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  
Union Tpke

MTA: Increase in for-hire vehicles is the major cause of subway ridership drop

Recommended Posts

From today's NYCT meeting

41791260470_e908bd7ba0_b.jpgIMG_6528 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791258980_e23b97c74f_b.jpgIMG_6529 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791257510_063d190cd3_b.jpgIMG_6530 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

This one is striking

41791256190_ba6b155a20_b.jpgIMG_6532 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

42695016505_63934f5132_b.jpgIMG_6534 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791252140_fd8ab9c27e_b.jpgIMG_6535 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

42695012455_282d9cb831_b.jpgIMG_6537 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

43599128561_5201a7b2c4_b.jpgIMG_6539 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791241660_1cb7a98e09_b.jpgIMG_6541 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791238710_81a17ef84e_b.jpgIMG_6542 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

29729046628_9204656d95_b.jpgIMG_6543 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791233350_13a0e56fe3_b.jpgIMG_6545 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

43552032962_8acf07b6fa_b.jpgIMG_6546 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

41791228320_e907db14f2_b.jpgIMG_6547 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Thanks Cy Vance

43552030332_7ac334d70d_b.jpgIMG_6548 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

42881561394_775e4f09ce_b.jpgIMG_6549 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so that was you at the meeting! I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to say hi before going back to work!

If I may add a link to Tim Mulligan's (revealing) commentary (from 1:38:00) 

 

 

If I may say so, I think the shown declines in off-peak ridership make an excellent case for the disposal of loading guidelines. While good for figuring out current ridership needs, they completely ignore the realities of human psychology as they pertain to wait times. No one -- especially not in this city -- will wait for a 4 train/bus per hour service, which may indicate to transit that the route has low demand, leading them to cut it. This may take place on a backdrop of a corridor with actual demand -- just demand that would rather shell out the money for an Uber rather than deal with long waits.

I think, instead of the myopia of the today, transit should think of their system as a part of a market share war, as it is in the public interest that people ride the MTA's services. To that end, it'd be great if they looked at corridor -- or even developmental -- demand when adjusting service, not just current ridership. This, of course, would also end the circularity of frequency that worsens crowding on some lines -- why are we trying to cram more (4) trains down Lex when the (B) and (D)'s tracks are virtual echo chambers. Time to harness/market all that spare/redundant capacity, IMO. 

On a wholly different note, I think that one major element was left out of this discussion of ridership: fares. As we all know, the MTA has been mandated to increase fares at a much faster rate than inflation, which is quickly leading to an economic situation simply untenable for some New Yorkers. From a different angle, public transit is inherently less convenient than the automotive sort -- door-to-door vehicular travel is a rarity. I wonder if, with Uber's fare subsidisation (which are actually killing its finances in a dangerous way, but that's a different topic), we are seeing an inflection point at which the relative cheapness of public transport is now too little to justify its inconvenience. Basically, I wonder if there's a Laffer curve sort of argument to be made here. Could we lower fares and see ridership/revenue actually increase?

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they continually acknowledge the fare evasion (which is directly related to the student Metro usage) but nothing is being done about it. 🤔

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


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

So they continually acknowledge the fare evasion (which is directly related to the student Metro usage) but nothing is being done about it. 🤔

 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Oh so that was you at the meeting! I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to say hi before going back to work!

If I may add a link to Tim Mulligan's (revealing) commentary (from 1:38:00) 

 

 

If I may say so, I think the shown declines in off-peak ridership make an excellent case for the disposal of loading guidelines. While good for figuring out current ridership needs, they completely ignore the realities of human psychology as they pertain to wait times. No one -- especially not in this city -- will wait for a 4 train/bus per hour service, which may indicate to transit that the route has low demand, leading them to cut it. This may take place on a backdrop of a corridor with actual demand -- just demand that would rather shell out the money for an Uber rather than deal with long waits.

I think, instead of the myopia of the today, transit should think of their system as a part of a market share war, as it is in the public interest that people ride the MTA's services. To that end, it'd be great if they looked at corridor -- or even developmental -- demand when adjusting service, not just current ridership. This, of course, would also end the circularity of frequency that worsens crowding on some lines -- why are we trying to cram more (4) trains down Lex when the (B) and (D)'s tracks are virtual echo chambers. Time to harness/market all that spare/redundant capacity, IMO. 

On a wholly different note, I think that one major element was left out of this discussion of ridership: fares. As we all know, the MTA has been mandated to increase fares at a much faster rate than inflation, which is quickly leading to an economic situation simply untenable for some New Yorkers. From a different angle, public transit is inherently less convenient than the automotive sort -- door-to-door vehicular travel is a rarity. I wonder if, with Uber's fare subsidisation (which are actually killing its finances in a dangerous way, but that's a different topic), we are seeing an inflection point at which the relative cheapness of public transport is now too little to justify its inconvenience. Basically, I wonder if there's a Laffer curve sort of argument to be made here. Could we lower fares and see ridership/revenue actually increase?

Something that has become a big factor in more people taking Uber is it is CHEAPER AND faster than dealing with the subway, bus or express bus.  I see people in and out of Ubers all the time now, especially on weekends.  I keep saying it but they're going to have to examine this fare increase every two years, and lobby elected officials to reconsider it, because when you combine that with the fact that service across the board continues to worsen, it really makes no sense to keep shelling out money. 

The decline in student ridership comes from them simply thinking that they can ride everywhere for free. Not dipping seems to be encouraged and also expected, so why bother giving students Metrocards if they aren't going to use them or simply pass them around to people who aren't even attending school?

 

My girlfriend at the time last year was the one who really got me to thinking about using Uber more regularly. She is a perfect example of the types of New Yorkers that are switching. She wasn't that wild about using the subway as it was, but with Uber share and other programs out there, it gives her more of an excuse.  She gets an Uber outside of her building, and is at work in 15 minutes, where as with the subway it would easily be 30 minutes by the time she walks to the (4)(5)(6) , waits for the train, etc.  Even if Uber is a tad more expensive, she can afford to use it, as her salary is over 100k a year, so she simply makes it a part of her monthly expenses.  When I started telling her about some of the commuting problems I've had with the subway getting to meetings, it was her that mentioned how cheap it would be for me to simply use Uber and I'm like wow, that sounds great!  I think it was Mr. Albert who brought it up at an (MTA) meeting before about how it's dangerous to keep raising the fares like this especially given how poor service has been. it's really difficult to justify these fare increases. I remember not that long ago, it was $41.00 for an express bus weekly pass. Now it's almost $60.00 a week.  Basically almost an $80.00 a month jump.  Not too hard to see why express bus ridership keeps declining given the longer commute times. This morning it took me almost an hour and 30 minutes on a "Super Express" trip nonetheless.  

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


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

 

Something that has become a big factor in more people taking Uber is it is CHEAPER AND faster than dealing with the subway, bus or express bus.  I see people in and out of Ubers all the time now, especially on weekends.  I keep saying it but they're going to have to examine this fare increase every two years, and lobby elected officials to reconsider it, because when you combine that with the fact that service across the board continues to worsen, it really makes no sense to keep shelling out money. 

The decline in student ridership comes from them simply thinking that they can ride everywhere for free. Not dipping seems to be encouraged and also expected, so why bother giving students Metrocards if they aren't going to use them or simply pass them around to people who aren't even attending school?

 

My girlfriend at the time last year was the one who really got me to thinking about using Uber more regularly. She is a perfect example of the types of New Yorkers that are switching. She wasn't that wild about using the subway as it was, but with Uber share and other programs out there, it gives her more of an excuse.  She gets an Uber outside of her building, and is at work in 15 minutes, where as with the subway it would easily be 30 minutes by the time she walks to the (4)(5)(6) , waits for the train, etc.  Even if Uber is a tad more expensive, she can afford to use it, as her salary is over 100k a year, so she simply makes it a part of her monthly expenses.  When I started telling her about some of the commuting problems I've had with the subway getting to meetings, it was her that mentioned how cheap it would be for me to simply use Uber and I'm like wow, that sounds great!  I think it was Mr. Albert who brought it up at an (MTA) meeting before about how it's dangerous to keep raising the fares like this especially given how poor service has been. it's really difficult to justify these fare increases. I remember not that long ago, it was $41.00 for an express bus weekly pass. Now it's almost $60.00 a week.  Basically almost an $80.00 a month jump.  Not too hard to see why express bus ridership keeps declining given the longer commute times. This morning it took me almost an hour and 30 minutes on a "Super Express" trip nonetheless.  

A biannual fare increase indexed to inflation is pretty standard for most transit systems, otherwise the agency goes bankrupt - see the IRT and BMT with their 5 cent fares over many decades. A flat 25 cent / $1 increase doesn't allow for much flexibility though, so the MTA has to tread very carefully when raising the fares. The pay per ride bonus does help keep the fares reasonable, but the unlimited passes definitely cost too much.

That said, business studies dictate that in every industry, the better product always wins out, since the high-frequency customers have the discretionary money to throw at the product. Taxis were run as inefficiently as the subway, so the latter never had to worry, but rideshare innovation (albeit with heavily subsidized fares) offers a point-to-point, relatively comfortable ride that's hard to beat. The advantage of the subway is that it's supposed to be much faster than surface traffic, but if the trains keep getting delayed and cancelled, why even bother?

As for buses, they're never going to be the most competitive option - frankly they're only there to help out the disabled and the poor, but gentrification has really changed the nature of the city. Actually competitive bus routes lie along corridors that need rail service.

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

If I may say so, I think the shown declines in off-peak ridership make an excellent case for the disposal of loading guidelines. While good for figuring out current ridership needs, they completely ignore the realities of human psychology as they pertain to wait times. No one -- especially not in this city -- will wait for a 4 train/bus per hour service, which may indicate to transit that the route has low demand, leading them to cut it. This may take place on a backdrop of a corridor with actual demand -- just demand that would rather shell out the money for an Uber rather than deal with long waits.

I think, instead of the myopia of the today, transit should think of their system as a part of a market share war, as it is in the public interest that people ride the MTA's services. To that end, it'd be great if they looked at corridor -- or even developmental -- demand when adjusting service, not just current ridership. This, of course, would also end the circularity of frequency that worsens crowding on some lines -- why are we trying to cram more (4) trains down Lex when the (B) and (D)'s tracks are virtual echo chambers. Time to harness/market all that spare/redundant capacity, IMO. 

On a wholly different note, I think that one major element was left out of this discussion of ridership: fares. As we all know, the MTA has been mandated to increase fares at a much faster rate than inflation, which is quickly leading to an economic situation simply untenable for some New Yorkers. From a different angle, public transit is inherently less convenient than the automotive sort -- door-to-door vehicular travel is a rarity. I wonder if, with Uber's fare subsidisation (which are actually killing its finances in a dangerous way, but that's a different topic), we are seeing an inflection point at which the relative cheapness of public transport is now too little to justify its inconvenience. Basically, I wonder if there's a Laffer curve sort of argument to be made here. Could we lower fares and see ridership/revenue actually increase?

While mediocre weekend service is somewhat understandable due to construction, I don't understand why midday service frequencies are so bad. The most expensive service to provide is peak hour because all the train sets have to be in service, but conversely the two cheapest types of service to provide are reverse peak service and midday service since the trains are already on the tracks. As we all know, ridership is directly proportional to the amount of service, and frankly it's time to use headways instead of "minimum loading guidelines". Most B division services run at 6 minute headways during the peak, and none should be running at headways longer than 8 minutes (looking at the (B)(D)(M)(N)(R) in particular). 

Don't even get me started on the 12 minute headways for the (E)(F)(R) on the weekends - everyone along those lines basically got a 20-35% cut in service and I expect those lines are going to deteriorate in the upcoming months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading about how all these Auber drivers are fed up with their low salaries and high levels of competition for passengers, which makes me wonder...is the FHV market so over saturated that it will decline on its own as drivers (many of whom do not consider themselves full time professional drivers) stop driving for Uber? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh so that was you at the meeting! I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to say hi before going back to work! 

If I may say so, I think the shown declines in off-peak ridership make an excellent case for the disposal of loading guidelines. While good for figuring out current ridership needs, they completely ignore the realities of human psychology as they pertain to wait times. No one -- especially not in this city -- will wait for a 4 train/bus per hour service, which may indicate to transit that the route has low demand, leading them to cut it. This may take place on a backdrop of a corridor with actual demand -- just demand that would rather shell out the money for an Uber rather than deal with long waits.

I think, instead of the myopia of the today, transit should think of their system as a part of a market share war, as it is in the public interest that people ride the MTA's services. To that end, it'd be great if they looked at corridor -- or even developmental -- demand when adjusting service, not just current ridership. This, of course, would also end the circularity of frequency that worsens crowding on some lines -- why are we trying to cram more (4) trains down Lex when the (B) and (D)'s tracks are virtual echo chambers. Time to harness/market all that spare/redundant capacity, IMO. 

On a wholly different note, I think that one major element was left out of this discussion of ridership: fares. As we all know, the MTA has been mandated to increase fares at a much faster rate than inflation, which is quickly leading to an economic situation simply untenable for some New Yorkers. From a different angle, public transit is inherently less convenient than the automotive sort -- door-to-door vehicular travel is a rarity. I wonder if, with Uber's fare subsidisation (which are actually killing its finances in a dangerous way, but that's a different topic), we are seeing an inflection point at which the relative cheapness of public transport is now too little to justify its inconvenience. Basically, I wonder if there's a Laffer curve sort of argument to be made here. Could we lower fares and see ridership/revenue actually increase?

The issue is that the MTA is still stuck on the messed up mentality that more ridership = more deficit (because overall, they lose money on a per-passenger basis) without taking into account all of the factors that contribute to the cost per rider (peak vs. off-peak service levels, the amount of turnover on a given route, etc)

Another thing the MTA doesn't seem to consider is the value of their passengers' time. If a low-income person making minimum wage (currently $13/hour) can get to work 15 minutes earlier, that's an extra $3.25 in their pocket (well...minus taxes assuming the job is on-the-books). With that math, it's not hard to see how a $5 UberPool that saves 30 minutes over a $2.75 bus ride makes sense even on a modest wage. Uber recently had a commercial talking about how they're available for the outer boroughs, and notice some of the areas they mentioned (Soundview, Stapleton, Brownsville). If somebody has enough money to afford the up-front cost of the Uber, it might make sense financially because it allows them to work more and earn more income.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The issue is that the MTA is still stuck on the messed up mentality that more ridership = more deficit (because overall, they lose money on a per-passenger basis) without taking into account all of the factors that contribute to the cost per rider (peak vs. off-peak service levels, the amount of turnover on a given route, etc)

Another thing the MTA doesn't seem to consider is the value of their passengers' time. If a low-income person making minimum wage (currently $13/hour) can get to work 15 minutes earlier, that's an extra $3.25 in their pocket (well...minus taxes assuming the job is on-the-books). With that math, it's not hard to see how a $5 UberPool that saves 30 minutes over a $2.75 bus ride makes sense even on a modest wage. Uber recently had a commercial talking about how they're available for the outer boroughs, and notice some of the areas they mentioned (Soundview, Stapleton, Brownsville). If somebody has enough money to afford the up-front cost of the Uber, it might make sense financially because it allows them to work more and earn more income.

Yes, I saw that commercial as well. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that most of the ridership gains for Uber, Lyft etc have come from the areas outside of Manhattan. I see it in my neighborhood also. People will wait right near a bus stop and jump in their Uber. I believe that I am one of the few people in my building that actually uses any form of public transportation. Just about everybody either drives, gets an Uber or bike rides. We have a lawyer on our floor in my office building with one of those fold up bikes. He rides to and from the office. You see more and more professional types doing that also.

 

9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

A biannual fare increase indexed to inflation is pretty standard for most transit systems, otherwise the agency goes bankrupt - see the IRT and BMT with their 5 cent fares over many decades. A flat 25 cent / $1 increase doesn't allow for much flexibility though, so the MTA has to tread very carefully when raising the fares. The pay per ride bonus does help keep the fares reasonable, but the unlimited passes definitely cost too much.

That said, business studies dictate that in every industry, the better product always wins out, since the high-frequency customers have the discretionary money to throw at the product. Taxis were run as inefficiently as the subway, so the latter never had to worry, but rideshare innovation (albeit with heavily subsidized fares) offers a point-to-point, relatively comfortable ride that's hard to beat. The advantage of the subway is that it's supposed to be much faster than surface traffic, but if the trains keep getting delayed and cancelled, why even bother?

As for buses, they're never going to be the most competitive option - frankly they're only there to help out the disabled and the poor, but gentrification has really changed the nature of the city. Actually competitive bus routes lie along corridors that need rail service.

While mediocre weekend service is somewhat understandable due to construction, I don't understand why midday service frequencies are so bad. The most expensive service to provide is peak hour because all the train sets have to be in service, but conversely the two cheapest types of service to provide are reverse peak service and midday service since the trains are already on the tracks. As we all know, ridership is directly proportional to the amount of service, and frankly it's time to use headways instead of "minimum loading guidelines". Most B division services run at 6 minute headways during the peak, and none should be running at headways longer than 8 minutes (looking at the (B)(D)(M)(N)(R) in particular). 

Don't even get me started on the 12 minute headways for the (E)(F)(R) on the weekends - everyone along those lines basically got a 20-35% cut in service and I expect those lines are going to deteriorate in the upcoming months.

Yes but my point is for someone who is constantly delayed paying for the LIRR, Metro-North or the express bus, it may make more sense to use an Uber. I hear of some people who now get Uber regularly especially in the morning. They leave early enough that they aren't hitting traffic and thus with an Uber pool, etc. Sit beats dealing with the subway and the crazy people. There's a lot of people moving to this city and natives who simply don't want to deal with public transportation and now have a good excuse not to use it. The problem is it is unsustainable long term for the vitality of the city to keep having more people jump into Ubers.

8 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I keep reading about how all these Auber drivers are fed up with their low salaries and high levels of competition for passengers, which makes me wonder...is the FHV market so over saturated that it will decline on its own as drivers (many of whom do not consider themselves full time professional drivers) stop driving for Uber? 

 

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

 

@QM1: The catch is that some of these drivers get stuck because the have fees that they have to pay to Uber so even if they want to get out from under them they may have to keep driving.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else I find interesting is this below:

 

Quote

Subway and bus ridership steadily grew since the 1980s, but the trip increases began slowing around 2012. Bus ridership began its current decline in 2014, with the subways following suit in 2016. Meanwhile taxi and e-hail ridership surged by 11.9 percent, from 429 million trips to 480 million trips between 2012 and 2016. And between 2016 to 2017 alone, subway and bus service combined lost 69 million trips, while e-hails and taxis picked up 63 million new trips.

Biking has also become more popular over the years, too, experiencing a 44 percent in increase in ridership, from 138 million trips in 2012 to 199 million in 2017, according to the MTA.

The figures mostly confirm what many transit experts, advocates and the MTA itself have suspected. But the MTA did present some surprising findings, including that transit has seen a significant drop in student ridership. Between 2015 and 2017, average weekday student ridership — tracked by student MetroCard swipes — decreased 4.2 percent on subways and 13 percent on buses, a “somewhat troubling and mysterious” finding, Mulligan noted.

Source: https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-subway-ridership-1.20068402

69 million lost trips between 2016 and 2017 for the (MTA) and 63 new trips for taxis and e-hails. That is significant.  Just about every time that I wait for the BxM2 the times that I do take it at night, there's sometimes several taxis or cars waiting to pick up passengers.  It's crazy.  Thinking a bit further about the decline in student ridership, while some of that is students simply not swiping, some of it is parents actually DRIVING their kids to school or sending them in Ubers.  I have a kid that I tutor in Algebra.  I reviewed the kid's report card, go to meet him at his place and chat with his mother, and I'm thinking hmm... This kid has a lot of late arrivals because he probably has a tough commute.  Well actually he doesn't because his mother or father either DRIVE him to school or send him in an Uber!! I said WHAT!!  That was unthinkable back in the day. That kid doesn't ever use public transportation, as he is picked up or an Uber is sent for him to go home as well. The lateness problem is simply from him being too lazy to get up promptly.  lol

These people aren't transplants either. Just New Yorkers who like to pamper their kid a bit, but there are plenty of those types moving here and that is an example of the demographic shift as more money comes into the City.  People simply don't have to rely on public transportation.  I remember a few years ago when I had to do jury duty, this lady was trying to get out of doing it, and something came up about how she would have a hard time getting there because she wouldn't have access to her car, so the judge asks her, well isn't there public transportation near you? She's like I wouldn't know because I drive everywhere. LMAO.  Afterwards, she confessed that she basically hated public transportation, and hadn't used it years.  It was absolutely hilarious because even the judge could tell that she was full of it. She simply wanted to make any excuse not to use public transportation.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Something else I find interesting is this below:

 

Source: https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-subway-ridership-1.20068402

69 million lost trips between 2016 and 2017 for the (MTA) and 63 new trips for taxis and e-hails. That is significant.  Just about every time that I wait for the BxM2 the times that I do take it at night, there's sometimes several taxis or cars waiting to pick up passengers.  It's crazy.  Thinking a bit further about the decline in student ridership, while some of that is students simply not swiping, some of it is parents actually DRIVING their kids to school or sending them in Ubers.  I have a kid that I tutor in Algebra.  I reviewed the kid's report card, go to meet him at his place and chat with his mother, and I'm thinking hmm... This kid has a lot of late arrivals because he probably has a tough commute.  Well actually he doesn't because his mother or father either DRIVE him to school or send him in an Uber!! I said WHAT!!  That was unthinkable back in the day. That kid doesn't ever use public transportation, as he is picked up or an Uber is sent for him to go home as well. The lateness problem is simply from him being too lazy to get up promptly.  lol

These people aren't transplants either. Just New Yorkers who like to pamper their kid a bit, but there are plenty of those types moving here and that is an example of the demographic shift as more money comes into the City.  People simply don't have to rely on public transportation.  I remember a few years ago when I had to do jury duty, this lady was trying to get out of doing it, and something came up about how she would have a hard time getting there because she wouldn't have access to her car, so the judge asks her, well isn't there public transportation near you? She's like I wouldn't know because I drive everywhere. LMAO.  Afterwards, she confessed that she basically hated public transportation, and hadn't used it years.  It was absolutely hilarious because even the judge could tell that she was full of it. She simply wanted to make any excuse not to use public transportation.

I Need a girlfriend with 100k  a year...:D....Anyway Fare evasion has risen since 2012-2017 and on the rise in 2018...Thats crazy being that they knew and know this happening and aint trying to do anything about it to stop it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I Need a girlfriend with 100k  a year...:D....Anyway Fare evasion has risen since 2012-2017 and on the rise in 2018...Thats crazy being that they knew and know this happening and aint trying to do anything about it to stop it....

It's not that shocking.  I was at Fulton Street once coming from a meeting. I'm walking around checking out the station and making my way to the turnstiles. I see this guy who appeared to be homeless just slowly sliding through the turnstile.  You know how tiny those things are but he was like a toothpick, so he slid right on by slowly and no one stopped him.  I'm like this is something.  Then you have all of them that stand at the turnstiles and beg for rides. Those people never pay.  I'm sure the Show Time people don't pay either.

On the SBS lines, people will simply wait and ask others for their tickets.  Plenty of people will hand them over. I never do that.  In the outer boroughs, especially in the poorer areas, you'll see more people get on and not pay than those that do pay.  The thing is if people don't see any consequences for their actions and see more people not paying, it sort of becomes "acceptable" because everyone else is doing it.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uber is not the cause of the subway ridership drop. That's just silly.

People are switching to Uber because the subway is unreliable. That is the cause of the ridership drop.

  • LMAO! 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Uber is not the cause of the subway ridership drop. That's just silly.

People are switching to Uber because the subway is unreliable. That is the cause of the ridership drop.

It's actually both. What's happening is a lot of transplants are moving here from areas that aren't all that transit friendly or they just drive and the idea of using Uber or driving is more appealing to them.  The fact that the subway has become so horrendous just gives them an excuse to use it.  Last week I was using the subway in the evening, and I couldn't believe how early they were starting track work.  I find it unacceptable to start so early... 20:45 in some cases when people are just getting off of work!!  Last night just about every subway line had planned work. Who in the hell is going to use the subway with that going on?  

I go to a lot of meetings, and just about all of the people that are part of them use Uber or drive.  NONE of them use public transportation. These are the people that either commute to Manhattan for work or are transplants and can afford to use Uber or drive.  The demographics have been changing considerably in terms of the money coming in here, and that's something that the (MTA) needs to realize as well.  That's why I talk about tiered services because taking the dirty subway is simply not going to appeal to the people with more disposable income.  Even I generally take taxis to my meetings, especially ones at night. I take the subway if I feel like it because I've been burned too many times now where I've been stuck trying to take the subway only to have to leave the station and hop in a cab the rest of the way to make it on time, so now I'm like forget it.  Just get a cab all the way there.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I keep reading about how all these Auber drivers are fed up with their low salaries and high levels of competition for passengers, which makes me wonder...is the FHV market so over saturated that it will decline on its own as drivers (many of whom do not consider themselves full time professional drivers) stop driving for Uber? 

As someone who currently work for a division of Uber, yes, it does. I've seen it happen too many times(not to me, at least). That's why it's more profitable for drivers to go to Long Island or Westchester County for work. You'd make way more out there than you would in the five boroughs.

Uber also does this underhanded tactic where it cuts work from long-time drivers/couriers and redirects it to new drivers/couriers, which screws it up for everyone else.

48 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Uber is not the cause of the subway ridership drop. That's just silly.

People are switching to Uber because the subway is unreliable. That is the cause of the ridership drop.

You forgot about the folks that also refuse to ride any type of transit. They attribute to that too, along with more people leaving the subways and choosing to drive.

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The issue is that the MTA is still stuck on the messed up mentality that more ridership = more deficit (because overall, they lose money on a per-passenger basis) without taking into account all of the factors that contribute to the cost per rider (peak vs. off-peak service levels, the amount of turnover on a given route, etc)

Another thing the MTA doesn't seem to consider is the value of their passengers' time. If a low-income person making minimum wage (currently $13/hour) can get to work 15 minutes earlier, that's an extra $3.25 in their pocket (well...minus taxes assuming the job is on-the-books). With that math, it's not hard to see how a $5 UberPool that saves 30 minutes over a $2.75 bus ride makes sense even on a modest wage. Uber recently had a commercial talking about how they're available for the outer boroughs, and notice some of the areas they mentioned (Soundview, Stapleton, Brownsville). If somebody has enough money to afford the up-front cost of the Uber, it might make sense financially because it allows them to work more and earn more income.

Nice efficiency argument.

2 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

I Need a girlfriend with 100k  a year...:D....

You need to make more than 100k a year then.... Unless you don't mind being emasculated 24/7 :lol:

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

....On a wholly different note, I think that one major element was left out of this discussion of ridership: fares. As we all know, the MTA has been mandated to increase fares at a much faster rate than inflation, which is quickly leading to an economic situation simply untenable for some New Yorkers. From a different angle, public transit is inherently less convenient than the automotive sort -- door-to-door vehicular travel is a rarity. I wonder if, with Uber's fare subsidisation (which are actually killing its finances in a dangerous way, but that's a different topic), we are seeing an inflection point at which the relative cheapness of public transport is now too little to justify its inconvenience. Basically, I wonder if there's a Laffer curve sort of argument to be made here. Could we lower fares and see ridership/revenue actually increase?

I think the fare argument has some significance, but at the same time, being overrated.... People tend to bring up increasing fares to bolster their (justification behind their) frustrations over the declining quality of service..... I'm of the belief that if every single person was satisfied with their commute in & out of this city, hell will freeze over... Nah, but seriously, if that were the case, you would not hear near as much people claiming hardship, or otherwise having to bear a significant enough of a burden when it comes to paying the fare....

I can't see decreasing the fare spawning any increase in usage of our buses & trains - Especially with the subpar service NYC commuters have to put up with (and that's putting it very nicely).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Nice efficiency argument.

You need to make more than 100k a year then.... Unless you don't mind being emasculated 24/7 :lol:

I think the fare argument has some significance, but at the same time, being overrated.... People tend to bring up increasing fares to bolster their (justification behind their) frustrations over the declining quality of service..... I'm of the belief that if every single person was satisfied with their commute in & out of this city, hell will freeze over... Nah, but seriously, if that were the case, you would not hear near as much people claiming hardship, or otherwise having to bear a significant enough of a burden when it comes to paying the fare....

I can't see decreasing the fare spawning any increase in usage of our buses & trains - Especially with the subpar service NYC commuters have to put up with (and that's putting it very nicely).

No doubt im trying to get to the 100k a year salary....:D....I dont mind being emasculated by the right girl

  • LMAO! 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

They even noted that users with unlimited Metrocards are using the system less.

 

There used to be times when I'd go to the City twice from Riverdale with the express bus. That was the plan Sunday, but the traffic coming back was such a mess that I didn't even bother.  I got back much later than planned and the commute was too grueling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

As someone who currently work for a division of Uber, yes, it does. I've seen it happen too many times(not to me, at least). That's why it's more profitable for drivers to go to Long Island or Westchester County for work. You'd make way more out there than you would in the five boroughs.

Uber also does this underhanded tactic where it cuts work from long-time drivers/couriers and redirects it to new drivers/couriers, which screws it up for everyone else.

You forgot about the folks that also refuse to ride any type of transit. They attribute to that too, along with more people leaving the subways and choosing to drive.

Interesting. And is it true that in Westchester and/or LI, you don't need the equivalent of a TLC license, i.e. anyone can just sign up and be an uber driver without a special license? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

Interesting. And is it true that in Westchester and/or LI, you don't need the equivalent of a TLC license, i.e. anyone can just sign up and be an uber driver without a special license? 

It is indeed true.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have been making extra money this whole time, I didn't want to get a TLC license nor plates, and I could have just ubered/lyfted around Nassau and Westchester for extra money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what will be interesting to see here is what happens when Uber's hemorrhaging of cash begins to bite them. Their business model is unsustainable so long as they still have drivers. With AVs still a good decade (or more) off, it seems that the ball is really in the MTA's court to tailor service to the markets of today (not the streetcar routes of the 1920s), and to increase service regardless of loading guidelines (especially in the off-peak, when Uber is most competitive). I really think that they have a fighting chance to prove the supremacy of mass transit here -- if they get their shit together. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I think what will be interesting to see here is what happens when Uber's hemorrhaging of cash begins to bite them. Their business model is unsustainable so long as they still have drivers. With AVs still a good decade (or more) off, it seems that the ball is really in the MTA's court to tailor service to the markets of today (not the streetcar routes of the 1920s), and to increase service regardless of loading guidelines (especially in the off-peak, when Uber is most competitive). I really think that they have a fighting chance to prove the supremacy of mass transit here -- if they get their shit together. 

Makes me wonder how some of the microtransit initiatives around the country are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Not well.

Bridj

Chariot

Leap

I saw This from my hometown (and old neighborhood, actually) doubled ridership from 2 to 4. I died, resurrected and died again.

  • LMAO! 3

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.