The Redesigns Are Back On

[Lawrence St]

28 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Prior to the passenger counters (sensors by the doors) on the buses, they used Metrocard data and counters to gauge ridership numbers. While the Metrocard data isn't readily available to riders, the  uses it. Riders technically can request that information on their Metrocard trips if they want to, just like you can track your trips on OMNY now, as long as you link the cards you tap with to your OMNY account.

That said, farebeating is worse on some SBS lines than others, and can obviously skew the numbers, but that's a separate matter entirely.

That right there is why every plan they've made so far is flawed. They're using data that isn't reliable.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

That right there is why every plan they've made so far is flawed. They're using data that isn't reliable.

Actually the Metrocard data is reliable. What it shows is the history of trips that people take, so that is pretty straightforward. However, before we had the sensors on the buses, they couldn't really tell where people boarded or got off at, which is why they depended on counters for that info. Now with the sensors on the buses, they get real-time data on where people board, exit and all of that. 

The only thing that is questionable is their fare beating data. They have to depend on the operator hitting that button when someone doesn't pay or the operator actually seeing people get on that aren't paying. On SBS lines the operator obviously is not checking, so unless the Eagle Team comes around, I don't know how they monitor that.

 

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Thats what I was told. I asked at one of the public meetings why the Q53 was getting eliminated and they simply stated the Q52 has more ridership based on the "data" tbey have.

If the issue was really congestion, they would have kept the Rockaways portion of the Q53.

Those planners at those meetings, some of them are clueless. I'm sorry but it's true. I was at a few the Bronx. The planner at one of them kept saying that all of the lines had "low" ridership, and served "low" density areas. I'm sorry, but a neighborhood with over 40,000 residents is not "low" density. They will make up any excuse to justify the changes they want to implement unless people call them out for their nonsense. 

[paulrivera]

57 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Actually the Metrocard data is reliable.

It is, but it also isn't. The freeloaders aren't counted in the Metrocard data, and if they don't count the data from the passenger counter sensors (going back to the point you were making) some routes are gonna get hosed.

The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island come to mind for me as far as farebeaters. The Bronx and SI doesn't get screwed around with as much because Co-op City and Riverdale are politically well connected, and SI as a whole are very vocal. Brooklyn.... not so much.

The props up Manhattan service pretty well so I'm not as concerned about them (in Midtown at least), and Queens I'm not sure.

Edited August 18, 2021 by paulrivera

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, paulrivera said:

It is, but it also isn't. The freeloaders aren't counted in the Metrocard data, and if they don't count the data from the passenger counter sensors (going back to the point you were making) some routes are gonna get hosed.

The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island come to mind for me as far as farebeaters. The Bronx and SI doesn't get screwed around with as much because Co-op City and Riverdale are politically well connected, and SI as a whole are very vocal. Brooklyn.... not so much.

The props up Manhattan service pretty well so I'm not as concerned about them (in Midtown at least), and Queens I'm not sure.

Well yeah, but I noted that earlier about the fare beating. The  's numbers are skewed regarding fare beating for a number of reasons I mentioned earlier, but if we're just talking about the raw Metrocard data (excluding fare beating), then it's accurate. Besides, I'd be shocked if they were providing service based on more than just people who pay.

One other thing... Politically connected neighborhoods like mine in Riverdale and Co-op City are powerful because the residents are vocal. People speak up and organize. The only way to do it.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MysteriousBtrain]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The only reason why they messed with the Q53 is because of the high fare beating that goes on in that route. 

Stop. That is not even close to the reason they messed up the Q53. 

High fare beating is evident in plenty of routes in the Bronx and Brooklyn. And no routes are being discontinued under the Bronx redesign plan. Use common sense before you randomly make up your own conclusions.

[MysteriousBtrain]

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Thats what I was told. I asked at one of the public meetings why the Q53 was getting eliminated and they simply stated the Q52 has more ridership based on the "data" tbey have.

This is very different from "they messed with the Q53 because of the high fare beating". Which one is it? 

If the claim of "Q52 has more ridership" is true then the MTA needs to do better research bc the Q53 appears more often than the Q52 and the Q53 has plenty of crowds on their buses.

[paulrivera]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Politically connected neighborhoods like mine in Riverdale and Co-op City are powerful because the residents are vocal. People speak up and organize. The only way to do it.

Yup. Squeaky wheel gets the grease...

[Lawrence St]

13 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Stop. That is not even close to the reason they messed up the Q53. 

High fare beating is evident in plenty of routes in the Bronx and Brooklyn. And no routes are being discontinued under the Bronx redesign plan. Use common sense before you randomly make up your own conclusions.

First of all, don't talk to me like im 3.

Second of all, I'm not making up any conclusions. Unless you were at the meeting when I asked, your opinion isn't warranted or needed. These are the answers I got from the planners themselves, you got an issue with their common sense, you tell them.

[Lawrence St]

10 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

This is very different from "they messed with the Q53 because of the high fare beating". Which one is it? 

If the claim of "Q52 has more ridership" is true then the MTA needs to do better research bc the Q53 appears more often than the Q52 and the Q53 has plenty of crowds on their buses.

You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about.

Fare beating = non-accurate ridership data. Had you actually read my paragraph, before the passenger counters were installed, they were going off the fare data.

Which is why, even in the subway videos they make, they tell us to pay our fare or else they won't see that we are using that specific train line/bus route.

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, paulrivera said:

It is, but it also isn't. The freeloaders aren't counted in the Metrocard data, and if they don't count the data from the passenger counter sensors (going back to the point you were making) some routes are gonna get hosed.

The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island come to mind for me as far as farebeaters. The Bronx and SI doesn't get screwed around with as much because Co-op City and Riverdale are politically well connected, and SI as a whole are very vocal. Brooklyn.... not so much.

The props up Manhattan service pretty well so I'm not as concerned about them (in Midtown at least), and Queens I'm not sure.

Exactly my point.

[MysteriousBtrain]

12 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

First of all, don't talk to me like im 3.

Second of all, I'm not making up any conclusions. Unless you were at the meeting when I asked, your opinion isn't warranted or needed. These are the answers I got from the planners themselves, you got an issue with their common sense, you tell them.

Here's my issue though. You can't say that the ONLY REASON the Q53 is being messed with bc of "Fare evasion" then come out with another post saying oh I was told the Q52 has more ridership than the Q53. That does not add up to me. 

If you tell me the Q52 has more data recorded then based on your logic plenty of people fare beat on the Q52 too, which also screws up data for the Q52. People aren't stupid. If you don't have ticket inspectors on the route often then you will have a handful of people getting on without a ticket or asking other people to give their ticket away. Fare beating may not be as evident as it is in Brooklyn and the Bronx but if there's fare beating on the Q53 then there's definitely fare beating on the Q52. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by MysteriousBtrain

[dkupf]

I was at the Bronx public hearing in February 2020.

I heard people come to the podium to talk about what was wrong with the current local service route structure in central Bronx.  They then defended the status quo.

This was speech in the absence of thought.  I wanted to vomit.

Yes.  There would be losers in central Bronx.  But more would benefit from the changes.

All that has to be done is to give three-legged transfers to all Bx18 and M125 riders.

[dkupf]

I agree with BrooklynBus.  There is a big difference between the number of times that a bus stops along a route and the number of bus stops along a route.  Bus Stop Spacing is a mindless implementation of standard practices by the MTA and NYCDOT without the consideration of the effects of their actions.  They cannot be trusted.

NO FORMULAS.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

10 hours ago, dkupf said:

All that has to be done is to give three-legged transfers to all Bx18 and M125 riders.

I would go one step further and replace all transfer privileges with a time-based pass. Swipe/dip/tap once and get your run of the "base" system (subway, local bus, S.I. Railway) for a fixed amount of time which can even vary by time of day (e.g. 3 hours most of the day, 5 hours overnight and during subway outages).

[NBTA]

3 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

I would go one step further and replace all transfer privileges with a time-based pass. Swipe/dip/tap once and get your run of the "base" system (subway, local bus, S.I. Railway) for a fixed amount of time which can even vary by time of day (e.g. 3 hours most of the day, 5 hours overnight and during subway outages).

While I do agree with this idea..

The  would be losing money using this concept, as people would be able to freely transfer through lines, back to back (and with knowing people like me, I’d abuse the system, seeing how many lines I could transfer to in between my destination). 

[BrooklynBus]

I was on Channel 11 with Greg Mocker last night discussing the redesigns.

https://pix11.com/news/local-news/mta-begins-next-stage-of-redesigning-nycs-bus-network/

Please sign the petition if you haven’t done so already. Thanks.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops/dashboard

[bobtehpanda]

39 minutes ago, NBTA said:

While I do agree with this idea..

The  would be losing money using this concept, as people would be able to freely transfer through lines, back to back (and with knowing people like me, I’d abuse the system, seeing how many lines I could transfer to in between my destination). 

you're not most people though. this would impact relatively few riders.

4 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

I would go one step further and replace all transfer privileges with a time-based pass. Swipe/dip/tap once and get your run of the "base" system (subway, local bus, S.I. Railway) for a fixed amount of time which can even vary by time of day (e.g. 3 hours most of the day, 5 hours overnight and during subway outages).

the problem with this strategy (which I believe is more common in the Western states) is that usually the price of the pass gets hiked to something that can make a one-way trip pretty unaffordable.

I like the London system where spending on fares is capped, so there is basically an automatic cutoff at which your fare becomes an unlimited pass. OMNY is based on London Oyster, so there's no reason that can't be implemented here.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, NBTA said:

While I do agree with this idea..

The  would be losing money using this concept, as people would be able to freely transfer through lines, back to back (and with knowing people like me, I’d abuse the system, seeing how many lines I could transfer to in between my destination). 

I don’t believe the MTA would lose money on this concept. Around 85 percent of the riders have their trips separated by about five hours, so we are talking about a small percentage of riders. The money lost would be recouped by additional passengers traveling. People running one errand for short distances have little incentive to use a bus because of the money spent on the fare which continues to rise. If they could bundle their errands using say three buses and returning to where they started making their last transfer within two hours of boarding the first bus, paying a single fare, many more would use the system. Since they are not on any one bus for a long period of time, extra service would not need to be provided. 

Seniors will remember when you could transfer to one bus route for the same fare, but a neighboring route would cost an extra fare resulting in unnecessarily longer trips than required. Those transfers started in the 1920s and were maintained for over 50 years (with the exception of MaBSTOA abolishing all transfers in 1962) through the BMT, BOT, NYCT, and the MTA before transfers were allowed between all routes. The reason for not changing such an outdated system was the same given for not switching to a time based system, that too much revenue would be lost. Then it was used again, for not allowing free bus subway transfers. Yet, the system survived. 

It is untenable keep raising the fare every two years without rethinking how fares are charged. Also, route changes, now incur additional fares since the MTA abandoned the policy that no one should pay an additional fare due to a route change. These people are impacted twice as hard with every fare increase and severely discourages use of mass transit. It also causes riders to take unnecessarily long bus trips to avoid a quicker bus-subway-bus trip, in order to save a fare.

[NBTA]

2 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I don’t believe the MTA would lose money on this concept. Around 85 percent of the riders have their trips separated by about five hours, so we are talking about a small percentage of riders. The money lost would be recouped by additional passengers traveling. People running one errand for short distances have little incentive to use a bus because of the money spent on the fare which continues to rise. If they could bundle their errands using say three buses and returning to where they started making their last transfer within two hours of boarding the first bus, paying a single fare, many more would use the system. Since they are not on any one bus for a long period of time, extra service would not need to be provided. 

Seniors will remember when you could transfer to one bus route for the same fare, but a neighboring route would cost an extra fare resulting in unnecessarily longer trips than required. Those transfers started in the 1920s and were maintained for over 50 years (with the exception of MaBSTOA abolishing all transfers in 1962) through the BMT, BOT, NYCT, and the MTA before transfers were allowed between all routes. The reason for not changing such an outdated system was the same given for not switching to a time based system, that too much revenue would be lost. Then it was used again, for not allowing free bus subway transfers. Yet, the system survived. 

It is untenable keep raising the fare every two years without rethinking how fares are charged. Also, route changes, now incur additional fares since the MTA abandoned the policy that no one should pay an additional fare due to a route change. These people are impacted twice as hard with every fare increase and severely discourages use of mass transit. It also causes riders to take unnecessarily long bus trips to avoid a quicker bus-subway-bus trip, in order to save a fare.

That stat is probably the only thing I needed to understand more, thank you!

[bobtehpanda]

9 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Seniors will remember when you could transfer to one bus route for the same fare, but a neighboring route would cost an extra fare resulting in unnecessarily longer trips than required. Those transfers started in the 1920s and were maintained for over 50 years (with the exception of MaBSTOA abolishing all transfers in 1962) through the BMT, BOT, NYCT, and the MTA before transfers were allowed between all routes. The reason for not changing such an outdated system was the same given for not switching to a time based system, that too much revenue would be lost. Then it was used again, for not allowing free bus subway transfers. Yet, the system survived.

The system limped on; I wouldn't necessarily say it survived. Since the introduction of the bus-subway transfer and unlimited the average fare paid per ride (total revenues / unlinked trip) has dropped like a rock.

While good for riders (in the short term), ultimately revenue dropped and no one talked about replacing that with anything other than debt.

Edited August 24, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[Trainmaster5]

4 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I don’t believe the MTA would lose money on this concept. Around 85 percent of the riders have their trips separated by about five hours, so we are talking about a small percentage of riders. The money lost would be recouped by additional passengers traveling. People running one errand for short distances have little incentive to use a bus because of the money spent on the fare which continues to rise. If they could bundle their errands using say three buses and returning to where they started making their last transfer within two hours of boarding the first bus, paying a single fare, many more would use the system. Since they are not on any one bus for a long period of time, extra service would not need to be provided. 

Seniors will remember when you could transfer to one bus route for the same fare, but a neighboring route would cost an extra fare resulting in unnecessarily longer trips than required. Those transfers started in the 1920s and were maintained for over 50 years (with the exception of MaBSTOA abolishing all transfers in 1962) through the BMT, BOT, NYCT, and the MTA before transfers were allowed between all routes. The reason for not changing such an outdated system was the same given for not switching to a time based system, that too much revenue would be lost. Then it was used again, for not allowing free bus subway transfers. Yet, the system survived. 

It is untenable keep raising the fare every two years without rethinking how fares are charged. Also, route changes, now incur additional fares since the MTA abandoned the policy that no one should pay an additional fare due to a route change. These people are impacted twice as hard with every fare increase and severely discourages use of mass transit. It also causes riders to take unnecessarily long bus trips to avoid a quicker bus-subway-bus trip, in order to save a fare.

Seniors ??? 😃 You have a point there. I'm sometimes hesitant to join a conversation or reply in a thread because it seems that some bus and subway posters fail to see that cost and the overall budget are the driving force behind the  and it's decisions. You really have to be an insider, or close to one , to understand the mindset of those running the agency. My take. Carry on.

[JAzumah]

6 hours ago, NBTA said:

While I do agree with this idea..

The  would be losing money using this concept, as people would be able to freely transfer through lines, back to back (and with knowing people like me, I’d abuse the system, seeing how many lines I could transfer to in between my destination). 

No, they would not lose any money.

People would take the fastest way from point A to point B without having to buy an unlimited MetroCard. It would be the same money, just spent differently.

[Mtatransit]

6 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I don’t believe the MTA would lose money on this concept. Around 85 percent of the riders have their trips separated by about five hours, so we are talking about a small percentage of riders. The money lost would be recouped by additional passengers traveling. People running one errand for short distances have little incentive to use a bus because of the money spent on the fare which continues to rise. If they could bundle their errands using say three buses and returning to where they started making their last transfer within two hours of boarding the first bus, paying a single fare, many more would use the system. Since they are not on any one bus for a long period of time, extra service would not need to be provided. 

Seniors will remember when you could transfer to one bus route for the same fare, but a neighboring route would cost an extra fare resulting in unnecessarily longer trips than required. Those transfers started in the 1920s and were maintained for over 50 years (with the exception of MaBSTOA abolishing all transfers in 1962) through the BMT, BOT, NYCT, and the MTA before transfers were allowed between all routes. The reason for not changing such an outdated system was the same given for not switching to a time based system, that too much revenue would be lost. Then it was used again, for not allowing free bus subway transfers. Yet, the system survived. 

It is untenable keep raising the fare every two years without rethinking how fares are charged. Also, route changes, now incur additional fares since the MTA abandoned the policy that no one should pay an additional fare due to a route change. These people are impacted twice as hard with every fare increase and severely discourages use of mass transit. It also causes riders to take unnecessarily long bus trips to avoid a quicker bus-subway-bus trip, in order to save a fare.

I 100% agree with you here. From a riders perspective its extremely convenient, however  is probably thinking about (and calculating) how much money it would actively "miss out on". Its the same reason why SEPTA took so long to remove the $1 transfer fee. Many people in Philadelphia avoided transferring to the subway and stayed on the bus all the way downtown just to avoid this fee. 

Plus with the Queens Bus redesign, they pretty much have to give out either a tons of three transfer privilege, or give out time based transfer like many other agency across the country with the route proposal they currently have.

12 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

I would go one step further and replace all transfer privileges with a time-based pass. Swipe/dip/tap once and get your run of the "base" system (subway, local bus, S.I. Railway) for a fixed amount of time which can even vary by time of day (e.g. 3 hours most of the day, 5 hours overnight and during subway outages).

Some transit system like San Francisco have a policy where you tap on once after 8PM and the entire night is free. 

That being said, all door boarding similar to SF should be a model in how NYC buses should be as well

[B35 via Church]

On 8/18/2021 at 5:22 PM, Lawrence St said:

...I'm not making up any conclusions. Unless you were at the meeting when I asked, your opinion isn't warranted or needed. These are the answers I got from the planners themselves, you got an issue with their common sense, you tell them.

Oh, I believe you were told something to the effect you're conveying (whether what they told you is actually true or not (as to why they opted to nix the thing), is another story altogether)... At the same time, that was a conjuring up of a conclusion to what you were told....

See, if you say:

On 8/18/2021 at 12:43 PM, Lawrence St said:

...they simply stated the Q52 has more ridership based on the "data" tbey have.

Then the below comment, at minimum, is a conclusion....

On 8/18/2021 at 11:24 AM, Lawrence St said:

The only reason why they messed with the Q53 is because of the high fare beating that goes on in that route.

....as no planner explicitly told you that they messed with the Q53 (or any other route) due to high farebeating.... That's not how that works.... This is a conclusion (I'd go as far as to say conjecture) being formulated from the basis of you having been told that the Q52 has more ridership based on the data they have.... In other words, you don't believe that the Q52 actually garners more riders than the Q53, so something has to give - and high farebeating on the Q53 IYO is it.

On 8/18/2021 at 5:33 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

Here's my issue though. You can't say that the ONLY REASON the Q53 is being messed with bc of "Fare evasion" then come out with another post saying oh I was told the Q52 has more ridership than the Q53. That does not add up to me. 

If you tell me the Q52 has more data recorded then based on your logic plenty of people fare beat on the Q52 too, which also screws up data for the Q52. People aren't stupid. If you don't have ticket inspectors on the route often then you will have a handful of people getting on without a ticket or asking other people to give their ticket away. Fare beating may not be as evident as it is in Brooklyn and the Bronx but if there's fare beating on the Q53 then there's definitely fare beating on the Q52. 

See above...

Any planner that literally conveys & actually decides to alter some route due to high amounts of farebeating, has no business being in that profession.... As you & @Cait Sith already pointed out, farebeating most certainly isn't exclusive to one route - and for damn sure isn't exclusive to only one of the two routes that are of the same route type (SBS in this case) that operate along the same core corridor....

21 hours ago, dkupf said:

I was at the Bronx public hearing in February 2020.

I heard people come to the podium to talk about what was wrong with the current local service route structure in central Bronx.  They then defended the status quo.

This was speech in the absence of thought.  I wanted to vomit.

Yes.  There would be losers in central Bronx.  But more would benefit from the changes.

All that has to be done is to give three-legged transfers to all Bx18 and M125 riders.

This isn't some uncontested, unmitigated fact like you want to convey like it is.... Just say you believe more would benefit from the changes & be done with it.

[dkupf]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

This isn't some uncontested, unmitigated fact like you want to convey like it is.... Just say you believe more would benefit from the changes & be done with it.

I admit that the bolded sentence was poorly worded.  Unfortunately, it's too late to edit the post.