Jump to content

MTA stats show more subway trains are late


Q113 LTD

Recommended Posts

delays16n-1-web.jpg?enlarged

" (MTA) subway punctuality is ‘an extraordinarily complex issues," says NYC Transit Division President Carmen Bianco.

 

When straphangers peer down the tracks, too often there is no light at the end of the tunnel, because an increasing number of subway trains are arriving late, new (MTA) statistics revealed.

About 25% of all subway trains run by New York City Transit from Oct. 2013 through Oct. 2014 were late, meaning they arrived at the end of the line at least five minutes behind schedule, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority numbers released on Monday. That’s up 6% from the previous 12-month period.

And there was an average of 41,547 subway train delays a month during that time — a 51% increase from the 27,457 per month average over the previous 12 months. The overall number of trains that pulled in late did not increase as dramatically as delays because a train can arrive late at one or more stations but make up the time by the last stop, officials said.

“Every year seems worse than the next,” said Eileen Thomas, 58, of Bedford-Stuyvesant, who commutes via the (C) train and said she’s had to wait as long as 30 minutes.

“There are days where I think it would be faster to walk to work,” she told the Daily News. “I’m glad the (MTA) is keeping track of these things, but I want to know what they’re going to do about it.”

(MTA) officials cited several reasons for the increase in lateness, including higher ridership, platform crowding, and more subway construction, maintenance and inspection projects.

“This is an extraordinarily complex issue,” NYC Transit Division President Carmen Bianco said at an (MTA) committee meeting on Monday.

Officials said some of the increase is attributable to more accurate reporting of train arrival and departure times at the end of lines. The (MTA) shifted to an electronic reporting system from one in which staffers put pen to paper.

Joe Leader, NYC Transit’s vice president of subways, said "Hurricane Sandy resulted in more repairs and construction being done along the tracks, which has affected timeliness." The (MTA) also streamlined the review and approval process for transit crews and contractors to schedule projects along the tracks, in an attempt to prevent delays...........

 

Read more from this source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-stats-show-subway-trains-late-article-1.2046071

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If people would stop holding the doors or let the people exit the train first, it would help.

Exactly. The worst train to have delays is the (A) because in the morning when the train arrives at Bway Jct, there is only one entrance/exit, which is at the rear of the platform. Everyone is bunching up in the back of the platform and the train has problems closing the rear doors. One time, when I was on the train, the conductor said, "if the doors can not close, this train will be out of service". Just last week, the doors malfunction and one of the doors got jammed and would not close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The worst train to have delays is the (A) because in the morning when the train arrives at Bway Jct, there is only one entrance/exit, which is at the rear of the platform. Everyone is bunching up in the back of the platform and the train has problems closing the rear doors. One time, when I was on the train, the conductor said, "if the doors can not close, this train will be out of service". Just last week, the doors malfunction and one of the doors got jammed and would not close.

 

 

If people would stop holding the doors or let the people exit the train first, it would help.

That's easy to say, but what I have noticed whenever I do take the subway is that trains are not frequent enough during rush hour and people need to be to work or school, so I can understand why they do that.  The fact of the matter is, the (MTA) is not providing enough service to meet demand.  It baffles my mind how so many people can argue that we need more people taking the subway or people advocating for cutting other transportation services, when the subway is clearly overwhelmed as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that NYCT has done to slow down the system is finally biting them in the ass.  Slowing down the trains following the WillyB and USq wrecks, more grade timers all over the place and System Safety always out there to entrap the employees with radar guns, taking down c/r boards and sabotaging signals.  Running times not adjusted despite all these obstructions.  Computers in the IRT measuring arrival times so there are no more lies about train arrivals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that NYCT has done to slow down the system is finally biting them in the ass.  Slowing down the trains following the WillyB and USq wrecks, more grade timers all over the place and System Safety always out there to entrap the employees with radar guns, taking down c/r boards and sabotaging signals.  Running times not adjusted despite all these obstructions.  Computers in the IRT measuring arrival times so there are no more lies about train arrivals. 

That and the fact that they simply are not keeping up with demand.  I hear all of these increases in ridership but very little increases in service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that NYCT has done to slow down the system is finally biting them in the ass.  Slowing down the trains following the WillyB and USq wrecks, more grade timers all over the place and System Safety always out there to entrap the employees with radar guns, taking down c/r boards and sabotaging signals.  Running times not adjusted despite all these obstructions.  Computers in the IRT measuring arrival times so there are no more lies about train arrivals. 

 

Not to mention the beginnings of computers clocking trains in the BMT/IND with I-Trac, while ATS-B is awaited someday.

 

They wanted to unearth the truth, and now they're seeing it's not all that pretty. It's the same battle ongoing in society. With social media, and everyone putting all their crap out there, we are seeing the truth with implications for ordinary people. And the truth is that people are a**holes, that trains are late, and sometimes it's better not to go digging in the first place.

 

I suppose the trains are running "more late" as more timers are being put in, but the overall change in quality of service isn't that much except on certain lines that have experienced heavy ridership increases during weekends and overnight. It's just that now they have statistics to point to which are based in reality, where older statistics did not as closely reflect reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll add even more timers in the name of safety. Nobody would want to make the trains less safe, so no proponents for removal of timers speak up. In this kind of a bind, some forward-thinking chap comes along and pitches CBTC as a solution to our woes. Then when it's installed a decade later, we get the same speeds we had decades ago before the timers were install (maybe even more).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what trains you're taking especially since you praise the express buses. But during rush hours, my trains come in a frequent pace. I can actually let the local or express pass if it's too full and wait for the next one and only sacrifice maybe a few minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except CBTC does not actually improve things that much. It's already had a safety failure at 8th Avenue involving a bumping block, and when it experiences "signal problems" it causes the entire line to shut down. It's also software based which is going to create problems every time a new CBTC contract is awarded. CBTC contracts are generally meant for single line systems that do not interline. The timeline of upgrading NYCT is already making software changes problematic in addition of CBTC to existing lines.

 

Since L signal problems occur at least once a month, it's sort of like switching the entire planet's power source to nuclear assuming that the odds of a Chernobyl like meltdown were 5% daily.

 

The risk of catastrophic failure and the cost are prohibitive.

 

Congestion is always best alleviated by adding new corridors or expanding the size of existing ones (IE 10 car stations on the L).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what trains you're taking especially since you praise the express buses. But during rush hours, my trains come in a frequent pace. I can actually let the local or express pass if it's too full and wait for the next one and only sacrifice maybe a few minutes.

Well I only need the subway once a week from Midtown to the Upper West Side area and actually so far it hasn't been too problematic.  The (B) has been relatively prompt.  However, I can recall times when I had consultant assignments and needed the (B) during the rush where I waited over 30 minutes for a (B) and the (D) trains were so packed that I couldn't get on.  I take the express bus otherwise and even if there is traffic I'd rather sit and relax than deal with the rude folks on the subway.  Even when there is adequate space people like to get right next to you.  Really annoying. I wonder how much those "Show Time" idiots delay the trains.  They always run in right as the doors are closing forcing the train employees to keep opening and closing the doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be a partial symptom of Buses not being able to attract riders and alleviate the burden.

 

As demonstrated by the Sandy bus bridge, buses are not really a solution to the capacity crunch. We're not about to turn over all three East River Bridges to buses just to get a fraction of the people into town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be a partial symptom of Buses not being able to attract riders and alleviate the burden.

 

Buses are not a viable solution for what this city needs. They are only workable in the scheme as what they were always originally intended to be - less patronized feeder routes to the rail rapid transit network that serve local areas and provide connection between those local areas and nearby train stations.

 

Buses possess neither the capacity nor the frequency to imitate, or even approximate, subway or elevated service as long distance thoroughfares.

 

Buses are more expensive to run in terms of operating costs per passenger than subway trains. Buses have a shorter life expectancy, more expensive fuel cost per rider, and higher ratio of employees (paid hourly) to passengers. They also run below capacity far more often. If you are thinking environmentally, they have a much higher carbon footprint than subways/els, AND they also impact the other street traffic which includes commercial deliveries and shipments, which has an overall effect on commerce within city limits.

 

Subways/els have lower cost per rider, are less frequently way below capacity, as they have dedicated right of way do not impact other traffic/pedestrians and therefore do not contribute to gridlock, and are more sustainable long term.

 

What is needed, and has been needed since the great el teardowns through the 1950s, is additional rail rapid transit corridors.

 

The problem is politicians don't like that. That's why you see inefficient half measures such as "bus rapid transit" - which, by the way, several SBS routes were still at or near the top of the pokey awards for slowest average speed in the city - because the timeline from planning, to construction, to beginning of service for rail rapid transit > the election cycle. A politician can't use the example of a subway, say, on Northern Blvd., or Metropolitan Ave., that hasn't been finished yet, or even begun in earnest, to help his/her re-election bid.

 

The problem is this culture of self-advancement at the cost of all else in politics is destroying this country. We require significant changes in a lot of our existing policies, and improvements to infrastructure that exceed the election cycle. So you see half measures so that politicians can promote their "accomplishments" but you also don't see accomplishments as the half measures aren't followed up on, are de-funded later, or left to stand on their own as the "solution" when in reality a working solution would involve far more.

 

The continued pushing of buses as other than feeder routes, or redundancy to the rail network - to promote them as their own "main line" is one of the worst examples of this in the modern discussion of transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buses are not a viable solution for what this city needs. They are only workable in the scheme as what they were always originally intended to be - less patronized feeder routes to the rail rapid transit network that serve local areas and provide connection between those local areas and nearby train stations.

 

Buses possess neither the capacity nor the frequency to imitate, or even approximate, subway or elevated service as long distance thoroughfares.

 

Buses are more expensive to run in terms of operating costs per passenger than subway trains. Buses have a shorter life expectancy, more expensive fuel cost per rider, and higher ratio of employees (paid hourly) to passengers. They also run below capacity far more often. If you are thinking environmentally, they have a much higher carbon footprint than subways/els, AND they also impact the other street traffic which includes commercial deliveries and shipments, which has an overall effect on commerce within city limits.

 

Subways/els have lower cost per rider, are less frequently way below capacity, as they have dedicated right of way do not impact other traffic/pedestrians and therefore do not contribute to gridlock, and are more sustainable long term.

 

What is needed, and has been needed since the great el teardowns through the 1950s, is additional rail rapid transit corridors.

 

The problem is politicians don't like that. That's why you see inefficient half measures such as "bus rapid transit" - which, by the way, several SBS routes were still at or near the top of the pokey awards for slowest average speed in the city - because the timeline from planning, to construction, to beginning of service for rail rapid transit > the election cycle. A politician can't use the example of a subway, say, on Northern Blvd., or Metropolitan Ave., that hasn't been finished yet, or even begun in earnest, to help his/her re-election bid.

 

The problem is this culture of self-advancement at the cost of all else in politics is destroying this country. We require significant changes in a lot of our existing policies, and improvements to infrastructure that exceed the election cycle. So you see half measures so that politicians can promote their "accomplishments" but you also don't see accomplishments as the half measures aren't followed up on, are de-funded later, or left to stand on their own as the "solution" when in reality a working solution would involve far more.

 

The continued pushing of buses as other than feeder routes, or redundancy to the rail network - to promote them as their own "main line" is one of the worst examples of this in the modern discussion of transportation.

And it's this kind of anti-bus thinking that has us in the situation that we're in right now where people and avoiding buses and looking to the subways.  You can't sit here and yell that subways are the best and act as if buses have no place in our system when in fact buses sure as hell compliment the subway system.  The (MTA) IMO has become very subway centric.  They are discouraging people from using buses by way of doing NOTHING to improve service and claiming that they have no control over the situation.  That in turn is putting extra stress on the subway.  While the costs may be cheaper for subway service in terms of running the service, there are plenty of negatives to subways.  They have been shown in many neighborhoods to bring crime, they are generally dirty (at least here in NYC), increase the rat population, and many neighborhoods that don't have subways don't want them, and I live in a neighborhood that wants NOTHING to do with a subway.  A subway here would destroy the character of the neighborhood and it would have the same effect on other neighborhoods across the city.

 

Not only that but it's easy to yell that the system should be expanded but the costs for said expansion are simply ridiculous.  What should be done by the (MTA) is a true effort to improve bus service and other transportation services while they try to improve subway service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's this kind of anti-bus thinking that has us in the situation that we're in right now where people and avoiding buses and looking to the subways.  You can't sit here and yell that subways are the best and act as if buses have no place in our system when in fact buses sure as hell compliment the subway system.  The (MTA) IMO has become very subway centric.  They are discouraging people from using buses by way of doing NOTHING to improve service and claiming that they have no control over the situation.  That in turn is putting extra stress on the subway.  While the costs may be cheaper for subway service in terms of running the service, there are plenty of negatives to subways.  They have been shown in many neighborhoods to bring crime, they are generally dirty (at least here in NYC), increase the rat population, and many neighborhoods that don't have subways don't want them, and I live in a neighborhood that wants NOTHING to do with a subway.  A subway here would destroy the character of the neighborhood and it would have the same effect on other neighborhoods across the city.

 

Not only that but it's easy to yell that the system should be expanded but the costs for said expansion are simply ridiculous.  What should be done by the (MTA) is a true effort to improve bus service and other transportation services while they try to improve subway service.

 

The costs for any expansion are ridiculous. The day we fork over a lane of traffic on the QB, or the East River Bridges, or the Harlem River Bridges, or the VZ, just so that we can improve bus capacity is the day we accept New Jersey as a borough of New York, and even then it wouldn't do a whole lot.

 

Many neighborhoods don't want subway, but there are also neighborhoods out there that would be very happy to receive one, but they're not in Manhattan so no one gives a crap. Also, I don't know where you get off saying subways increase crime, since there have been no definitive studies on the subject, and in any case there are too many variables in the crime equation to point the finger at subways.

 

All this chitchat ultimately means nothing anyways, since the peanuts that MTA is trying to scrape away now already break the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The costs for any expansion are ridiculous. The day we fork over a lane of traffic on the QB, or the East River Bridges, or the Harlem River Bridges, or the VZ, just so that we can improve bus capacity is the day we accept New Jersey as a borough of New York, and even then it wouldn't do a whole lot.

 

Many neighborhoods don't want subway, but there are also neighborhoods out there that would be very happy to receive one, but they're not in Manhattan so no one gives a crap. Also, I don't know where you get off saying subways increase crime, since there have been no definitive studies on the subject, and in any case there are too many variables in the crime equation to point the finger at subways.

 

All this chitchat ultimately means nothing anyways, since the peanuts that MTA is trying to scrape away now already break the bank.

Please... The Bronx is a perfect example of what happens when you have a subway.  All of the neighborhoods in the Bronx with subways with maybe the exception of one or two are complete ghettos, while just about all of the neighborhoods without subway access are the only good areas.

 

I'd also go further in saying that the areas that don't have subway service generally would fight to continue to not have it, knowing what would happen if they placed subway service there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please... The Bronx is a perfect example of what happens when you have a subway.  All of the neighborhoods in the Bronx with subways with maybe the exception of one or two are complete ghettos, while just about all of the neighborhoods without subway access are the only good areas.

 

I'd also go further in saying that the areas that don't have subway service generally would fight to continue to not have it, knowing what would happen if they placed subway service there.

 

Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens all have good areas by subways, and they also have bad areas by subway. The corridors in the Bronx weren't initially ghettos. The Grand Concourse used to be upper-middle class, and corridors like Broadway in Brooklyn were once bustling retail corridors, even with subways and elevated lines.

 

They became ghettos because they depopulated, but this depopulation also came after the highways were built and wrenching societal change in the late '50s-'70s (like school desegregation), so linking that with the subways decades after they were built is a bit spurious, and definitely not statable as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please... The Bronx is a perfect example of what happens when you have a subway.  All of the neighborhoods in the Bronx with subways with maybe the exception of one or two are complete ghettos, while just about all of the neighborhoods without subway access are the only good areas.

 

I'd also go further in saying that the areas that don't have subway service generally would fight to continue to not have it, knowing what would happen if they placed subway service there.

 

So areas getting a new subway line means it will turn ghetto? I think that logic is false. Like bobtehpanda said, there are areas served (and not served) by the subway that are good areas and bad areas. I don't think the subway has anything to do with the area being a bad neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's this kind of anti-bus thinking that has us in the situation that we're in right now where people and avoiding buses and looking to the subways.  You can't sit here and yell that subways are the best and act as if buses have no place in our system when in fact buses sure as hell compliment the subway system.  The (MTA) IMO has become very subway centric.  They are discouraging people from using buses by way of doing NOTHING to improve service and claiming that they have no control over the situation.  That in turn is putting extra stress on the subway.  While the costs may be cheaper for subway service in terms of running the service, there are plenty of negatives to subways.  They have been shown in many neighborhoods to bring crime, they are generally dirty (at least here in NYC), increase the rat population, and many neighborhoods that don't have subways don't want them, and I live in a neighborhood that wants NOTHING to do with a subway.  A subway here would destroy the character of the neighborhood and it would have the same effect on other neighborhoods across the city.

 

Not only that but it's easy to yell that the system should be expanded but the costs for said expansion are simply ridiculous.  What should be done by the (MTA) is a true effort to improve bus service and other transportation services while they try to improve subway service.

 

On the contrary. While the bus system has seen cuts in recent years, so too have the subways.

 

Almost all of the "improvements" to service have been bus based. It has had little to no effect because buses are less efficient than subways in every way. They are only more efficient when it comes to providing service to local areas to/from the train stations, or serving as a redundancy to a subway line (such as a Lexington Avenue bus) as it allows for a more precise stop (bus stops being every 2-3 blocks in Manhattan vs. every 7-10 for subways)...which has the benefit of discouraging riders who only need to travel short distances from using the subway and contributing to delays as they board and immediately detrain at the next stop.

 

For people who have to travel long distances, the subway is the best way to get around, and these are the people who make up much of the ridership growth as more and more NYers are priced out of Manhattan and have to deal with longer commutes. This goes for their work and for their social activities in the evenings as well. A bus is not a good way to get from Astoria or LIC to the city, for example. But the N or 7 train is. A bus contributes to congestion on the Queensboro Bridge in that instance, while a train does not.

 

You can only alleviate THIS kind of congestion by adding rail corridors. A person who has to travel from 125th St. to City Hall to go to work is not going to take the bus there.

 

You say bus service hasn't been improved. Many of the cuts from 2010 have been brought back. But you can't improve the "quality" of bus service - only frequency of service - unless you do so at the cost of other street traffic. That means something as unworkable as "congestion pricing", or blocking more street parking, inconveniencing more people who live/work/or deliver here, or banning traffic just making congestion worse.

 

Buses are less desirable to riders who have the option of taking the train because with time short, they are slower.

 

And you have nothing to worry about with subways in Riverdale. Riverdale does not possess the through traffic to merit a subway. It's a classic example of buses serving their intended role - taking public transit taking people from that neighborhood (many of whom drive regularly, so ridership is not extreme) to a nearby train, that will take them the long distance to wherever they're going.

 

225th Street? They can stay on the bus.

Times Square? A bus is not viable. But the 1 train is.

 

This is the model every busy corridor needs to follow.

 

The problem is you have busy corridors that need alleviation. Lexington Avenue. Queens Blvd. Jerome Avenue (due to demolition of the Third Avenue El). Doing this would help reduce subway crowding significantly. Buses aren't going to ease congestion on any of those corridors. And that's what is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please... The Bronx is a perfect example of what happens when you have a subway.  All of the neighborhoods in the Bronx with subways with maybe the exception of one or two are complete ghettos, while just about all of the neighborhoods without subway access are the only good areas.

 

I'd also go further in saying that the areas that don't have subway service generally would fight to continue to not have it, knowing what would happen if they placed subway service there.

 

You're right. Morris Park is such a terrible place.

 

It has nothing to do with subways. It has to do with white flight that began when the abominations known as housing projects were put up. All of the areas that had housing projects put up deteriorated significantly. The good areas left are the ones that fought against nearby housing projects.

 

The upper east side and midtown are full of subways. Look at how they've deteriorated.

 

In time, the spillover from the housing projects expanded and forced more people out for the "ghetto" types.

 

Development doesn't fix this, as middle and working class people cannot afford the rents that come with it. Hence the flight to the far reaches of the city, suburbs, etc. Developers can't justify "developing" areas that don't have subway service.

 

There are very few places left in general that are safe from the bullsnitch of the "ghetto" and the financial sword of development. But the subway is not to blame for that. City Hall's policies and continued support for the "project agenda" for the last 60 years have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.