Call to Action Event to Fund MTA

[checkmatechamp13]

6 hours ago, NBTA said:

Hopefully the redesigns even happen.

Either way, there will be some type of redesign. Even if there's cuts, they can either flat-out cut routes, or at least attempt to do it in a way that minimizes the negative and tries to gain some positive aspects out of it. Miami has a 5-stage plan for their redesign at different levels of funding.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, Deucey said:

The irony is that 's bailout to keep NY moving is dependent upon the Dems winning two Senate races in Georgia in January.

The thinking is that if the Republicans keep control in the Senate (which seems likely), there won't be much accomplished that Biden wants. This is not going to be a runaway train now just because Biden won. lol

[Via Garibaldi 8]

13 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Either way, there will be some type of redesign. Even if there's cuts, they can either flat-out cut routes, or at least attempt to do it in a way that minimizes the negative and tries to gain some positive aspects out of it. Miami has a 5-stage plan for their redesign at different levels of funding.

That is the plan, yes, but there are a lot of unknowns. It's not as if the redesigns were oh so popular. There has been a ton of pushback on them, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to carry through these redesigns when you are trying to get people to use the system again. One thing that the  seemed to be big on was cutting back on off-peak service. With the pandemic, we're seeing changes to travel patterns entirely, with far more people traveling off-peak versus peak periods. The projections are that it will take years to get ridership back to where it was. That is why I don't understand why everyone is going crazy about changing up the routes when we don't know how long this pandemic is going to go. We don't have a vaccine, and even when we get one, it will take a while before people are vaccinated. The longer it goes, the more people will be unemployed. That is something no one is talking about here. It's like people are living in a fantasy world. If people have no job, they will be using the system a lot less.

If they really want to go through with the redesigns, let them, and there will be more people voting with their feet and using other options. We can talk about saving money all we want. If there aren't enough people using the system, that creates a problem for them. This pandemic has people rethinking how they travel, and even with some people using the system, they have definitely cut back on how and when they use it. It would be wise of the  to re-evaluate EVERYTHING. They also need to have a serious look at their fare structure. I'm not sure we're going to see lots of people using passes the way we did before, at least not for a while anyway.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The thinking is that if the Republicans keep control in the Senate (which seems likely), there won't be much accomplished that Biden wants. This is not going to be a runaway train now just because Biden won. lol

Nah, especially with Senate rules like the filibuster still in effect. But 51-50 in Biden's favor versus 52-48 in McConnell's means that CARES Act v2 is more likely to make sure  gets more of what's needed to handle the COVID deficit.

The structural one, however, needs Albany  to do something so  goes back to having less long-term debt than the State of Texas. That won't happen without a regime change upstate.

(For the life of me, I don't get why NYS doesn't have a statewide transit fund or bank to make sure , NICE, NFTA and CDTA can keep moving and have budgets overseen.)

Edited November 8, 2020 by Deucey

[checkmatechamp13]

14 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That is the plan, yes, but there are a lot of unknowns. It's not as if the redesigns were oh so popular. There has been a ton of pushback on them, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to carry through these redesigns when you are trying to get people to use the system again. One thing that the  seemed to be big on was cutting back on off-peak service. With the pandemic, we're seeing changes to travel patterns entirely, with far more people traveling off-peak versus peak periods. The projections are that it will take years to get ridership back to where it was. That is why I don't understand why everyone is going crazy about changing up the routes when we don't know how long this pandemic is going to go. We don't have a vaccine, and even when we get one, it will take a while before people are vaccinated. The longer it goes, the more people will be unemployed. That is something no one is talking about here. It's like people are living in a fantasy world. If people have no job, they will be using the system a lot less.

If they really want to go through with the redesigns, let them, and there will be more people voting with their feet and using other options. We can talk about saving money all we want. If there aren't enough people using the system, that creates a problem for them. This pandemic has people rethinking how they travel, and even with some people using the system, they have definitely cut back on how and when they use it. It would be wise of the  to re-evaluate EVERYTHING. They also need to have a serious look at their fare structure. I'm not sure we're going to see lots of people using passes the way we did before, at least not for a while anyway.

The redesigns had a lot of good elements in terms of new corridors being served and (generally speaking) more direct routes. Unfortunately, they also have a lot of bad elements in terms of scheduling and weird routing decisions that make no sense. The whole point of the redesign process is to try to maximize the good elements while keeping the bad elements. So a properly-done redesign can work, and is possible if the right pressure is applied. 

As far as cutting off-peak service, that's not consistent across all the boroughs. In The Bronx and Queens, they planned to cut off-peak express service, but on Staten Island, they ended up adding off-peak service as part of the redesign (even in the original plan that they screwed up, they still had 4 off-peak routes instead of 3). In The Bronx, they were generally planning to add off-peak service to the local routes, but Queens was a mixed bag in terms of the local routes. Nationwide, the trend with the redesigns seems to be to add more off-peak service.

And in any case, it doesn't make sense to keep routes and schedules the same when ridership patterns in general are shifting drastically. That's one of the things that prompted the redesigns in the first place: The fact that the system in general hasn't been keeping up with development patterns, and changes added are piecemeal rather than network-wide. To keep the system exactly the same when you have an event that single-handedly changed commuting patterns (on top of the previous changes that they weren't keeping up with) is just irresponsible.

Change by itself isn't bad or good, it's just....change. If they make stupid changes, then yes the overall result will be bad and it will result in continued ridership decline. If they make good changes, the overall result will be good, and ridership will increase. You literally just said 

Quote

It would be wise of the  to re-evaluate EVERYTHING

Anyway, I do agree with you on the passes. SEPTA is coming out with a 3-day pass for healthcare workers and people who are only coming to the office part of the time, so the MTA should look into implementing something similar. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The redesigns had a lot of good elements in terms of new corridors being served and (generally speaking) more direct routes. Unfortunately, they also have a lot of bad elements in terms of scheduling and weird routing decisions that make no sense. The whole point of the redesign process is to try to maximize the good elements while keeping the bad elements. So a properly-done redesign can work, and is possible if the right pressure is applied. 

As far as cutting off-peak service, that's not consistent across all the boroughs. In The Bronx and Queens, they planned to cut off-peak express service, but on Staten Island, they ended up adding off-peak service as part of the redesign (even in the original plan that they screwed up, they still had 4 off-peak routes instead of 3). In The Bronx, they were generally planning to add off-peak service to the local routes, but Queens was a mixed bag in terms of the local routes. Nationwide, the trend with the redesigns seems to be to add more off-peak service.

And in any case, it doesn't make sense to keep routes and schedules the same when ridership patterns in general are shifting drastically. That's one of the things that prompted the redesigns in the first place: The fact that the system in general hasn't been keeping up with development patterns, and changes added are piecemeal rather than network-wide. To keep the system exactly the same when you have an event that single-handedly changed commuting patterns (on top of the previous changes that they weren't keeping up with) is just irresponsible.

Change by itself isn't bad or good, it's just....change. If they make stupid changes, then yes the overall result will be bad and it will result in continued ridership decline. If they make good changes, the overall result will be good, and ridership will increase. You literally just said 

Anyway, I do agree with you on the passes. SEPTA is coming out with a 3-day pass for healthcare workers and people who are only coming to the office part of the time, so the MTA should look into implementing something similar. 

Yeah, a properly designed one can work, but these redesigns aren't about making service better. They're about cutting costs, first and foremost. I have spoken with other advocacy groups, and we're all in agreement on that. Yes, on Staten Island, they added off-peak service, but that is the only borough where they have invested money in the redesign. In the Bronx, they received a lot of criticism for them not spending more money into improving service. I know what they did on the local bus side, and that was after tons of pushback, and on the express side, the real issue was the cutting of service, though some of the routing wasn't great either, so if we had the schedules they proposed for Queens and the Bronx now, a lot of people would likely still be driving because they would've gutted a ton of off-peak service.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah, a properly designed one can work, but these redesigns aren't about making service better. They're about cutting costs, first and foremost. Yeah, a properly designed one can work, but these redesigns aren't about making service better. They're about cutting costs, first and foremost. I have spoken with other advocacy groups, and we're all in agreement on that. Yes, on Staten Island, they added off-peak service, but that is the only borough where they have invested money in the redesign.

The goal was to make it cost-neutral, not to reduce costs. Even the Staten Island express one at the very beginning was cost-neutral (before they added the SIM2 off-peak service).

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

In the Bronx, they received a lot of criticism for them not spending more money into improving service. I know what they did on the local bus side, and that was after tons of pushback

That is outright false. The draft plan (which was the first thing that mentioned anything about frequencies) specifically mentioned increased local bus frequencies from the very beginning. See page 17. The concept of more frequent service was something they were pushing from the very beginning of the redesign.

[RtrainBlues]

I recall lots of potential negative redesign changes:  Cutting the direct route from 91st/Shore medical center to 86/4th subway (B16), cutting one of the two very crowded bus routes that go from the very busy Flushing subway to Queens College (either Q17 or Q25, can't recall which), etc.  I can't think of anything positive to say with the redesigns.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

1. The goal was to make it cost-neutral, not to reduce costs. Even the Staten Island express one at the very beginning was cost-neutral (before they added the SIM2 off-peak service).

2. That is outright false. The draft plan (which was the first thing that mentioned anything about frequencies) specifically mentioned increased local bus frequencies from the very beginning. See page 17. The concept of more frequent service was something they were pushing from the very beginning of the redesign.

1. You can say as you wish officially. Unofficially, many of us viewed the redesigns overall as service cuts. My service would've been reduced significantly, and that's the reality.  Staten Island on the express bus side came off lucky overall considering the proposed changes for the Bronx and Queens.

2. No, it is absolutely true. It was a long discussion that even the Riders' Alliance noted, which is that they wanted the  to spend more money on the local buses. I know what Bronxites complained about because I was in talks with numerous Bronx elected officials.  It was a combination of wanting funding and not being pleased with some of routing on some lines.  

http://busturnaround.nyc/get_involved/turnaround-pushes-for-bronx-bus-redesign-funding/

[checkmatechamp13]

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No, it is absolutely true. It was a long discussion that even the Riders' Alliance noted, which is that they wanted the  to spend more money on the local buses. I know what Bronxites complained about because I was in talks with numerous Bronx elected officials.  It was a combination of wanting funding and not being pleased with some of routing on some lines.  

http://busturnaround.nyc/get_involved/turnaround-pushes-for-bronx-bus-redesign-funding/

So they went back in time and got the MTA to add off-peak service to the draft plan? That makes absolutely no sense. The draft plan was released in June 2019. That article was from August 2019. The MTA planned to add that extra off-peak local bus service either way.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

19 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

So they went back in time and got the MTA to add off-peak service to the draft plan? That makes absolutely no sense. The draft plan was released in June 2019. That article was from August 2019. The MTA planned to add that extra off-peak local bus service either way.

No. Their complaint all along was they wanted the  to spend money to add more local bus service. I don't think you're following. In other words, on the local bus end, the  seemed to be trying to make cost neutral moves. That's not what the advocacy groups wanted nor Bronxites. From the beginning they wanted the  to commit to even more local bus service but allocating more funding without trade-offs.

I called all of my elected officials and made a stink on the express bus end, including Borough President Díaz.  I called his office several times and made it clear that the express bus plan was not ok and I urged follow express bus commuters to do the same and they flooded their elected officials with complaints, so no, the plan on either side (local or express) originally was not acceptable. For example, on the BxM9, the major complaint from Throggs Neck riders was they did not want to lose their stop.  in Riverdale, we did not want to lose access to Mount Sinai or the Museum Mile on the BxM2, in addition to BxM18 changes and the lost transfer for other BxM riders. BxM4 riders south of Woodlawn were some of the most vocal, hence the revision of a express bus along Grand Concourse.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

23 hours ago, RtrainBlues said:

I recall lots of potential negative redesign changes:  Cutting the direct route from 91st/Shore medical center to 86/4th subway (B16), cutting one of the two very crowded bus routes that go from the very busy Flushing subway to Queens College (either Q17 or Q25, can't recall which), etc.  I can't think of anything positive to say with the redesigns.

The Brooklyn draft plan wasn't even released? How can you say they were planning to cut that portion of the B16 when they never released a proposal?

As for Queens College, they planned to cut the route that went Kissena-HHE and keep the route that ran the length of Kissena. You can always add short-turns to the QT16 if necessary.

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No. Their complaint all along was they wanted the  to spend money to add more local bus service. I don't think you're following. In other words, on the local bus end, the  seemed to be trying to make cost neutral moves. That's not what the advocacy groups wanted nor Bronxites. From the beginning they wanted the  to commit to even more local bus service but allocating more funding without trade-offs.

I called all of my elected officials and made a stink on the express bus end, including Borough President Díaz.  I called his office several times and made it clear that the express bus plan was not ok and I urged follow express bus commuters to do the same and they flooded their elected officials with complaints, so no, the plan on either side (local or express) originally was not acceptable. For example, on the BxM9, the major complaint from Throggs Neck riders was they did not want to lose their stop.  in Riverdale, we did not want to lose access to Mount Sinai or the Museum Mile on the BxM2, in addition to BxM18 changes and the lost transfer for other BxM riders. BxM4 riders south of Woodlawn were some of the most vocal, hence the revision of a express bus along Grand Concourse.

Right, but they didn't get any additional funding put into the local bus plan. The final plan still ended up being cost-neutral.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, checkmatechamp13 said:

Right, but they didn't get any additional funding put into the local bus plan. The final plan still ended up being cost-neutral.

True, but the  did go back and keep some routes either the same or change them according to what communities wanted. The Bx24 in Country Club is an example.