Jump to content


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

Why the not-in-service bus won't stop for you

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I thought he was referring to the workers, not management.

He was referring to management. You were referring to the unions. Everyone is a "worker", and that includes management. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

He was referring to management. You were referring to the unions. Everyone is a "worker", and that includes management. 

You know what I mean.  I'm talking about B/Os as opposed to dispatchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

He was referring to management. You were referring to the unions. Everyone is a "worker", and that includes management. 

...which is exactly why I never hesitate to differentiate b/w blue collar workers & white collar workers.

I miss blue collar work :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

...which is exactly why I never hesitate to differentiate b/w blue collar workers & white collar workers.

I miss blue collar work :(

I miss union-scale wages.

But I also miss the "yeah you're the f**king man" post-seed startup wages too.

(Me in this thread after this post, for now)

https://tenor.com/KKNB.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

You are correct. But even if the unions did fight for better bus service, the MTA still has to be convinced that better service means added riders. Why is it that in every staff summary asking for approval of a new SBS route, the Board is requested for an increase in the operating budget of $2 million to $3 million? Why do they not have to follow the zero increased cost scenario that other route changes must follow? Why is their no estimate of increased patronage for new SBS routes to partially recoup some of the increased costs? Even if they do believe better service results in some added ridership, they still believe that more riders equates with a larger deficit which is why there is no push to increase ridership or improve service. Do you have any ideas of how to get the MTA to change their beliefs? 

I've noticed that this isn't unique to the MTA: A lot of smaller transit systems that changed their network to be more ridership-oriented maintained the same amount of service hours in the network (if they expected the ridership-oriented network to have higher ridership, they should've put in additional service hours if they wanted to maintain cost-neutrality). Though to be fair, it takes a while for ridership to actually build, so for the first year, the ridership gains from the better service might be offset by the initial losses resulting from the confusion of launching the new system. Maybe for the second year, the amount of service would be slightly higher.

In any case, I believe some of their funding sources tie funding to ridership, so maybe restructuring more funding sources to be that way would help. Additionally, some politicians can use discretionary funding to fund say, the first year or two of a route's operation (or the deficits resulting from the first year or two of a route's operation), so getting transit to be a bigger political issue and pushing for that would be a start. At least that way, the biggest up-front deficit is covered.

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You know what I mean.  I'm talking about B/Os as opposed to dispatchers.

No, I don't know what you mean. Both of them are union. Dispatchers are not management. They are supervision which is one level lower than management. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I've noticed that this isn't unique to the MTA: A lot of smaller transit systems that changed their network to be more ridership-oriented maintained the same amount of service hours in the network (if they expected the ridership-oriented network to have higher ridership, they should've put in additional service hours if they wanted to maintain cost-neutrality). Though to be fair, it takes a while for ridership to actually build, so for the first year, the ridership gains from the better service might be offset by the initial losses resulting from the confusion of launching the new system. Maybe for the second year, the amount of service would be slightly higher.

In any case, I believe some of their funding sources tie funding to ridership, so maybe restructuring more funding sources to be that way would help. Additionally, some politicians can use discretionary funding to fund say, the first year or two of a route's operation (or the deficits resulting from the first year or two of a route's operation), so getting transit to be a bigger political issue and pushing for that would be a start. At least that way, the biggest up-front deficit is covered.

Transit already is a big political issue and that hasn't made any difference. As far as MTA funding, it is so complex, I don't think anyone even understands it. They get money from everywhere and now they want to add congestion pricing. But your point about tying funding to increasing ridership might provide some incentive for them to try to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

No, I don't know what you mean. Both of them are union. Dispatchers are not management. They are supervision which is one level lower than management. 

Oh boy.  In my mind they manage the bus operators. I don't know how they aren't considered part of the management...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh boy.  In my mind they manage the bus operators. I don't know how they aren't considered part of the management...

It really is a matter of semantics. Dispatchers  supervise bus operators not manage them. Anyway what was your original point? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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