MTA's Presentation Calls for Massive Cuts to Bus Service

[JAzumah]

1 minute ago, 67thAve said:

Watch as the MTA cuts the remaining printed schedules available for commuter trains and buses as well to save money.

The only way to figure out how long you'll be waiting for a bus will consist of counting the number of individuals waiting alongside you.

I can see that easily happening.

[MHV9218]

1 hour ago, 67thAve said:

They've been fiscally irresponsible for years on end, and have proved that they cannot competently manage the operation of routes, especially those which really should be successful (such as the B41).

I think the path forward for MTA bus operations should be either TfL-style tendering of bus depots to private operators (albeit with integrated fares), or complete privatization, Buenos Aires-style.

Sorry, but that's a bad solution to a misdiagnosed problem. The MTA's shoddy planning with bus routes is frustrating, but amount to losses in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars at worst. No transit system, even running an unthinkable surplus, could ever have dealt with the 90% loss of farebox revenue the pandemic induced. You're comparing apples and oranges. 

Privatization has a dreadful track record. Locally, consider what happened then Veolia took over LI Bus/NICE. Safety levels plummeted, accidents skyrocketed, breakdowns went through the roof, and service is still dreadful. NICE actually had to lower the threshold for what's considered an accident in order to make their system look safe. It's a mess. Then, look around the world. The British privatization model has been a failure that has taken decades to undo, and TfL is actually an example of essentially un-privatizing after the mess of the Thatcher years. There are extremely few examples of successful privatization, and when there are, it's in name-only (a government-subsidized operation run by a private contractor). 

 

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's right because before Trump, "someone else" was in office and their fiscal situation was oh so good. Please. They've been a train wreck for years.

You're trying to act like when Trump came in, that's when ALL of their problems started. What a joke. Full of it. LOL

Again, it doesn't matter who is office. It's up to Congress to agree on a package, so even with Biden in office, if Congress can't get a deal, they'll be in deep ****.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that NYC 'couldn't manage its finance' despite developing the largest pocket of saved money in decades thanks to a surplus. You ignored Trump's unbelievable recklessness with the deficit. You ignored his $5.5 trillion tax cut, the likes of which Obama (the 'someone else') would never have even dreamed of passing. You continue the conflate specific crisis of the pandemic (a multi-billion deficit) with the operating expenses of the MTA in past years. Please. You are embarrassing yourself. Read up on some, truly any of these issues and spare us these remarks.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

13 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

You have no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that NYC 'couldn't manage its finance' despite developing the largest pocket of saved money in decades thanks to a surplus. You ignored Trump's unbelievable recklessness with the deficit. You ignored his $5.5 trillion tax cut, the likes of which Obama (the 'someone else') would never have even dreamed of passing. You continue the conflate specific crisis of the pandemic (a multi-billion deficit) with the operating expenses of the MTA in past years. Please. You are embarrassing yourself. Read up on some, truly any of these issues and spare us these remarks.

The facts are, prior to this pandemic, the economy was doing fantastic. Record low unemployment. I didn't ignore the tax cuts. Yes, he gave tax cuts to businesses, and they in turn hired more people because they had more money to work with, so it was an investment. He cut regulation and cut taxes, two things that burden businesses. The company I work for had record profits last year, so I saw firsthand how his policies worked.

I'm not conflating anything. The  's fiscal situation has been a disaster for YEARS, and was PRIOR to this pandemic. You are an  apologist, so none of your comments surprises me. An agency that doesn't even have an operational chart should not just be given billions upon billions of dollars without taxpayers expecting to see some accountability in return. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MHV9218]

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The facts are, prior to this pandemic, the economy was doing fantastic. Record low unemployment. I didn't ignore the tax cuts. Yes, he gave tax cuts to businesses, and they in turn hired more people because they had more money to work with, so it was an investment. He cut regulation and cut taxes, two things that burden businesses. The company I work for had record profits last year, so I saw firsthand how his policies worked.

I'm not conflating anything. The  's fiscal situation has been a disaster for YEARS, and was PRIOR to this pandemic. You are an  apologist, so none of your comments surprises me. An agency that doesn't even have an operational chart should not just be given billions upon billions of dollars without taxpayers expecting to see some accountability in return. 

Your company anecdote is meaningless. You pretended to care about the deficit. If you cared about the deficit when anybody besides a Democrat was president, you would know that the $5.5 trillion cost to the country more than offset the short-term corporate profits it produced. And by the way, those corporate profits tend to go back to shareholders alone.

Even this comment demonstrates your confusion. The MTA had economic issues of the sort that a fare increase could solve; there were comparatively minor gaps in the budget that could be funded by the state, if it ever chose to stop ripping money from the MTA. This pandemic marks an unavoidable fiscal catastrophe. I don't know how to put that more clearly for you. No company, public or private, keeps enough reserves on hand to survive a 90% decrease in its main revenue source. This is not complex accounting; it's pretty basic. You either know this, and pretend not to, or you don't know this, in which case I don't know where to start.

The 'operational chart' remark was debunked early on and is yet another untruth you repeat. I am not an MTA apologist, I'm just somebody who reads before I make shit up whole cloth.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Considering that he basically ended all Stimulus talks for a period of time when many transit agencies are suffering pretty hard right now....and then Mitch McConnell shutting down parts of the Stimulus that actually benefits us transit riders in favor of the airline industry....yeah, they get the blame.

If they actually cared about the economy, the MTA would've gotten their extra boost in funding without all of this extra bickering and pettiness, seeing as the MTA is one giant economic generator in its own right.

We know you're on team trump, but lets be realistic here....they've screwed it up for us and the millions of people who rely on transit nationwide.

1.9 trillion was a reasonable number that Pelosi et al should've taken and ran with. Too greedy... At the end of the day, it's up to Congress, not the President, Republican or Democrat.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Your company anecdote is meaningless. You pretended to care about the deficit. If you cared about the deficit when anybody besides a Democrat was president, you would know that the $5.5 trillion cost to the country more than offset the short-term corporate profits it produced. And by the way, those corporate profits tend to go back to shareholders alone.

Even this comment demonstrates your confusion. The MTA had economic issues of the sort that a fare increase could solve; there were comparatively minor gaps in the budget that could be funded by the state, if it ever chose to stop ripping money from the MTA. This pandemic marks an unavoidable fiscal catastrophe. I don't know how to put that more clearly for you. No company, public or private, keeps enough reserves on hand to survive a 90% decrease in its main revenue source. This is not complex accounting; it's pretty basic. You either know this, and pretend not to, or you don't know this, in which case I don't know where to start.

The 'operational chart' remark was debunked early on and is yet another untruth you repeat. I am not an MTA apologist, I'm just somebody who reads before I make shit up whole cloth.

Give me a break. The  is now required by law to raise fares every two years, and that still would not have been enough for them pre COVID with the amount of debt they have accrued. Oh the poor  . They are totally not responsible for any of the mess they find themselves in, and it's all the State's fault right because there's absolutely no mismanagement going on there. Let's call a spade a spade. Yes, the State has taken money earmarked for the  and used it elsewhere in the past, but it's not like the  is exactly the most fiscal responsible agency around, and if you really think so, you need your head checked.

[MHV9218]

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1.9 trillion was a reasonable number that Pelosi et al should've taken and ran with. Too greedy... At the end of the day, it's up Congress, not the President, Republican or Democrat.

C'mon, man, read a newspaper for once. REPUBLICANS opposed the $1.9 trillion, Pelosi opposed the $500 billion because it would have done nothing. And you keep repeating that it's Congress alone: Trump literally tweeted out "I am canceling talks" and that it was for the that round of talks.

It would be one thing if we were having a debate of opinions or fiscal strategy. But you're not doing your homework or staying informed. So I don't really see what the point of this discussion is.

Edited November 19, 2020 by MHV9218

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

C'mon, man, read a newspaper for once. REPUBLICANS opposed the $1.9 trillion, Pelosi opposed the $500 billion because it would have done nothing. And you keep repeating that it's Congress alone: Trump literally tweeted out "I am canceling talks" and that it was for the that round of talks.

It would be one thing if we were having a debate of opinions or fiscal strategy. But you're not doing your homework or staying informed. So I don't really see what the point of this discussion is.

Yeah originally they did oppose the $1.9 trillion, but at one point, Pelosi was at $2.2 trillion and the Republicans were at $1.9 trillion. I get live updates on this stuff via CNBC, so I know what I'm talking about. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MHV9218]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah originally they did oppose the $1.9 trillion, but at one point, Pelosi was at $2.2 trillion and the Republicans were at $1.9 trillion. I get live updates on this stuff via CNBC, so I know what I'm talking about. 

The White House quietly removed the funding for testing, tracing, and combatting the virus, as well as a ton of state and local aid that's exactly the stuff we're talking about in the context of the MTA. You can read up on what exactly was in the bill. Of course she wasn't going to endorse that. And no, not really – "the Republicans," which means the votes McConnell had, were still at $500bil, and the White House was talking about something separate that probably didn't have the votes from Congress. Live updates are great...reading the details and considering the larger context would help: Democrats have been pushing for a stimulus for months upon months upon months. Republicans haven't wanted to do it. It's simply the sad reality of it. As McConnell himself proposed, they preferred for states to declare bankruptcy. 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

The White House quietly removed the funding for testing, tracing, and combatting the virus, as well as a ton of state and local aid that's exactly the stuff we're talking about in the context of the MTA. You can read up on what exactly was in the bill. Of course she wasn't going to endorse that. And no, not really – "the Republicans," which means the votes McConnell had, were still at $500bil, and the White House was talking about something separate that probably didn't have the votes from Congress. Live updates are great...reading the details and considering the larger context would help: Democrats have been pushing for a stimulus for months upon months upon months. Republicans haven't wanted to do it. It's simply the sad reality of it. As McConnell himself proposed, they preferred for states to declare bankruptcy. 

 

Yeah because we had one stimulus package and now the question is how much will the next one cost. The package needs to be focused on the pandemic without other BS thrown in, which is what Pelosi was accused of trying to do. $1.9 trillion is no small number, and they were nowhere close to what Pelosi wanted. If you really think it will better just because Biden comes in you're mistaken. We'll see lots of gridlock to get anything passed in Congress, so Pelosi needs to get real and come down to earth with a reasonable figure that both sides can agree on.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MHV9218]

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah because we had one stimulus package and now the question is how much will the next one cost. The package needs to be focused on the pandemic without other BS thrown in, which is what Pelosi was accused of trying to do. $1.9 trillion is no small number, and they were nowhere close to what Pelosi wanted. If you really think it will better just because Biden comes in you're mistaken. We'll see lots of gridlock to get anything passed in Congress, so Pelosi needs to get real and come down to earth with a reasonable figure that both sides can agree on.

Her figure is completely reasonable. She has already come down hundreds of billions. No economist on earth thinks this is the time for austerity. You're right that we'll see gridlock, and there's one party that's the clear reason for it. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, MHV9218 said:

Her figure is completely reasonable. She has already come down hundreds of billions. No economist on earth thinks this is the time for austerity. You're right that we'll see gridlock, and there's one party that's the clear reason for it. 

Of course no economist thinks it is time for austerity when they are trying to price in stimulus. Give me a break. lol

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's a bit of a stretch unless you disagree with the military's size and what they do. We get plenty of investment back from them.

Alright, so in the past 20 years, what did sinking literal trillions into the military do for us commoners that was so crucial?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, Lex said:

Alright, so in the past 20 years, what did sinking literal trillions into the military do for us commoners that was so crucial?

I remember when Bush was in office and I was in college. I was totally against the Iraq War. Even went out and protested on my campus. I was an Independent for years and voted for Third Party candidates, Democrats and Republicans. This was before I moved to Europe. Live abroad as an American and I think you'll grown to appreciate our military. I don't agree with with every decision to use military force, but I don't think we'd be where we are today without our great military.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MHV9218]

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

This was before I moved to Europe. Live abroad as an American and I think you'll grown to appreciate our military.

Right, because Italy is consistently invaded by *checks notes* France and Switzerland. As goes Norway into Sweden. And England into France. 

Besides demonstrating your worldliness, what is this supposed mean?

[NewFlyer 230]

25 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Her figure is completely reasonable. She has already come down hundreds of billions. No economist on earth thinks this is the time for austerity. You're right that we'll see gridlock, and there's one party that's the clear reason for it. 

Personally I would have taken the 1.9 trillion and fought for another stimulus later on. I understand it may be harder down the line to get a bigger stimulus but my thing is some stimulus would be better than no stimulus. Of course 2.2 trillion is more ideal, but I feel during times like this you need to get what you can get. I know that’s a wacky mentality to have but 1.9 is still not a little bit of money. I’m not going to say Pelosi was being greedy, but the fact is we still don’t have anything despite being promised about another stimulus since I believe June or July and it’s almost December. People are suffering out there and it will get worst if they don’t release something. It just goes to show that our politics are very dysfunctional, because instead of the two sides fighting they should be working together to get America back on track.

 

 

[GojiMet86]

10 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Right, because Italy is consistently invaded by *checks notes* France and Switzerland. As goes Norway into Sweden. And England into France. 

Besides demonstrating your worldliness, what is this supposed mean?

I still remember that he admires Mussolini's Fascist Italy.

2 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Personally I would have taken the 1.9 trillion and fought for another stimulus later on. I understand it may be harder down the line to get a bigger stimulus but my thing is some stimulus would be better than no stimulus. Of course 2.2 trillion is more ideal, but I feel during times like this you need to get what you can get. I know that’s a wacky mentality to have but 1.9 is still not a little bit of money. I’m not going to say Pelosi was being greedy, but the fact is we still don’t have anything despite being promised about another stimulus since I believe June or July and it’s almost December. People are suffering out there and it will get worst if they don’t release something. It just goes to show that our politics are very dysfunctional, because instead of the two sides fighting they should be working together to get America back on track.

But they won't. The right and conservatives won't acknowledge that COVID is even a real danger.

[B35 via Church]

So much for the massive cuts to bus service....

[MHV9218]

37 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Personally I would have taken the 1.9 trillion and fought for another stimulus later on. I understand it may be harder down the line to get a bigger stimulus but my thing is some stimulus would be better than no stimulus. Of course 2.2 trillion is more ideal, but I feel during times like this you need to get what you can get. I know that’s a wacky mentality to have but 1.9 is still not a little bit of money. I’m not going to say Pelosi was being greedy, but the fact is we still don’t have anything despite being promised about another stimulus since I believe June or July and it’s almost December. People are suffering out there and it will get worst if they don’t release something. It just goes to show that our politics are very dysfunctional, because instead of the two sides fighting they should be working together to get America back on track.

Republicans in Congress would never have voted for it. There was nothing for Pelosi to "take." The Senate wasn't there – that means nothing would have happened. Republicans wanted $500 billion, a fraction of what the country needs.

[Lex]

35 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I remember when Bush was in office and I was in college. I was totally against the Iraq War. Even went out and protested on my campus. I was an Independent for years and voted for Third Party candidates, Democrats and Republicans. This was before I moved to Europe. Live abroad as an American and I think you'll grown to appreciate our military. I don't agree with with every decision to use military force, but I don't think we'd be where we are today without our great military.

That is an incredibly vague statement, and since it points to neither quantity nor quality, I can only believe that there's nothing backing this statement.

The bulk of the money we've spent on the military could've gone to things like a better health system, better education, renewables, and better infrastructure (of which public transportation is a significant component).

[checkmatechamp13]

6 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Marine Park will put up a good fight. B2 won’t get canned. Reduced. I suppose. 

Remember in 2010, they eliminated weekend service. Especially with retail (i.e. Kings Plaza) not doing so well in general, I could definitely see them eliminating the B2, or combining it with the B100 somehow (even before any budget cuts, I'm pretty sure they were looking at that as part of the Brooklyn bus redesign)

I wish they would come out and say what they plan to cut. If the public hearings are in December, and they've been analyzing ridership since Labor Day, then obviously they have a pretty good idea of what they plan to cut. It would also be nice if they would say what they plan to cut at different funding levels (e.g. If we get 50% of the requested aid, we'll cut routes A, B, and C, if we get 25%, we cut routes A, B, C, and D, if we get 75% we only cut routes A and B, etc)

5 hours ago, paulrivera said:

I hope they don't go 40% blanket across the board (they probably will) and look at individual routes. Some bus routes in the outer boroughs are actually performing well after the pandemic.

The midtown routes can probably absorb a 40% cut but I don't think Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens routes will be able to. I also hope that express bus routes don't get eliminated (hourly service across the board wouldn't be horrible, but people still need the expresses) as those routes have been viable alternatives for me to get to the city.

Well, Staten Island is definitely keeping its express buses no matter what. I think what would be reasonable would be to look at the Day After Thanksgiving schedule, and adjust from there (and that applies citywide). For nurses and construction workers that start early, you probably need some more early morning service (e.g. 5am - 6am) and early afternoon (2pm - 3:30pm) service, but other than that, I think something similar to the Day After Thanksgiving schedule would be sufficient. Weekends would be the big question, since a lot of routes (outside of the SIM routes and some of the busier BxM routes) are hourly, so at that point, you're either running them or you're not.

 

[Cait Sith]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

Republicans in Congress would never have voted for it. There was nothing for Pelosi to "take." The Senate wasn't there – that means nothing would have happened. Republicans wanted $500 billion, a fraction of what the country needs.

Considering that they've blatantly shot down various transit proposals to steamroll their support of funding the airline industry(most notably, Southwest & United), it's not hard to figure out where their actual allegiance is, especially since some of these republicans are in the pockets of the suits of some of these airlines.

Let's not forget, they sent Small Business money to some of the companies that supported them....like Shit(Shake) Shack.

Transit and rail infrastructure in our nation is crumbling to such an extreme. BART is considering closing stations and closing their system earlier, SF MUNI is considering eliminating all but 24 of their bus routes and they've already done some heavy changes to their subway routes, Caltrain may completely shut down. MBTA is currently looking to eliminate weekend commuter rail service and cutting a significant amount of bus lines, along with cutting subway service significantly. WMATA is looking to cut service signficantly and laying off a lot of their workforce.

We already have HUNDREDS of bus companies(both charter and line companies) shutting down or have shut down because of the lack of funding and loss of so much work, it's only going to continue.

But of course, republicans don't see that. They only care about the suits that benefit them.

[happy283]

The issue here is that the MTA board is completely irresponsible. These are rich idiots who probably have never rode a subway or bus but they get to choose the fate for people who rely on transit. There has been grotesque incompetance at the MTA for years now. They are one of the only transit agencies to regularly raise the fares with nothing to show for it. Now Pat I dont care Foye wants to cripple the service and make you pay more the remants of it. NJT is not cutting service or raising fares and they have a similar budget issue. Its possible to avert this but the state isnt doing a damn thing to help while Pat Foye claims theres no other option. Quite shameful if you ask me.

[Cait Sith]

2 hours ago, happy283 said:

The issue here is that the MTA board is completely irresponsible. These are rich idiots who probably have never rode a subway or bus but they get to choose the fate for people who rely on transit. There has been grotesque incompetance at the MTA for years now. They are one of the only transit agencies to regularly raise the fares with nothing to show for it. Now Pat I dont care Foye wants to cripple the service and make you pay more the remants of it. NJT is not cutting service or raising fares and they have a similar budget issue. Its possible to avert this but the state isnt doing a damn thing to help while Pat Foye claims theres no other option. Quite shameful if you ask me.

Actually, they are.....they started cutting rail service and bus service in some areas(most notably, the route 9 expresses), more cuts are coming.

WMATA, MBTA, SF Muni, BART, King County Metro, CTA, Sound Transit, SEPTA, CT Transit, Houston METRO, LACMTA, MTA Maryland and many more are planning steep cuts and eliminations....MTA is not the only one that's doing it with a budget deficit. All of these agencies and many more are operating with an 80-90% revenue loss.

Yes, the MTA is incompetent when it comes to managing their budget, but when it comes down to this current situation in time when they've lost money due to massive ridership loss and continuous fare beating, you're just beating a dead horse with that point.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Cait Sith

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Right, because Italy is consistently invaded by *checks notes* France and Switzerland. As goes Norway into Sweden. And England into France. 

Besides demonstrating your worldliness, what is this supposed mean?

At that time, it was not ok to go strolling around traveling as an American, and we were warned to avoid certain places, as there was a lot of opposition to the Iraq War and hostility towards Americans living abroad. Our military affords us certain luxuries that we take for granted. That's the point. @Lex I forgot that you may not have been around at that time, so now I've added context.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8