Union Tpke Posted November 21, 2014 Share #1 Posted November 21, 2014 <script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=283266311&videoID=PmC5EDiL5kpS&origin=nbcnewyork.com&sec=video&subsec=&width=600&height=360"></script> <script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=283266311&videoID=PmC5EDiL5kpS&origin=nbcnewyork.com&sec=video&subsec=&width=600&height=360"></script> MTA: We Can't Stop Subway Overcrowding If you take the subway to get to work, you’ve noticed it: the MTA says subways are more crowded than they’ve ever been, and even as a fare hike is being proposed, the MTA says there’s nothing they can do about the overstuffed trains. Andrew Siff explains why,. <script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=283266311&videoID=PmC5EDiL5kpS&origin=nbcnewyork.com&sec=video&subsec=&width=600&height=360"></script> http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/No-Relief-in-Sight-for-Crowded-Subways/283266311 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted November 21, 2014 Share #2 Posted November 21, 2014 Maybe if the express bus was somehow made more attractive for commuters specifically to Manhattan, maybe we could get some of those riders off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedChikkin Posted November 21, 2014 Share #3 Posted November 21, 2014 ATO for the line in 2017? Just in time to barely keep pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 21, 2014 Share #4 Posted November 21, 2014 The can't stop anything these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted November 21, 2014 Share #5 Posted November 21, 2014 maybe if they stop over scrapping subway cars and order enough replacements plus more cars, then this wouldn't be an issue, thats the issue with transit, and they still haven't learn their lesson when they scrapped the GOH'ed R30's in the early 90's, and the stupid shit that they did in 2008-2010 by reefing R32's and R40M's that were still in good shape instead of placing them in storage for atleast 2 years, then the R44 problems came to light after most of the SMEE's were gone and had only 310 + left, hopefully they keep the the R32's in reserve for 2 years when they retire just for in case their short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeesPwnMets Posted November 21, 2014 Share #6 Posted November 21, 2014 I'm pretty sure car availability isn't the issue. The has more than enough cars. The signal system simply can't handle any more trains. Unfortunately, replacing that system will cost a lot of time, money, effort and headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted November 21, 2014 Share #7 Posted November 21, 2014 The issue is best compaired to simple plumbing. The MTA needs to move more water, but the pipes are not wide enough to carry the need volume and any further increase in pressure would cause the pipes to burst. Water equals trains Pipes equals signal system Pressure equals train intervals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted November 21, 2014 Share #8 Posted November 21, 2014 Pipes = corridors. New corridors alleviate congestion. We have less rail transportation in NYC than we did in the 1950s. Our system has not expanded to keep up with population growth since the last of the real IND expansion in the 40s. We have actually lost transportation via losing some of the Els, Culver Shuttle, etc. We need new corridors. CBTC/ATO doesn't help nearly as much as people think. Look at the L. Billions of dollars wasted to add 2 trains per hour, with the tradeoff that signal problems now go from manageable (inconvenient) delays to potentially catastrophic line-shutdown level events. Car shortages are not the problem. The only issue there is that the C should be 10 cars which would help with congestion in Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted November 21, 2014 Share #9 Posted November 21, 2014 Not surprised, not even Japan can seem to stop overcrowding and there rail systems seems far more advanced than ours... I don't view as a "MTA sucks" situation TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted November 21, 2014 Share #10 Posted November 21, 2014 What about specific choke points on the system? I know there are some that cause TPH to be reduced because trains can't move as fast through those corridors. Places like the DeKalb interlocking, or Forest Hills where trains can't get in and out of stations fast enough to keep up. What about altering service patterns or doing constructions on the interlockings to fix these? That would help even a little bit. Also, (pie in the sky thinking, mind you) what about smaller service routes? The to Court Street ran remarkably efficiently in Brooklyn. Now that it has to go all the way to Forest Hills there are constant delays and problems. Why not split some lines up to balance where service is actually needed, i.e. from Manhattan to the Outer Boroughs rather than these super-long lines that any delay in the Bronx or Queens can affect service in Brooklyn? Surely there's enough express or tail tracks to add some new innovative terminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparen of Iria Posted November 21, 2014 Share #11 Posted November 21, 2014 There are amazing terminals and there are crappy terminals. It's a shame that the highest capacity terminal in the system (63TPH, Jamaica 179th) is the only one of its kind, while Astoria Ditmars, Coney Island (F and Q - please move those switches somewhere where they are actually useful), Jamaica Center (E train, self explanatory), and many iRT terminals simply cannot keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted November 21, 2014 Share #12 Posted November 21, 2014 Here's another Pie-in-the-sky idea: What would it take to convert the A division to B division specs? I'm not really familiar with the differences technically but they can't be that dramatic in difference. Certain lines might easily be convertible (esp the Elevateds) while others would take significant capital investment. Point is, if more areas are B division compatible, more track connections can be made and therefore more efficient services. I think it is a great idea to break away from the old three-company system and start merging lines like the NYCTA did with Chrystie Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparen of Iria Posted November 21, 2014 Share #13 Posted November 21, 2014 Here's another Pie-in-the-sky idea: What would it take to convert the A division to B division specs? I'm not really familiar with the differences technically but they can't be that dramatic in difference. Certain lines might easily be convertible (esp the Elevateds) while others would take significant capital investment. Point is, if more areas are B division compatible, more track connections can be made and therefore more efficient services. I think it is a great idea to break away from the old three-company system and start merging lines like the NYCTA did with Chrystie Street. If you were to convert A division tunnels to B division standards, you would have to retunnel almost everything because the train width is different. IE abandon Joralemon/Clark/etc or redig them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted November 21, 2014 Share #14 Posted November 21, 2014 But I want to know actually the technical differences. Are we talking six feet difference or six inches? Or does it have to do with the curvature of the tunnel? Or the clearance on the sides? etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted November 21, 2014 Share #15 Posted November 21, 2014 But I want to know actually the technical differences. Are we talking six feet difference or six inches? Or does it have to do with the curvature of the tunnel? Or the clearance on the sides? etc. Save for the original IRT segments (lower Lex, 42 St shuttle, upper 7 Av/Bway, SF loops), everywhere in the A division is generally built to B division specs. But the cost to convert would be high. Gotta shave back bench walls/platforms, relocate some utility rooms, possibly strengthen els, and switch the stop arms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 21, 2014 Share #16 Posted November 21, 2014 But I want to know actually the technical differences. Are we talking six feet difference or six inches? Or does it have to do with the curvature of the tunnel? Or the clearance on the sides? etc. Curves are tighter and platforms are narrower. As it is, 75 footers are already restricted on the BMT network due to very tight curvature on certain lines, because they were never designed to handle those kinds of trains in the first place. Conversion is not overly expensive; we've done it on the Astoria Line before. However, the main issue is that the constricted segments of the IRT that can't handle BMT specs are all on the most central locations of the IRT, and converting the outer segments wouldn't make a lot of sense if the central segments were still IRT. IMO the only real capacity booster I can think of off the top of my head would be three-tracking the Jamaica El, but is it even necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted November 21, 2014 Share #17 Posted November 21, 2014 Replacing the Jamaica El and putting it under Bushwich Ave sounds like a more sensible option. Those stinkin' curves man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share #18 Posted November 21, 2014 Curves are tighter and platforms are narrower. As it is, 75 footers are already restricted on the BMT network due to very tight curvature on certain lines, because they were never designed to handle those kinds of trains in the first place. Conversion is not overly expensive; we've done it on the Astoria Line before. However, the main issue is that the constricted segments of the IRT that can't handle BMT specs are all on the most central locations of the IRT, and converting the outer segments wouldn't make a lot of sense if the central segments were still IRT. IMO the only real capacity booster I can think of off the top of my head would be three-tracking the Jamaica El, but is it even necessary? They could have a new Z train running via the third track with a new express station at Woodhaven Blvd, during peak rush hours with the J as the local. This could siphon some people off of the E and F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted November 21, 2014 Share #19 Posted November 21, 2014 The answer to the problem is not upgrading the signal system. It's just a stop-gap measure. In 1945, that version of the Second Avenue subway would have been the answer. A 6-Track line running from Brooklyn to The Bronx connecting with 8 Brooklyn branches and converting the Pelham Line to BMT/IND specifications as well as using all of the NYW&B right of way from Hunts Point to Dyre Avenue. This would have allowed more trains to run in the outer boroughs as well as creating more passenger capacity on all the Manhattan trunk lines. The solution IS and will always be to build a new Trunk line on the East side to absorb the traffic. Yes, they are building the SAS, but that 2-Track, all local line will never be able to meet this city's needs. Why? Simply because the overcrowding isn't just in Manhattan. The outer boroughs are seeing it as well and therefore, a new system of lines feeding into a new Manhattan Trunk will be needed to relieve the congestion currently seen on the and lines. That doesn't even include lines needed to reduce passenger congestion on the West Side and the and lines in Queens. Expansion is the only answer and if NYers want to end the crowding for at least 3 or 4 decades, they will need to pay more to make it happen. Likely through new taxes. We will have to decide the kind of subway we want, the (MTA)s job is to do it's best to provide us that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxBombers Posted November 21, 2014 Share #20 Posted November 21, 2014 They could have a new Z train running via the third track with a new express station at Woodhaven Blvd, during peak rush hours with the J as the local. This could siphon some people off of the E and F I know that there is no third track from Jamaica to Broadway Junction. But what if instead of skip-stop, how about the alternate express runs (i.e. the runs express from Sutphin to Woodhaven & from Crescent to Broadway Junction and the runs express from Woodhaven to Crescent & from Broadway Junction to Myrtle) That might attract more people than the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted November 21, 2014 Share #21 Posted November 21, 2014 No, because that type of service pattern is just inappropriate. And why do you even want to add more riders on the for? How's that going to improve service and ease this so-called "overcrowding"? The current design structure of the Jamaica Line, as well as the current setup of the / service isn't like the / , , and . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted November 21, 2014 Share #22 Posted November 21, 2014 Alright, lets build a new six-track Trunk line right under Fifth Avenue!!! Let's see how that goes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 22, 2014 Share #23 Posted November 22, 2014 Replacing the Jamaica El and putting it under Bushwich Ave sounds like a more sensible option. Those stinkin' curves man! It currently costs the MTA $2B to sink a mile of subway into the ground, so that's much less likely than just strengthening the Jamaica El and adding a third track (since the structure actually has room for such a thing). The answer to the problem is not upgrading the signal system. It's just a stop-gap measure. In 1945, that version of the Second Avenue subway would have been the answer. A 6-Track line running from Brooklyn to The Bronx connecting with 8 Brooklyn branches and converting the Pelham Line to BMT/IND specifications as well as using all of the NYW&B right of way from Hunts Point to Dyre Avenue. This would have allowed more trains to run in the outer boroughs as well as creating more passenger capacity on all the Manhattan trunk lines. The solution IS and will always be to build a new Trunk line on the East side to absorb the traffic. Yes, they are building the SAS, but that 2-Track, all local line will never be able to meet this city's needs. Why? Simply because the overcrowding isn't just in Manhattan. The outer boroughs are seeing it as well and therefore, a new system of lines feeding into a new Manhattan Trunk will be needed to relieve the congestion currently seen on the and lines. That doesn't even include lines needed to reduce passenger congestion on the West Side and the and lines in Queens. Expansion is the only answer and if NYers want to end the crowding for at least 3 or 4 decades, they will need to pay more to make it happen. Likely through new taxes. We will have to decide the kind of subway we want, the (MTA)s job is to do it's best to provide us that. The two-track line will meet most of our needs for the foreseeable future, even if it will be at 80-90% capacity. Modern signalling now allows us to run 40 TPH, which is 33% more than the IND-era ATO allows us to do, and is a great deal more than the 25 TPH the Lex currently runs on the express. Likely the core of the SAS in 100 years will end up looking like this: A line from West 125th to Brooklyn, a Bronx line via the Bway Express, and a Queens line via a Queens Blvd express to Brooklyn. The era of building four tracks is over, and quite frankly the building out of the 6-track Second System would've been overkill and brought forward the fiscal crisis 20 years early. We have to make do with limited means and realize that even the buildout of the IND's First System almost bankrupted the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted November 22, 2014 Share #24 Posted November 22, 2014 The reason the IND first phase almost bankrupted the city is because the IND mostly paralleled lines in developed parts of the city, and the city ended up subsidizing the 5 cent fare. This city continues to grow and there are portions of the city that still lack proper rapid transit facilities. Eventually, the era or 4-track subways will return, but since humanity is a reactive species, it will be too late by the time it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 22, 2014 Share #25 Posted November 22, 2014 Of course they can't stop it.... I'll go as far as to say this is what they [MTA] wanted... So I don't want to hear any boo-hooing about the monster that was created here (for starters, by making surface transit worse (in some cases) to force commuters onto subway trains).... And this is on top of any population growth...... And on another front, you're still getting 2.50 (for now) per ride anyway... I though money was of the importance, not how overcrowded subways are, so spare me..... This is somewhat analogus to how hyper-focused the NFL is about a dollar (far worse than any of the other 3 major sports)... A league that harbors ex-cons, women beaters, rapists, you name it - all for that almighty dollah.... Usually, I despise "pro-women" groups, but I was hoping that there was some way at least one of em could have hit the NFL in the pockets big time (referring to how active at least that one group became during that Ray Rice incident).... Simple point being (regardless if it's my favorite sport), Someone needs to knock the NFL off its high horse.... F**kin commissioner sneering when a reporter asks him about the possibility of losing his job.... While I don't think the MTA is on that level (of being hyperfocused, or else the fare would have been MUCH higher by now), I still don't wanna hear about overcrowding being a problem from the MTA end/perspective... But for me, it will be well received (and justified) from the passenger perspective.... As again, for starters, The riding public did not exacerbate their own commutes. Maybe if the express bus was somehow made more attractive for commuters specifically to Manhattan, maybe we could get some of those riders off. ...if it doesn't involve a network expansion & a fare decrease (which FWIW is a catch-22 situation), that simply isn't happening. The can't stop anything these days... farebeaters ....and whatever the hell that shit is, that continues to leak at 205th ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.