BusTalk

[Dieseljim]

We all know that bus companies and transit systems have only one product for sale and that is service. Key to good service, in addition to buses in reliable operating condition is CUSTOMER SERVICE, how the rider is treated by the driver or other representative of the company/authority. Instead of seeing how many bells and whistles can be put on a bus, why not concentrate on the basics, of which CUSTOMER SERVICE is a vital part? Some companies, such as Greyhound have slipped badly in this area as have transit agencies, such as Pittsburgh's PAT system and New York City's MTA (even though they put out some darn nice subway and bus maps). Why my personal experience with Greyhound has been generally good, that episode with a driver at Scranton,PA when I was returning home from the Timetable Collector's Convention in Sept. 2006 was a most unfortunate one. Not only was his attitude poor, but his driving bordered on reckless and with a bus full of passengers, no less. The details will NOT be repeated here, but that is an example of how NOT to treat a customer. Transit agencies could learn from this too. The last thing one wants to do if he/she wants to stay in business is to antagonize the customers. Based on my experience in selling on eBay, I take pride in maintaining high service standards Granted, most bus companies and transit agencies do a good, first rate job of customer service. However, there are too many of the other kind and they think they can get away with it. In the case of nonsubsidized companies, that is a good way to take the road to ruin. If any transit system wants to acquire and retain new riders, then the way CUSTOMER SERVICE is handled MUST be first rate and friendly. The other kind will drive them back into their cars.Cutting corners on safety is another good way to drive customers away. Too many carriers are doing this and these are the ones who deserve to be put out of business.

[HwyHaulier]

Dieseljim -

The dilemma being: With a publicly funded entity, and the way the game is rigged, the more riders carried, the greater the demands for
operating subsidies (i.e. taxes from others). The various State Legislatures have problems, of course, in attempts at grand expansions
of particular budgets.

There appears to be a reluctance, too, in simply determing how to run systems limited to core services at one hundred (100) percent
farebox recoveries. That course would not require ever increasing subsidy amounts, thus cutting reliance on fickle State politicians...

Sidenote: Interestingly, if one should have the opportunity to review Route Performance datum, it is striking how so many core service
routes run most satisfactorily, and require little (if any) subsidy...

.....................Vern..............

[Hart Bus]

Another thing that should be done with big systems like NY, negotiate with the unions to allow smaller vehicles to run on lightly traveled routes, such as min-vans with a corresponding reduction in salary. That might lower, not eliminate, deficits.

There is a poster on one of the boards by the name of "Pipe" who used to drive Fishbowls on a lightly traveled route in Queens. I wonder how many times he had a bus that was even 50 % of capacity. Bet it cost almost as much to run his bus as a full bus (with a slight adustment for less gas for hauling fewer people). Why couldn't a mini-van be assigned.

In the really outliying areas, perhaps some agreement using coupons could be arranged with several local taxi companies ?

[Dieseljim]

Both the NFTA in Buffalo and Greater Cleveland RTA do just that on routes called Circulators, which carry enough passengers to warrant having the service, but not enough to use full size buses on.

[roymanning2000]

Vern,

If one were to review route performance data in most cities, they might be hard put to find a route that comes anywhere close to 50% of fare box recovery, much less 100%.

The system here in Dayton probably has about a 20-25% recovery ratio. If even 50% was the determining factor, we probably wouldn't have much of a transit system. And I think that would true of most cities.

Roy

[roymanning2000]

I doubt that use of small buses or minivans would make much of a difference in overall operating costs. The better fuel mileage that might be an advantage of small buses or vans may be offset by higher maintenance costs for buses that are not designed for the rigors of day-to-day regular route services.

As for negotiating lower labor costs, that might be possible. But, if that results in a paycheck that can't support the driver and his/her family, you will probably have a difficult time attracting and retaining quality people.

And the union will probably point out that the size of the vehicle does not necessarily make the driver's job any easier. It also does not lessen the tremendous responsibility for the safe transport of their passengers.

Roy

[HwyHaulier]

Roy -

The earlier "legacy" operators were, nevertheless, running at small losses, many at break even, and a few actually returning net profits...

The larger issue underlying all of it (and National City Lines was on to it by about 1951)? Prevailing scheme of regulation did not acknowledge
rate making methods so that carriers were to be "made whole" against chronic inflation.

The impacts of that ongoing revenue deficiency brought with it a bad environment for new equipment purchases. That is, a carrier may have
bought equipment, and had no outstanding debt against it. When times came for replacement, it couldn't be done absent long term financing.
(In fact, absence of inflation relief set up scenarios wherein it was best to lease any new units.) (Compare: "Freight side" - Highway cargo
carriers: Many of them were able to implement effective, inflation offset pricing methods.)

As far as present day farebox recovery rates? What's to be said? Does it not suggest present fares are much cheaper than in past years,
when everything stated in terms of inflation adjusted, present day values?

....................Vern.................

[HwyHaulier]

[HwyHaulier]

Here's what must be a classic case study whether all involved have their respective heads on straight about transit requirements. In it,
a discussion of the long talked project (boondoggle?) about Scranton PA - New York rail service. Check the claimed ridership projections.

http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2009/06/15/news/local_news/pr_republican.20090615.a.pg20.pr15rail_s1.2600003_loc.txt

Compare, an adept schduler can figure how to run this (practically with eyes closed!) with about twenty (20) highway coaches, so as to
cover the (circa) thirty-five (35) claimed needed, daily runs in each direction. Note extreme end point at Scranton needs but two or three
daily in each direction...

Anyone here who can figure how to do this somewhat under the proposed (demanded?) $550 Million?

.......................Vern...............

[ripta42]

Greyhound and Martz already provide coach service between Scranton and New York. You can add more buses, but where do they go? I-80 is at capacity, as are the bridges and tunnels leading into Manhattan. Adding vehicle lanes would certainly eclipse the cost of reactivating the Lackawanna Cutoff. You were also misled by the "45 daily riders" figure, which only covers regular commuters originating in Scranton and terminating in New York, ignoring anyone alighting in between or riding less frequently. In other words, you're trying to schedule the A train based solely on the number of passengers commuting from Inwood to Far Rockaway every day.

[HwyHaulier]

ripta42 -

I didn't consider shorter haul, radial to/ from Scranton, for lack of detail in published report.

The asserted claims of rail abating highway traffic is another case presented by proponents. It is a logical fallacy, and delusional, IMHO.
One highway coach can run in lieu three dozen or so private autos. It thereby immediately frees up capacity on the highway route.

The same line of thinking has a somewhat silly, in print result in July trains magazine. It extols the virtues of a particular heavy rail deal,
but gets into the swamp when it compares seat capacity of one train vis-a-vis numerous autos.

The provocative "what if" is a scenario of current rail riders served by highway service? The same number of auto "slots" would be off
the road. The added bus movements would not represent an incremental, added burden. The cost/ benefit trade offs usually favor bus,
anyway. In addition, frequent highway coaches remain a better service option than an every now and then rail schedule (unless a given
rider's personal time is wholly without value)...

.................Vern.............

[ripta42]

If the rail line is primarily carrying commuters, the frequency doesn't matter much as long as there's a train or three to get people there and back for normal business hours. Of course, some kind of regularly scheduled service during off-peak hours would legitimately serve others as well. That's how commuter rail works in most parts of the world.

The problem with buses elimiating cars on the road and thus freeing up capacity is that even the bus-only lanes headed into the City are at capacity. No more room, unless you work second shift, or in Jersey City.

[timecruncher]

Ahh, but frequency does matter. The single common thread we hear from customers here at the transit authority has to do with waiting for the bus. Anything more than five or six minutes is considered inconvenient.

We in no way can afford that level of service anywhere in our network, and neither can most transit systems nowadays. There simply aren't enough riders or enough subsidy to provide those levels of frequency.

In intercity markets, such as Scranton to New York, you will get decent ridership from one daily round-trip from the endpoint to New York. As round-trips are added, ridership generally will more than double for each frequency added up to the limit of potential business available. This has been borne out by rail corridors where multiple frequencies have been added where there was once only one or two schedules a day.

A good example of this in the rail realm is Charlotte - Raleigh in North Carolina. Another is Portland - Seattle, and the midwest services out of Chicago to Springfield, Carbondale and even Quincy, Illinois have exploded since multiple frequencies were added last year.

Unfortunately, in the latter case, Canadian National has not been a cooperative host railroad, and there have been problems associated with poor dispatching, bad track maintenance, etc.

timecruncher

timecruncher

[HwyHaulier]

[ripta42]