Comments on: Fighting for and fighting against the MTA

By: John

John — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:15:55 +0000

I know this is a little bit late, but since the MTA is about to restructure the S60 and S66 (running the S66 up Howard Avenue), which was suggested by both me and Edward, could the MTA ask the federal government to discontinue the shuttle and give the money to the MTA to run the S66 on weekends?
The whole point of the shuttle bus was because the routes on Victory Boulevard didn’t directly connect to Wagner College. Since the S66 would do that, and be much more efficient, since it could pick up passengers along the way, it would be a better use of resources to run give the money to the MTA to run the S66 on weekends (In addition, this would also serve riders that used to rely on the northern portion of the S54, since Jewett Avenue is fairly close to Manor Road, solving 2 problems with one bus)

By: John

John — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:00:30 +0000

Also, about the small buses, those buses could run on routes with low ridership throughout the day. For example, the B71, according to the MTA, doesn’t get many riders.

By: John

John — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:34:03 +0000

I wrote a letter to the MTA suggesting some ways in which they can keep a similar level of service without spending too much extra money. I actually suggested that every other S66 be run up Howard Avenue to serve Grymes Hill.
I also suggested that the S61 be routeed up Manor Road on the weekends and that the S57 be extended on weekends to make up for the S76. I also tried to say to extedn some Q46s to make up for the loss of the Q79 (the second most expensive bus to run), and extend some Bx42s to make up for the loss of the Bx18.
Unfortunately, they have yet to get back to me. It has been almost 15 days and still no response.
I also wrote about why they should get the DOE to pay for MetroCards. Believe me, if they take away mine, I’m not paying. I would rather walk over 2 miles each way to school than let them have my money.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:09:07 +0000

Seems to me if you replace a few hundred big buses with a few hundred small buses or vans for routes with low ridership, the maintenance cost will be the same or lower. It doesn’t matter if some of them require a big bus during rush hour. The total number of buses remains the same.

By: pete

pete — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:22:01 +0000

The maintenance is double. You can’t run the small bus during rush hour, but you still have to maintain it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:21:56 +0000

Bus service is not being eliminated to Grymes Hill. The federally funded Staten Island Ferry Campus Shuttle Bus Service – see the post directly above yours! – will continue to operate. Why do you want the MTA to waste money to compete with a superior federally funded service?

The capital program is facing a funding crisis as well. Diverting 10% of stimulus funding from the capital budget to the operating budget is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Besides, the MTA’s funding problems are not temporary. Why apply a one-time fix when weeding out inefficient operations can save money year after year?

Especially when many of the newly proposed routings are not only less expensive to operate but may also be better for the riders! (The M/V proposal comes to mind – it gives Ridgewood, Bushwick, and Williamsburg residents direct access to Midtown, which now is a much more important job center than lower Manhattan.)

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:30:20 +0000

Wonder if the MTA has thought of extending one of the other local routes nearby (the S66 especially) up Grymes Hill during weekdays to give college students and seniors without cars the chance to get up/down this very steep hill? A quick loop around Grymes Hill on the S66 would only add about 10 mins to its route to/from the ferry terminal, and would actually give Grymes Hill a one-seat ride to the ferry instead of the current S60 shuttle service that terminates at Victory Blvd.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:23:39 +0000

Gene: Our paths, in a way, crossed. As you were discussing your plan, I was highlighting Sen. Gillibrand's efforts at finding MTA funds. I'm still waiting to see what comes about before signing onto your stimulus plan because I'd rather seem something more permanent. Won't shifting funds this year simply result in the same problems next? Wouldn't a more permanent and stable funding solution be the ideal resolution to the MTA's financial problems?

By: Gene Russianoff

Gene Russianoff — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:21:24 +0000

Ben –

You lament the “restructuring” of bus routes in Brownstone Brooklyn, an area you know, as “inconvenient.”

But you don’t object to the total elimination of bus service to Grymes Hill – an aptly named hill in Staten Island. It’s true the line carries only about 1100 riders a week. But have you ever tried to trudge up Grymes Hill when it’s raining, or even when the sun’s out.

You also seem resigned to the cuts. I am not, as my testimony at this morning’s MTA Board meeting below.

Gene

STATEMENT ON MTA BUDGET
January 27, 2010

The MTA has proposed three controversial steps to help balance its 2010 budget. These are:

• $62 million in drastic “doomsday” service cuts;
• $31 million from beginning the total phase-out of student MetroCards; and
• $40 million in savings from slashing paratransit service.

The New York City Council and the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign have proposed several actions to prevent these proposals from happening.

Specifically, we are urging the MTA to use 10% of its federal stimulus funds and other operating money to prevent these cuts in 2010.

It’s incorrect to say these steps are taking transit capital dollars to pay for operations.

Federal law specifically allows a small portion – 10% of transportation stimulus money – to pay to maintain service. Congress and the President recognized it was in the national interest to help transit agencies maintain service in this troubled economy. Transit agencies – like Atlanta, Portland and St. Louis – are using this option to maintain vital service and jobs. The use of the stimulus dollars for operations would be short term to help agencies and their riders through tough times.

It is just wrong to compare this action to the “Beame Shuffle” in the 1970’s. There, the City convinced the federal government to allow the use of $88 million earmarked for construction of a subway tunnel as a loan to underwrite the transit fare. Here, we are not talking about a New York exception, but national policy on the use of stimulus funds.

One other suggestion: Right now, the MTA is planning to spend $50 million in operating funds on capital projects. How can you direct operating funds to capital and thereby worsen service cuts at a time of when the operating budget is badly pinched?

The Straphangers Campaign thinks you should change course and used these two operating funds to maintain service. The proposed deep cuts to service will only darken the climate for future capital investment.

Gene

By: rhywun

rhywun — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:10:12 +0000

True, but why not run small buses or vans on these routes anyway, rather than regular buses that are mostly empty? The wage cost is the same. I’ve long wondered why the MTA doesn’t pursue this strategy.