| Author |
Message |
    
virgilian
Citizen
Username: Virgilian
Post Number: 151
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 9:56 pm: | 
|
Joan you usually have more sensible ideas.
You of course mean that the jitney routes should be expanded to your neighborhood and other under-served areas. Yes.
Anyway your own non-served area may benefit now by not having on-street parking inching toward its streets.
Oh "cut costs"--
dont build a new police headquarters:Leaves some jitney money for us. And another debris day.
|
virgilian
Citizen
Username: Virgilian
Post Number: 152
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 10:09 pm: |
|
ajc,
The jitneys are available to those who need them.
The schools and tennis courts are available to those who need them.
Joan, really, with your logic the childless would be exempt from paying any taxes for school funding.
Ridiculous conversation.
I'm peeved. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Virgilian,
You said, "The jitneys, schools, and tennis courts are available to those who need them."
I'll say it again, "The tennis courts and schools are available for everyone's use, the jitney is not ...
However, I will agree with you on one point, if I said anything so ridiculous as, jitneys are available to those who need them, I'd be peeved too... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 12:03 am: |
|
Can you imagine a pay-as-you-go town? Turnstiles at the parks, meters all up and down the streets around town. How about about all those streets I never drive on? Let the residents pay for them, and put toll booths up? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 12:31 am: |
|
Tom,
Parks and streets are also available to everyone in town, the jitney is not ...
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3949
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 4:20 am: |
|
Larry, if we made some areas "premium" my estimate is that the cost would be in the $400 range, which is, I believe, similar to what SO charges. Sorry for the confusion. |
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1938
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 7:02 am: |
|
Bob,
you were implying that people with $400 parking stickers would have 5 minute walks. The point is that those people would have 20 second walks. |
Colleen
Citizen
Username: Cbroderick
Post Number: 50
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 7:06 am: |
|
As I recall, almost no public transportation is self-sustaining (well, I think with the subway increase, they ran a surplus, but that's a different issue...it isn't supposed to be a money-maker either!). It is a service to the town, and definitely makes it a better place to live/commute. It should be underwritten by the town.
Anyone can use the jitney. Just buy a ticket and get on. No one is excluded. Of course, it may not take you where you want to go... ;-)
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3951
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 8:43 am: |
|
Larry, I am even confusing myself. I was refering back to Fruitcakes post about "market rate" parking.
My thought, weak as it may be, was that a SO type parking fee for all parking around the station might not fly to well if a walk was involved.
"Confusion to the French (and MOL)"
 |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:03 am: |
|
Virgilian:
While it is true that I don't drive, live outside of the permit parking area, have no morning jitney stop closer than the train station and have a commuting schedule which starts earlier in the morning than the first jitney's arival at the train station and gets me home before the first afternoon jitney leaves the station, this isn't about me.
As was pointed out on a previous thread, there are too many people in this town who are housing distressed. It won't take much before the ever increasing taxes price them out of their own homes. Even relatively small funding issues such as whether or not the jitney should be self sufficient can make the difference between their staying in town or being forced to move. The jitney does not serve the needs of a large enough portion of the population. The cost to individual riders on an annual basis would not be that much greater than the subsidized fare now under consideration. Most importantly, commuters will not stop taking the jitney just because they have to pay a few more dollars for the privilage.
We need to cut costs where we can. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 12:13 pm: |
|
"Anyone can use the jitney."
Colleen,
Sorry, only residents, and only the few who are lucky enough to need it between 6:30 and 8:30 or so in the morning, and who also live close enough to the 8 or 9 stops along each of the three, two hour routes. All this for a few hundred jitney riders who are only a small fraction of the towns overall population.
Hey, we're talking about the difference being between $155., and $175. per calendar year for a combination jitney and parking pass. All this fuss over $20.00 a year to cover the jitney’s operating expenses?
Personally, I would be embarrassed to ride the bus if I knew others in town were helping me to pay for it… IMHO, if you can afford to live in this town and commute to New York, then you should be able to afford an extra $20.00 a year to cover the jitney’s operating expenses!
Now if anyone wants to talk about a weekly all day jitney that covers the whole town, then that’s a different story...  |
strawberry
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 12:40 pm: |
|
I spoke with Dave and Sebonis. The three of us have decided MOL's opinion on the Maplefart Jitney. Dave will personally install the coin machines found on NYC buses. To ride the Jitney from this day forward will cost a buck in loose change. Once this proves successful, the town will quit subsidizing. Than, it will be raised to a buck and a quarter. This decision is final, and please no more posts on the subject. (except for Joan who I always agree with)
Thank You,
and remember public transportation should be supported by the public..
"That moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001."
--President George W. Bush
|
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 12:57 pm: |
|
I also think we should try to make it self-sufficient, but let's not lose perspective. Most forms of public transport are subsidized. Art says he would be embarassed to take the bus if it were subsidized; last time i checked NJT got about 1/3 of their funding from various governments. I'm sure our trains are major recipients of this, keeping our fares pretty low. I assume you don't commute to NYC, so is it fair for commuters to sponge off of you? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2225
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 2:02 pm: |
|
This morning I had Strawberries on my melon, in my pancakes, and now for no good reason you decide you’re going to just show up again in this conversation...
Forgetaboutit! I think I’ve had just about enough of Strawberries for one day. And BTW, since when do you speak for Dave and Sbenois? I DON’T THINK SO PAL! We take our instructions around here from the top down, not the bottom up...
Furthermore, the posts on this subject will continue until Joan has the last word... (as she usually does anyway.)
Larry, one more thing...
The Maplewood Jitney is “NOT” in the true sence of the word "Public Transportation".
The jitney service is restricted to only a small portion of our town’s population. The public in general does not, and can not directly benefit from it. Again, we're only talking about $20.00 a year for the users to carry their own weight, so to speak...
Furthermore, as Joan of Arc said, "We need to cut costs where we can." Now, she must be right if the Strawberry says he always agrees with her!
|
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Art, I don't understand. Your idea for the Ring of Fire, if I remember right, had a bit of a town subsidy. I believe you said that if the town subsidized it, it would still be a big benefit to all, or at least many.
I agree. So why object to the jitney subsidy?
Joan, how much do you figure we would save in taxes if we removed the subsidy to the jitney?
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Art,
I basically agree with you that if it's just $20 it's better for the fee to go up and have the jitney self-supporting. Better for any township subsidies to go to expansion to new areas. But saying it's not public transportation is kind of weird. It seems obvious to me that it is. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 846
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Art: Explain to me how someone without kids can use the schools? Explain how someone who doesn't know how to play Tennis or has a physical disability which prevents them from playing Tennis can use the Tennis Courts?
I think everyone benefits fron the schools, tennis courts, jitney, and other things that they do not personally use because those services make the Town what it is.
On the other hand, I think everyone in Town benefitted from your B&B for the same reason even if they never had occasion to stay there or have a visiting friend or relative enjoy your hospitality, but I'm not sure it should be subsidized. |
xavier67
Citizen
Username: Xavier67
Post Number: 311
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 2:56 pm: |
|
"The jitney service is restricted to only a small portion of our town’s population. "
NJ Transit Trains are also restricted to small portion of our state population. Yet Trenton subsidizes the trains.
Other than the area around the train station, a Maplewoodian wanting to ride the jitney doesn't have to walk more than 2 bloody blocks to a nearest jitney stop.
On the other hand, I'm all for raising the price of the jitney pass if it will help the town expand the hours of operation. |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2231
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Tom:
Removing the jitney subsidy would not save much by itself but as part of a package of cost saving provisions it could amount to something.
Art's proposal for the Ring of Fire is much more like a traditional franchised bus route than the commuter's jitney. If adopted, it would serve a far larger potential ridership and would be available for many more hours a day. Thus, it is a much better example of public transportation. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 452
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 7:54 pm: |
|
What if they raise the price of parking to expand the Jitney? Make sure that the jitney covers as much of SO and MW so that all residents can use the Jitney. This way the out-of- towners foot the bill for an expanded Jitney. If they don’t shop at the stores at least they can pay for the Jitney. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2226
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Tom... I’m sorry to say the “Ring of Fire” fizzled out, however, it was always meant to be a self-supporting program without any subsidy connected to it. For anyone interested, the revised program has been modified to formulate an all-day jitney shopping day, just within Maplewood, and only for one day a week.
The program will be offered to the public and TC after the first of the year, when the leadership changes. It is intended to work in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce, the Village Alliance, and the Springfield Avenue Partnership. The jitney plan is to cover the whole town and all the business districts. We believe it will be a benefit to both residents and merchants alike.
Larry... I guess we agree. If it's just $20, it's better for the fee to go up and have the jitney self-supporting. However, I’m sorry, if it’s limited to Maplewood residents, and not available for everyone in town, IMO it just doesn’t qualify as public transportation.
Anon... I won’t argue that anyone without kids receives the same value from our schools, as would those residents with children. Someone who doesn't know how to play Tennis, or has a physical disability that prevents them from playing Tennis, also may not get the same value as with those without these handicaps. What can I say, life isn’t always fair…
However, you have to admit that these examples are basically impractical. Because everyone doesn’t benefit from the schools, tennis courts, and other similar services, really has nothing to do with the point being made to make the jitney self-supporting.
As for the B&B, although the service is made available to all residents, I agree that like the jitney service, it should not be subsidized. Meanwhile, it's best to see residents support these services voluntarily rather than just having the town take it out of their taxes.
Xavier67... The NJ Transit Trains as well as Amtrak are all part of our state and national network for public transportation.
Can you imagine the cost if every town and city were to add a local jitney service for residents to not just the trains, but the airports, seaports, and bus terminals? I still say the Maplewood Jitney needs to be self-supporting…
Joan... “When” an all day jitney is adopted, it will serve as an excellent example of public transportation within our township…
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Can someone name even one mode of transportation that isn't "subsidized" somehow? Hey, if I walk to the station I do it on sidewalks paid for by taxes! |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Indeed, tom, you're right. It irks me that people resent subsidies of public transit when they don't realize how heavily subsidized private transit is.
Anyway, if reasonably hiking the fees for the jitney keeps it, and if it starts to serve the "missing" corners of MW, then I'll shut up about subsidies.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 238
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 9:16 am: |
|
If one were building a liberal political resume for a state or federal office to follow a stint on the Maplewood Township Committee, would that candidate be for or against raising the jitney co-pay? For or against cutting educational programs?
|
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 9:30 am: |
|
Others in this thread have indicated that $20 of jitney fee would make it self-sufficient. In the debate last night before approving the fees for the year Vic said that the actual cost per rider was over $400/year and obviously it wouldn't be self-sufficient. (I believe he said that the costs were about $180K/year and there were over 400 jitney passes.) Nobody on the committee disagreed with him.
So previous discussion on this thread about self-sufficiency was misleading. In fact, this debate is just a numbers negotiation, a balance between user fee and relative level of subsidy. I still would generally prefer to move towards charging the user more, since Maplewood charges much less for permit parking and jitney than other townships, but I resent the misleading information. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 10:29 am: |
|
NEWS - RECORD
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Front page , "New fees set for Jitney, parking" by Shaun McCormack, Staff Writer
"Transportation committee member Charles Bibbins said these uncreases could cover the Jitney's operating expenses." |
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 3:05 pm: |
|
He's wrong. Maybe it's a matter of covering gas and driver cost and not the equipment cost, but nobody challenged Vic's numbers at the meeting, and they sounded reasonable to me.
Let's put it this way: I think they said last night that there are 400 people with jitney passes. Assume $65 from each of them; I think that's the number and I don't know how much comes from the combined passes. That's about $26K or under $9,000/year per bus, including the driver. I can believe that maybe that covers the driver conceivably also the gas (they're natural gas, right?), but I can't believe it covers any equipment cost. They weren't all grants, were they?
How much can the drivers cost? Let's assume they work 250 work days/year, 5 hours/day, at $6/hour (could they be paying that little?). That's $7500/year, and I think it's an understatement. It leaves under $5/day for gas; I don't know if that's reasonable.
There could be other costs that I don't know about, like maintenance or administrative. The fees don't sound to me like they could cover the costs of the program. |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2238
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Larry:
It's a question of how you interpret the term "operating expenses". At its most narrow operating expenses can be interpreted as limited to operators' salaries, gasoline, oil, and general maintenance on the vehicles used. That may be where the additional $20. per rider figure came from.
A far broader interpretation which includes overhead costs such as major repairs, replacement, depreciation of the vehicles; insurance for the vehicles and drivers; garaging the vehicles; administrative support functions, etc. would make the actual cost per rider far greater.
It is likely that the second definition was the one being applied at the TC meeting, but the discussion on this thread has been limited up to now to a consideration of whether the jitney ridership should meet the first and narrower set of expenses. |
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Don't you think it's misleading to say that the jitney would be self-sufficient with $20 more when that number doesn't come close to covering the actual cost of the program? Calling that number self-sufficiency is purely arbitrary. |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2242
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Larry:
It's not necessarily purely arbitrary but you are right that there are additional long term costs that need to be examined. Since two of the jitneys were obtained through grant funds and the third is also used as the senior citizen bus, the equipment cost is relatively low now but could certainly be expected to increase sharply in the future when these vehicles start wearing out. If the jitneys are currently parked outside in a municipal lot or share garage space with other municipal vehicles in a facility large enough to accomodate all of the vehicles, the specific cost of sheltering them is hard to compute.
At this time I would be happy to see even the jitney program's operating costs covered by the jitney passes (including the jitney portion of the combined passes) though it would be nice if alternative funding could be found for long term maintenance and eventual replacement of the vehicles.
Regarding your 400 pass holder figure: do you know if these riders include the holders of both the individual jitney pass and the combined parking/jitney pass? Also are there any figures available for single ride patrons who may use the jitney on a less rregular basis? Finally, do we know the present rider capacity for the jitney service and the per cent of capacity that the jitney is presently operating with? It would be helpful to know maximum revenue projections as well as the current income from the jitney program since riderrship may change over time.
|
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 8:37 pm: |
|
I don't know how mahy of the 400 are combined; I suspect they sell relatively few of them, but they probably allocate less than the $65/rider. |
Chris Dickson
Citizen
Username: Ironman
Post Number: 880
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 8:54 pm: |
|
I saw Arturo at Costco today ... I do not believe that he took the jitney there ...
Big Train
Horn-infused funkification!
www.bigtraintracks.com
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 11:29 pm: |
|
...no, I had the limo bring me. |
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 6:26 am: |
|
I've been told by someone who should know that this is what it's all about: The jitney and parking are paired. The jitney is purposely kept at 50% of the parking price as an incentive to get people using it as opposed to parking.
But the increases originally proposed by the Transportation Committee combined for all (jitney, parking and combo) would cover the cost of operating the jitney. In other words, all the parking revenue and all the jitney revenue together would cover the jitney. This makes a lot more sense, but I still think it's very misleading to say that this means the jitney is "self-sufficient." |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3978
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 7:40 am: |
|
That means the drivers/parkers are subsidizing the jitney!! That is down right un-American!!!
 |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 9:00 am: |
|
Yeah, good point. The parking, almost by definition, must be running a surplus.
I work in Warren. It's a straight shot, against traffic, westward up I-78, in my car. For some reason, I still think subsidizing the jitney is a good idea, even though I reap no direct benefit from it. My wife goes into NYC at least once a week, and she doesn't take the jitney, either.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
Remember, before we had a jitney we still had parking. If that money is going now to the jitney it's no longer going to whatever it went to before.
I agree with Tom that the jitney is a good thing and worth some level of subsidy. It's not worth an infinite amount so we can debate what that level should be. My main point in piping up here is that it all has nothing to do with self-sufficiency, because the jitney has no chance at self-sufficiency unless we start charging about 5 or 6 times as much as we do, and assuming we don't lose riders as a result. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page