Too many buslines with low ridership continue to operate with standard buses when smaller ones can be used with contract services to keep cost down RT 87 Cleveland Ave is contracted and uses smaller buses the cost is lower. Crosstown routes are historically have low ridership. DALE ST ,#65 averages 8 riders/bus cost $1+M with duplicated segment for 1/3 of its routing on Selby. Burns Ave/ST Clair.#70 Stryker #75 Concord #71 46 th ST /50th st crosstown #46 Prospect park #8 averages about 4 riders per buses and the subsidy is 3 times the average buslines.Riders are within 1/4-1/2 mile to major buslines .This routes cost $400000 /yr to operate .taxi would be cheaper Subsidy is $7.60/riders who can walk to nearby buslines 1/4-12 mile to rt 2-16/60 every
Highland Bus#134/144 cost $1.1Million to operate where for 16 hours during rush hours most of the cost is labour non-revenue. ELIMINATE COMMUTER ROUTES in the two central cities where there are many existing buslines Drivers does not need to be paid to drive empty buses( out of service) Highland ,Uptown ,SE MPLS are examples where there are an abundant of services Providing one-seat ride is too expensive when drivers have to be paid to/from garages while there are empty seats of the existing routes in these areas.If frequencies are high on major local routes connections will be faster. Two millions dollars for redundant services can be save by reducing duplication and reduce labour cost on low ridership routes. In 1-2 years METC would ask for more money to operate the buses.Too many buses are idling wasting fuel also running a/c and the heat even they does not need to.

4 Votes Acknowledged
Default_avatar
eva pinex about 4 years ago

Focus on local and the all day services exp/lts stops .There are no need to pay drivers todrive out of services buses

Vote
Default_avatar
malcom parey about 4 years ago

Met Council is trying to serve too many people with one-seat rides whiichis extremely expensive at rush hour.

Vote
Default_avatar
mike farley about 4 years ago

Question ! I have a relative who lives in a apartment subsidized by the federal government. He was told the apartment complex has a no smoking rule, and all tenants could smoke outside in a little shack away from the apartment. But if any of them meaning "new" tenants were caught smoking in the building/apartments it would be a reason for eviction. Now I'm being told for those tenants who lived in the building before the no smoking rule went into affect they are grand fathered in & can still smoke in their own apartments. Whats wrong with this picture ? Besides a lot of the people residing in this apartment facility already have health concerns & I feel second hand smoke is another issue. Your either a smoking facility or not a smoking facility. Which is it ?

Vote