In the March, 2020 installment of National Bus Trader, I penned a scathing article about fare collection (see https://transalt.com/article/drivers-v-robots-part-8-collecting-the-fares-skimming-the-passengers/). But like many things in transit, things only and always get worse and worse. It is hardly surprising that ridership continues to decline, placing the future of transit at risk of soon disappearing in many part of the country. But my most recent experience with the New York City subway system was so exasperating that I felt it worth summarizing the key benchmarks in the history of fare collection. The Good Old Days When the introduction of buses began, car owners
In Part 1 of this two-installment series, I cited numbers representing the decline in automobile and, more radically, public transportation ridership from 2019 to 2022. These figures were initially cited in an extraordinary NYTimes article on November 6, 2023 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/06/business/economy/commuting-change-covid.html) that provided figures for this decline in roughly 17 U.S. cities. As National Bus Trader readers may recall, the slightest decline among these cities occurred in New York City (25 percent) with the largest in Detroit (91 percent). Because motorcoach ridership (obviously mostly in commuter/express service) is more affected by the same reasons as transit ridership compared with other modes
The previous six installments of this series identified and explored, in considerable detail, the elements needed to make a public transportation system work. Not a hodgepodge of disjointed and sometimes overlapping or duplicative services. But a collection of system elements which fit together to form a coherent system. The goal of this series was not historical, although various installments note that every one of these elements was given serious consideration, often supported by a considerable number of articles and, often, substantial studies, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In some cases, these elements were actually implemented, often as “demonstration
Responding to Adversity by Abandoning Support Unusual for a writer in a motorcoach magazine, I have often illustrated problems which surfaced in other modes. And I have discussed how operators, agencies and other parties associated with those modes have succeeded or failed to address them. These lessons are far more important now because of the impact of COVID-19 on motorcoach ridership, vehicle production, and the successes or failures of the industry as a whole to cope with these problems. An example of a partial success was discussed in the November, 2020 edition of NATIONAL BUS TRADER: “Small Efforts and Big Differences.” An example of the
Two installments ago, I described alternative roles motorcoaches could play to make important contributions to the current pandemic, and which would keep drivers, mechanics and vehicles at work, and operating agencies and companies, manufacturers and suppliers in business. In the last installment, I described how to put motorcoaches back on the road in traditional roles. In this installment, I will outline some ideas for getting fixed route transit buses and passenger trains back to work, consistent with safety for both drivers and passengers. The ideas focus on NYC’s transit system as a model, since the challenges facing this system are
