched representatives do eye rolls toward New Dorp residents who raised valid flags), and that is far more out of touch than my remarks can ever be. Riders need to be taken seriously if any change is to be made, and cohesion between the city and state is an absolute must.

 

I've spent my week writing letters to the Governor, senator and Representative from my district (42/77). People are too disembodied from the process that it stands to undo everything this city stands for. And that may very well trigger an exodus or high earners, although I would be willing to look toward a suburban residency once more.

[B35 via Church]

On 12/8/2017 at 12:44 PM, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Some New Yorkers seem to forget that the bus network hasn't been updated in over a half century. This is especially true for Richmond County riders. The system cannot function reliably from a business or strap-hanger standpoint. I know my opinions seem out of place, but transit is like any other business. You cannot provide service that cannot be paid for and not expect financial repercussions.

The suburbs may serve a smaller population, but that population is served well. NYCT Buses are the worst in the nation. The has been given numerous warnings, audits and even rider feedback (I literally watched representatives do eye rolls toward New Dorp residents who raised valid flags), and that is far more out of touch than my remarks can ever be. Riders need to be taken seriously if any change is to be made, and cohesion between the city and state is an absolute must.

 

I've spent my week writing letters to the Governor, senator and Representative from my district (42/77). People are too disembodied from the process that it stands to undo everything this city stands for. And that may very well trigger an exodus or high earners, although I would be willing to look toward a suburban residency once more.

I'm not interested in a pissing contest; you're doing just that by [claiming that others are more out of touch than you & this implicative suggestion of yours in question] (this is the 2nd time you've done that in this discussion) & [trying to make this into some sort of urban vs. suburban thing].....

You're quick to say that NYCT buses are the worst in the nation, but at the same time, trying to justify prolonging routes by stating that there's something with the roads that buses travel on.... What you're implicating with that is ignorant; the last thing that should happen is to have a bunch of routes a] prolonged and b] diverted to run on some other road you perceive to be somehow less problematic....

You want to know something else you can't expect? Cutting bad buses (as you put it), prolonging some number of the remaining routes, diverting some number of them, with the result of a fare decrease..... Forget about a fare decrease; the best we can hope for as far as that goes, is stagnancy.... It's as if you believe a fare decrease ultimately offsets service cuts & it's not the case....

I don't think I'm speaking for myself when I say I wouldn't be exactly thrilled to be paying less for less; and I'm not only talking about service levels, but quality of service & quality of maintenance as well.... I'd rather pay the $2.75 we're paying now with the "bad buses" removed from the network, than to have to have buses regress to a physical state of those of GBL, JBL, and Triboro.... That's what you're gonna end up getting if the fare were to ever decrease.....

[checkmatechamp13]

On 12/8/2017 at 12:44 PM, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

The suburbs may serve a smaller population, but that population is served well. NYCT Buses are the worst in the nation. The has been given numerous warnings, audits and even rider feedback (I literally watched representatives do eye rolls toward New Dorp residents who raised valid flags), and that is far more out of touch than my remarks can ever be. Riders need to be taken seriously if any change is to be made, and cohesion between the city and state is an absolute must.

1

I will say this, I know which meeting you're talking about (and it wasn't just New Dorp residents. The meeting just happened to be located in New Dorp). I will say there was ignorance on both sides. You had some idiot MTA representative talking about how Staten Island's bus ridership is lower than that of the other boroughs (which is true), implicitly exaggerating that as if to say all of our buses are rolling around with a handful of people (which is not true). Then some lady responded "Well, is that the express buses, or all buses?". When he responded that it was all buses, she ignorantly responded "Well, that's not right, because all the local buses just go to the mall, and people drive to the mall, so that's why they're empty". The proper response would've been to say that we have our share of local and express buses that are so full that they're flagging people even outside of rush hour, and in any case, ridership isn't as low as he's making it out to be. The S79 ranks above the Q5 and Q12 in annual ridership, and the S53 ranks above the M42 (if they want to throw stats around). I saw you attempted to make that point (in a roundabout way. You should've been much more direct and called them out), but I think it fell on deaf ears.

Somebody else said "Since we're never getting a subway, we should have subway-equivalent bus service". That MTA rep responded that the subways do run on a schedule (which they do, even if it's not always followed), and just tried to end the conversation. The proper response would've been that, at certain times, certain routes run at a frequency where you don't have to worry about a schedule, but some of those routes deal with traffic that causes bunching that you don't see as much in the subway. And then ask for feedback as to where the trouble spots are for traffic/crowding, and any suggestions as far as where to put bus lanes, or short-turns, or specific areas where frequency should be improved to that level, or suggestions to strengthen routes so they warrant those levels of frequency. 

I do agree that rider concerns should be noted, but more than that, the conversation should be steered more towards possible solutions to these issues. The MTA representatives should be more experienced on the types of questions to ask to get the answers that will help them improve the system, and stay away from pointless topics. (I mean, what is accomplished by saying that the borough with the lowest population has the lowest ridership?)

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

On 12/9/2017 at 9:50 PM, B35 via Church said:

I don't think I'm speaking for myself when I say I wouldn't be exactly thrilled to be paying less for less; and I'm not only talking about service levels, but quality of service & quality of maintenance as well.... I'd rather pay the $2.75 we're paying now with the "bad buses" removed from the network, than to have to have buses regress to a physical state of those of GBL, JBL, and Triboro.... That's what you're gonna end up getting if the fare were to ever decrease.....

The transit system is going to leave people behind regardless of whether or not we agree. Any plan that can stop or slow that should be considered. For some, it will be because of cost. For others, a lack of representation. There are some who operate on more desperate fiscal angles that might disagree with that remark.

Your quote was clipped for objective clarity. Y'all really need to stop with personal attacks. Not that I'm fazed.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

@checkmatechamp13 thank you for understanding the context of my remark (instead of referring to it as a 'pissing contest' as @B35 via Church did)

Transit is in trouble. And the disconnect between riders and the service they receive can be remedied. I will continue to make comparisons between services I've used where the experiences differ and where the ratio of community cooperation is better.

 The board, the Governor and the Mayor should follow the City Council's example and ride the subway system/SIR for themselves (maybe even incognito to get a fresher perspective). They're the ones out of touch, not me.

[B35 via Church]

4 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

The transit system is going to leave people behind regardless of whether or not we agree. Any plan that can stop or slow that should be considered. For some, it will be because of cost. For others, a lack of representation. There are some who operate on more desperate fiscal angles that might disagree with that remark.

Your quote was clipped for objective clarity. Y'all really need to stop with personal attacks. Not that I'm fazed.

4 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

@checkmatechamp13 thank you for understanding the context of my remark (instead of referring to it as a 'pissing contest' as @B35 via Church did)

Transit is in trouble. And the disconnect between riders and the service they receive can be remedied. I will continue to make comparisons between services I've used where the experiences differ and where the ratio of community cooperation is better.

The board, the Governor and the Mayor should follow the City Council's example and ride the subway system/SIR for themselves (maybe even incognito to get a fresher perspective). They're the ones out of touch, not me.

Lol.... Latching onto CheckmateChamp for support because a segment of your commentary's being challenged.....

Secondly, come on with this; referring to something as a pissing contest isn't a personal attack.... Stop looking for an out & defend your points with potency for Christ's sake....

Thirdly, of course the MTA's going to do what they want, regardless of any agreements or disagreements between the both of us on here (which is all you're saying with that).... What's your point?

Lastly, the rest of that reply of yours to me, is nothing more than you regurgitating that same ideology of any idea being better than nothing at all... Any idea won't yield positive results 100% of the time (which is what you're implicating with that) and I'm going to keep repeating that because it's real life shit... Period.... Try as you might, but you're not going to avert reality with buckets of positivity....

You're only proving my point about a "pissing contest" with that deflection in your very last post there... Stating that the MTA board, the Governor and the Mayor are out of touch, doesn't exactly excuse you & some of what you've posted in this thread.... Yes, they're out of touch - Nobody's disputing that..... I'm addressing YOUR commentary on here, not the Mayor's, not the Governor's, not the MTA board.... There's MORE than enough lambasting to go around for each of those parties!

Look dude, nobody's asking you not to make comparisons.... For the sake of accuracy, those of us that know better would like for you to make better ones.... Is that too much to ask? Good God....

[checkmatechamp13]

On 12/11/2017 at 12:01 PM, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

@checkmatechamp13 thank you for understanding the context of my remark (instead of referring to it as a 'pissing contest' as @B35 via Church did)

Transit is in trouble. And the disconnect between riders and the service they receive can be remedied. I will continue to make comparisons between services I've used where the experiences differ and where the ratio of community cooperation is better.

 The board, the Governor and the Mayor should follow the City Council's example and ride the subway system/SIR for themselves (maybe even incognito to get a fresher perspective). They're the ones out of touch, not me.

No, as far as I'm concerned, you're both out of touch in different ways. The MTA representatives are definitely out of touch, but that doesn't excuse insisting on ideas like prolonging crosstown routes when we've explained why that wouldn't work even if wraparound bus lanes were possible (By that logic, the subways should run with 100% reliability) or running a ton of buses on the highways even if it wouldn't provide better service to riders in the area. The MTA isn't Bee Line and NYC isn't Westchester.You have to understand the differences in the physical environment the buses run in before saying that a solution would work in both areas.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

23 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

No, as far as I'm concerned, you're both out of touch in different ways. The MTA representatives are definitely out of touch, but that doesn't excuse insisting on ideas like prolonging crosstown routes when we've explained why that wouldn't work even if wraparound bus lanes were possible (By that logic, the subways should run with 100% reliability) or running a ton of buses on the highways even if it wouldn't provide better service to riders in the area. The MTA isn't Bee Line and NYC isn't Westchester.You have to understand the differences in the physical environment the buses run in before saying that a solution would work in both areas.

I can agree with that. I'm going on a forum holiday for a bit.