|
|
| NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release (188668) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (188668) | |
NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010 NJT Budget Challenge OverviewNJT Fare Proposal NJT Rail service change proposal NJT Bus Operations service change proposal NJT contract bus service change proposals NJT Light Rail service change proposals Public Hearing Schedule Online Comment Page Summary: Fares would increase an average of 25%... one-zone intrastate bus would rise from $1.35 to $1.70. A 3-zone trip to PABT would rise from $3.40 to $4.25. Bus service cuts for NJTBO are mostly cuts of runs and schedule adjustments for longer headways on some routes. For the NT contract routes, a lot of WHEELS routes would be cut. Most of the county contract packages would lose 1 or 2 routes, and in Bergen, the 772 would lose Saturday service. The biggest hack is Morris County Metro - they would lose ALL service except for the MCM-10. ----- Definitely a major system change. I credit NJT for working quickly and putting the information out there in a clear, comprehensive way. |
|
|
| (188669) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 5 14:51:15 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. Hmm. They're ahead of the inflation curve there, since 75¢ in 1983 dollars (for example; that was the one-zone bus fare back then) translates to $1.63 in 2010 dollars (according to the BLS inflation calculator). |
|
|
| (188671) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 5 15:18:12 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. You know, this could have been a lot worse. However, I don't think 25% fare hikes are going to fly. Even 15% will lead to "service adjustments" across the network. |
|
|
| (188674) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 5 16:00:35 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. I also noticed that the expectation is that the 68, 134, and 138 will be privatized. There is a chance of that happening. |
|
|
| (188676) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 16:12:23 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 5 16:00:35 2010. Coach USA/Suburban would probably consider those routes just as much as Academy. |
|
|
| (188677) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 5 16:16:30 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. Wow I figured .25 cents more and the cuts to Morris county are insane. Wait until the elected officials start bitching it will be a totally different outcome. |
|
|
| (188681) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 5 16:58:39 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. I know he is not on here anymore but Ken S. is gonna have a fit with the Morris county cuts. And he wanted bigger buses now they will all be cut completely except for the MCM10. If this stands. |
|
|
| (188688) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 5 18:08:49 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 16:12:23 2010. Coach had proposed to run six round trips from East Brunswick to Jersey City in the past. Some of the 134 and 138 pax could just go to EBTC or NPP to pick up Coach. |
|
|
| (188699) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 19:14:44 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. I really dont know what the ridership on those MCM routes are, but it wouldn't suprise me the number of people stranded by these cuts statewide will be in the thousands. Unless the counties pick up the tab and run the local routes themselves, similar to what Ocean County does with Ocean Ride.All this because fat boy doesnt want to raise the gas tax by a few cents. |
|
|
| (188700) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 19:17:09 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 5 16:16:30 2010. S.jersey commuters get slammed with a $4-$5 increase one way, absolutely insane. Politicians better have a talk with King Crisco and agree to a small increase in the gas tax to reduce these fare hikes. |
|
|
| (188702) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 5 19:27:28 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 19:17:09 2010. You can bet the heat will be on. I'm sure the final plan will be changed a lot. |
|
|
| (188716) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Mar 5 20:44:07 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 19:14:44 2010. That may be the aim of this---to get Morris County to run the system itself. The MCM10 though would end up orphaned from the system; currently, so are the 890 and 891. |
|
|
| (188728) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 5 21:51:33 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 19:17:09 2010. Nobody wants to raise the gas tax. |
|
|
| (188740) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 23:10:19 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 5 21:51:33 2010. Why? Its the lowest in the nation. A hike of just one cent would help, who'se gonna feel that, except for someone who drives an SUV with a huge tank? |
|
|
| (188745) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 5 23:35:15 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 23:10:19 2010. Nobody in Trenton would dare. |
|
|
| (188746) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 23:42:30 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 5 23:35:15 2010. Hopefully Trenton will go under water when the icebergs melt. What a bunch of jackasses. |
|
|
| (188750) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Dekatyou on Sat Mar 6 00:11:58 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Mar 5 20:44:07 2010. Some of county already operate bus/shuttle routes by themselves.(Sussex, Somerset,Hunterdon,Mercer, Ocean, Middlesex,Sussex, Ocean and Burlington counties have own bus/shuttle system.)And, some of wheels route may convert as town-operated "community shuttle" type operations. |
|
|
| (188751) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 6 00:17:08 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 23:42:30 2010. Hopefully Trenton will go under water when the icebergs meltHeh. That's not happening either. Alas for AGW. |
|
|
| (188752) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 6 00:18:53 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Dekatyou on Sat Mar 6 00:11:58 2010. I'm wondering about the 884 and just who rides from Somerville to Clinton anyhow. Used to be part of the 114, until they cut the route in two. Before that, the bus from Somerville to Clinton (and beyond) was the 350 (150 before that), and that's operated by Trans-Bridge Lines nowadays. |
|
|
| (188799) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 6 15:09:54 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. Does this apply to the hudson county IBOA's ? Bergen avenue , Montgomery-Westside and Broadway lines. |
|
|
| (188801) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by ctrabs74 on Sat Mar 6 16:41:45 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 6 15:09:54 2010. No it doesn't. These are strictly NJT routes, not the IBOA routes where the cuts are being proposed. |
|
|
| (188803) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 6 17:06:38 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by ctrabs74 on Sat Mar 6 16:41:45 2010. Thanks but do the fares go up to match NJT ? |
|
|
| (188806) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Pablo M 201 on Sat Mar 6 17:30:06 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 6 17:06:38 2010. Depends on their operational costs. Montgomery Westside might raise fares to match NJT's, but we'll see in the next few months.Bergen Ave is already at $1.50 (might be more now), they'll raise fares on their terms. |
|
|
| (188809) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 6 17:57:44 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Pablo M 201 on Sat Mar 6 17:30:06 2010. Yeah then they probably will raise fares I guess. |
|
|
| (188855) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Bklyn2NJ on Sun Mar 7 11:05:44 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Pablo M 201 on Sat Mar 6 17:30:06 2010. Just curious... I'm moving out to Jersey City at the end of April. Other than NJT and the 2/88, how is the bus service out there?Thanks in advance |
|
|
| (188858) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 12:05:54 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. So, I wander through the FAQ (to see if I can leanr something new) and I did. Here is the list of fare hikes and their percentages:June 2007 - 9.6 percent July 2005 - 11.5 percent April 2002 - 10 percent July 1990 - 9 percent May 1989 - 12.5 percent May 1988 - 9 percent July 1986 - 10.6 percent Sept. 1983 - 9 percent July 1982 - 17.5 percent July 1981 - 22 percent July 1980 - 11 percent NJT had eight fare hikes in ten years from 1980 to 1990. This explains why they weren't in a rush to raise fares in the 1990s. It is also noted that NJT had two mammoth fare hikes in 1981 and 1982 (22% and 17.5%, respectively) in the most serious downturn prior to this one. Our economic indictors show that today's downturn is substantially larger than 1981-1982 and it also shows our economy to be in a depression (not the Great Depression just yet). Based on this information, I no longer believe the threat of a 25% fare hike to be empty talk. This HAS happened before. Every bit of that 25% fare hike could pass. NJT estimates a 2.5% ridership loss, but they are lying. Ridership systemwide will drop at least 10%, allowing them to "adjust" service at that time. If your route runs a reduced summer schedule, the summer schedule will become all year round. If your route runs a reduced winter schedule, it will not be increased as much this summer. Now, envision what happens if a 20-25% fare increase goes through. Ridership will fall 10% and another 10-15% increase will be needed...next year. Of course, NJT does not have much of a choice. |
|
|
| (188859) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Mar 7 12:14:15 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 12:05:54 2010. [Every bit of that 25% fare hike could pass. NJT estimates a 2.5% ridership loss, but they are lying. Ridership systemwide will drop at least 10%....]What if ridership doesn't drop by at least 10%? Will you sue? |
|
|
| (188860) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Mar 7 12:30:42 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. I'm surprised that #742 (Saturday only, one round trip) isn't on the chopping block. |
|
|
| (188862) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JohnnyMints on Sun Mar 7 13:55:22 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Mar 7 12:30:42 2010. It is. |
|
|
| (188864) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by tbev on Sun Mar 7 14:17:54 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Bklyn2NJ on Sun Mar 7 11:05:44 2010. depends on where in jersey city u move too |
|
|
| (188865) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 14:30:35 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Mar 7 12:14:15 2010. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that ridership drops 3%-4% for every 10% increase in fare.The WHEELS cuts all together will knock around 1% off their ridership. APTA's recommended reading o fare elasticity |
|
|
| (188872) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:34:59 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 12:05:54 2010. Here's the part you didn't take into account, though. NJT was a notably smaller system in 1981-82 than in 2010-11. In fact, they only had Transport of New Jersey and Maplewood Equipment Company as direct operations at that point. The rail service was still a subsidy contract system (NJT set the fares, but Conrail collected them and NJT paid the loss difference, same as with HBLR and River Line today) - NJT Rail Operations did not come into being until 1983.The actual reason they did not raise fares in the 90s was the state's economy permitted both increases in state subsidies and major service increases. NJT also lost the majority of their riders on the Morris & Essex during the re-electrification project... those people returned in the 90s which led to the well-known issues between NJT and Lakeland (who benefited during the project, but did nothing to retain those passengers when full rail service returned). Here's an example... the 167 Harrington Park - NYC: * In 1982, Turnpike service was only offered during rush hour, and only 6 AM/8 PM runs used Teaneck Road instead of Queen Anne Road through Teaneck. From 3:30 to 7pm weekdays, a total of 36 trips left PABT. On Saturdays, all service was local and ran 50 minute headways; the last run out of PABT was 7 pm. Sundays, just 8 trips each way the whole day, starting at 10am, last trip left PABT at 6:40 pm. * In 2010, EVERY 167 trip uses the Turnpike 7 days a week. Saturday and Sunday service runs full-day until midnight or later. Teaneck Road trips alternate off peak and are the far majority during rush over Queen Anne Road service. From 3:30 to 7 pm weekdays, 54 trips leave the PABT, many of which had used artics and now 45-foot MCIs. The percentages of those early 80s increases look worse because of the amounts at the time. Here's what happened with those first few increases in terms of one-zone fares: - July 1980: 45 cents to 50 cents - technically not NJT's increase, but TNJ's final increase, as the NJT purchase of TNJ/MEC from PSE&G did not close until October 1980 - July 1981: 50 cents to 60 cents - this was offset by the introduction of the first monthly pass at $22, which kept the equivalent price at 50 cents (up to 22 weekdays per month, one trip each way to/from work = 44 trips for $22 = 50 cents) - July 1982: 60 cents to 70 cents, and again, the bus pass priced to negate the increase So, even a nickel was a sizable percentage increase back then. People would barely notice a nickel fare increase today, but that's because the general public doesn't think in terms of percentages or inflationary dollar comparisons; they think in terms of cash. |
|
|
| (188879) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 19:26:59 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:34:59 2010. Your points are noted with respect.However, I would disagree with the "looks worse" proposition. Even in those days, a 22% spike was a big number. This was compounded with fuel shortages and the worst economic climate (to that date) since the Great Depression. The big issue is that NJT is having a cash. The monthly pass probably helped their cash flow a ton since borrowing back then was expensive, but $22 is a big number compared with 60 cents. The private carriers have complained for ages that NJT underprices their buses. Perhaps they are biting the bullet partially so that the private carriers can "match" and stay afloat. I know that they are worried about Jersey City local bus service. |
|
|
| (188881) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by RailBus63 on Sun Mar 7 19:47:48 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:34:59 2010. In a way, your points actually argue for a fare increase - people should expect to pay more for a higher level of service, especially in terms of having that service available during extended hours every day and giving passengers more options to travel without having to worry about finishing up by 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. in order to catch the bus back to Jersey. |
|
|
| (188886) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 20:00:08 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 19:26:59 2010. The marketing of that first monthly pass was: "once you make 36 trips, the rest of the month is free". That softened the blow of the one-time price as bus customers could now budget the same way rail customers did. And $49 is equally a big number compared to $1.35. But even with the proposed increase as it sits, NJT can similarly market the pass to those who have avoided it until now - compared to $1.70, the new one-zone pass price of $61 nets a fare of $1.45, just a 7.5% increase.While cash fares will never go away for buses (there's no way to put a TVM at every bus stop for someone who only rides once in a while), getting the regular riders all onto passes will make the transition to fare cards/credit cards easier. As for the private carriers, they've always been at a disadvantage because they receive no operating subsidies, and with the exception of $1 buses from NJT, they have to pay the remainder of their capital budget themselves. But they have to be very careful with wanting price parity - that will only work where they don't compete at all. But if their services are near each other, can the private ops handle an increase in ridership if NJT becomes comparatively too expensive? |
|
|
| (188893) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 20:25:40 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by RailBus63 on Sun Mar 7 19:47:48 2010. They used service adjustments like that to get money from Trenton - while not quite an ultimatum, the improvements during the 90s when fares were stable allowed NJT to put pressure on state assembly and senate members to raise the operating subsidy to keep these passengers out of their cars... and even with the modest fare increases this past decade, Trenton continued to keep the funding going until last year.In contrast, there were cuts, too. The 118/108 Newark-New York operated on 30 minute headways weekdays, and 15-20-30 minute headways on weekends. Today, 60 minute headways and almost all runs serve Union City, increasing the run time from 30 to 45 minutes. The sad part? In the 70s, the 118 ran 5-7-8 minute heads during rush hour, and 12-15 minutes off-peak and weekends. It was killed by PATH who kept that artificially low 35 cent fare for ages, and who still undercuts the 108 today. What NJT has done over its history is, beef service on routes that make money (most PABT routes), and reduce service everywhere else. It's how you survive. |
|
|
| (188948) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 02:55:01 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Mar 5 19:17:09 2010. King Crisco? I love it !! LOL I'll have to remember that one.....thanks.....Frankly, I expected to see NJT completely drop the # 319 express trips and let Greyhound or others have it. I thought for sure they'd cut the # 319 back to Toms River. Let's face it, there's almost nothing left on the # 319 now. They more or less "gave" it to Greyhound several years ago. |
|
|
| (188949) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 03:01:02 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 5 19:27:28 2010. In the old days, I'd agree with you. But NJT doesn't seem phased with what the politicians or media says anymore. We're living in strange times !! In the old days, NJT sat up and took notice when a Mayor, Senator or the media bitched. Now, they seem so emboldened, they don't care. |
|
|
| (188951) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 03:06:14 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 5 21:51:33 2010. True, but it sends the wrong message. Ride public transit and pay more. Drive and see no increase and almost the lowest gas tax in the Nation. Is that any way to encourage the use of mass transit? And couple this with a reduction of transit service !! And we're not even bringing up the fact that highway tolls won't increase for four years..... |
|
|
| (188970) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Mar 8 10:44:21 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. The fares for NJT bus are lower overall than NYCT fares... |
|
|
| (188978) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Mon Mar 8 11:39:25 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 02:55:01 2010. I gather you've never taken it, most trips are at least 75% full, but only to Toms River. The 319 is a money maker for NJT.The frequency of service seems adequate to me. Also there's a number of passengers that take it from Toms River to Atlantic City. If they did anything to the 319 that'd be an outrage. |
|
|
| (188979) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Mon Mar 8 11:40:02 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 03:06:14 2010. You're right on that.. |
|
|
| (188985) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Mon Mar 8 12:17:07 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. Any chance that they would consolidate some of the zones? The amount of zones that they have on some transit routes (I'm being Southern-Jersey centric right now, especially with Mercer County) is annoyingly confusing and has way too many people asking the driver "how much do I pay"? |
|
|
| (188995) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Mon Mar 8 12:56:46 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Mon Mar 8 12:17:07 2010. Never. If anything, you will see the zones redrawn to be more equivalent around the state. When they were last done in the 80s, they were supposed to be approximately 4 miles in size, with the city of Newark always being a 1-zone ride. but there were libertie4s taken with some of the PABT routes... for example the 155-157-165-166-167-168 all have Hackensack, Teaneck, and most of Englewood in zone 3, implying they are just 8 miles from the state line inside the Lincoln Tunnel... yeah right. Having lived in Teaneck for 34 years, I can tell you that should be zone 4, because it's 12 miles from the Lincoln Tunnel's midpoint. That's an extra interstate zone NJT is losing from thousands of passengers every day. That inequity also helped kill off a lot of GWB service because, west of Teaneck Road, those routes are also in zone 3. If you're in Hackensack, want to go to New York, and both GWB and PABT service are the same price, which bus are you taking? |
|
|
| (189003) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Pablo M 201 on Mon Mar 8 16:19:01 2010, in response to NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 5 14:27:35 2010. Hmmm....with the 981 being cut, yeah ok NJ Transit, good luck with that one. Those Port Liberte people are not going to let it be cut without a fight. That route really carries during the rush hour (I rode that bus every day to school in the morning for two years and it would be SRO). Also that bus provides another service to downtown during the rush hour for the Lafayette section of Jersey City because the 4 is already carrying crowds from Ocean Avenue.Haven't thoroughly looked through all the service cuts and changes, but skimming through it shows that NJT is trying to send out a major wake up call that if it does not receive the funding it needs to carry out their operations, we're looking at a transit system that will be crippled in no time. Some of the cuts I can agree with, but a good amount of the cuts does not need to happen. This is gonna be a really tough one to pull out of..... |
|
|
| (189006) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Mon Mar 8 16:58:28 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Pablo M 201 on Mon Mar 8 16:19:01 2010. As Weinstein noted, the WHEELS routes have exhausted their original federal funding and the state never created a replacement funding source for the routes. WHEELS was a program that was subject to end without local funding; it just appears that with no extra cash available to support it, the program will end now. |
|
|
| (189007) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Mon Mar 8 17:30:55 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by JohnnyMints on Sun Mar 7 13:55:22 2010. Oops! Sorry about that - I didn't realize that #742 was a contract route. |
|
|
| (189009) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 8 18:26:04 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by Pablo M 201 on Mon Mar 8 16:19:01 2010. I think both the 981 and 305 are "fixable". The 305 can be fixed with a demand responsive bus service. The 981 can be interlined with a commuter bus route. |
|
|
| (189020) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 20:43:44 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by R40SlantontheB on Mon Mar 8 11:39:25 2010. Well, luckily they didn't massacre the # 319 as I had feared. But what's out there on the # 319 today is only a shaddow of its former self. At one time, years ago, there was hourly service on the GSP, from Atlantic City to NYC. And there was much more service south of Atlantic City to Ocean City and Cape May than there is today. In the Winter, it's almost nonexistent.I agree that the bulk of the ridership is to Toms River....in both directions. On many a southbound # 319 trip {I ride it frequently} there are only a handful of passengers south of Toms River. But I'll admit, Summertime is different. But that's only two months out of the whole year. The other ten months are like I say. I fully expected NJT to end most trips at Toms River. |
|
|
| (189023) | |
Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 8 21:02:51 2010, in response to Re: NJT Proposed fares/cuts - The official release, posted by TRANSIT JEFF on Mon Mar 8 20:43:44 2010. The idea systemwide is to raise the fare and cut the empty seats that appear. It would not shock me if 137s are cut for 319s. It would be more "efficient" to do so. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|