Jump to content

By pure guestimation, when do you think the subway will be fully equipped with CBTC and a NTT fleet?


YungMarxian

Recommended Posts


My guess:

All NTT: ~2030

All CBTC: ~2036

Faster if everything is done faster. Slower if they decide to take their time slowly.

How do you figure that? Seems optimistic but realistic.

 

2115. :lol:

 

3016. (I may be exaggerating that a bit to far...)

ttc and javier, I appreciate the realism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never. By the time CBTC is ready to be fully implemented there will be something "better" (note the quotes) that will be put in. And the CBTC equipped R160's (so called "NTT's") will probably be scrap metal by the time they're even ready to have a discussion about the whole system being equipped with CBTC or its new and improved future version, so there's no telling what the newer trains will be like by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never. By the time CBTC is ready to be fully implemented there will be something "better" (note the quotes) that will be put in. And the CBTC equipped R160's (so called "NTT's") will probably be scrap metal by the time they're even ready to have a discussion about the whole system being equipped with CBTC or its new and improved future version, so there's no telling what the newer trains will be like by then.

This is something I fear, but I think the MTA will have to settle with CBTC no matter what new tech is out there. I think as far as long term goes, increasing capacity needs to be worked on. Open-gangway cars and CBTC are just the start. The MTA's going to have to start seriously discussing expanding existing lines in the coming decades, I think.

 

My guess 3000 let's face it the (MTA) is always delayed we were already supposed to have seen the R179s testing and we still have equipment more than half a century old still running.

I don't think the R179 delay is enough to set the whole damn system back, I hope the MTA will learn and pick a more reliable company for future equipment. I feel like the subway system will endure catastrophic system failures (speaking as an engineer, I don't mean death or anything just huge failures of equipment).

 

 

 

My estimate was based on when I think the R68/As might be retired (being the newest non-NTTs we have.)

We also thought R32's would be gone by this summer :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I fear, but I think the MTA will have to settle with CBTC no matter what new tech is out there. I think as far as long term goes, increasing capacity needs to be worked on. Open-gangway cars and CBTC are just the start. The MTA's going to have to start seriously discussing expanding existing lines in the coming decades, I think.

 

 

I have gone on record as saying this in the past and I still stand by it. You cannot mash old and new technology together. You can build to newer standards, but retrofitting is always problematic at best. CBTC is an incomplete, poorly designed system for as large, complex, and interconnected system as NYCT. When it fails, it fails catastrophically causing entire line shutdowns which are completely unacceptable in this day and age. This is the problem with relying on computer based technology is the very high failure rate - think how often your computer crashes, forces a restart randomly, or an application fails.

 

It's no coincidence that as we rely more on computers, we are more prone to errors, hacks, and computerized miscalculations or errors that often occur as a result of design flaw. CBTC attempts to override this by making everything "fail safe" which causes multiple BIEs over a single issue, makes it very difficult to establish limited service (depending on the failure) and otherwise cripples the line.

 

On top of that, there are 2 different CBTC systems going in - the one already in the place on the L, and the one going in on the 7. Spaced apart by not really that many years, they are incapable of communicating with each other out of the box, and a vendor will be establishing the ability for the 2 systems to communicate with each other. Going forward, this will continue to be an issue as every new CBTC system needs to be able to communicate with all existing ones to establish the full interoperability of the system that NYCT requires. Computer (and signal) manufacturers just don't build to this standard, it's all about cheap. Hence why you can buy a PS4 and can't play PS3 games on it, let alone PS2, or PS1, to use a common example. This will hinder the effectiveness of the "system wide rollout" you are all talking about.

 

I have been saying this for years - the only cure to alleviate congestion is more routes. This city basically hasn't built a new route since the 1940s (unless you're counting the IND takeover of the Rockaway line from LIRR), and has actually LOST transit since the 50s with the destruction of the els which did everything that is being talked about - provided service on other corridors in Manhattan as well as to underserved / congested areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn. While there is no way to bring those lines back, it's time to have a serious discussion about long discussed proposals - such as a subway line on Utica Ave. in Brooklyn, a 3rd Avenue subway in the Bronx connected to the 2nd Avenue line in Manhattan, extending the D to connect with the 2, a far west side line in Manhattan which could double as a crosstown subway in the Bronx, an air train to LaGuardia that's Manhattan based, more subways in Queens, more train yards to facilitate all of this, and extension of lines that end in currently inefficient terminals (such as Flatbush Ave 2/5) to newer terminals that have higher terminal capacity.

 

The impact of spending billions of dollars on quickly obsolete signal systems like CBTC, which have shortcomings when viewed specifically for NYCT (they are marvelous when installed properly in systems where each line is completely isolated from the rest), becomes readily apparent. If you're going to spend billions, spend it right, and have something to show for it at the end. Build new lines. New lines = less congestion on existing lines = less demand for inefficient and expensive to run buses = less street traffic. Everybody wins.

 

The city has missed a golden opportunity by catering to developers. With all of the gentrification going on, the city could have easily said to developers they would not approve plans without dedicated funding set aside for transit improvements for the areas these developments occur in. So you might lose a deal or two here or there, but someone will take it since there is money to be made after all. But instead they're so focused on creating "affordable" housing with income limits so low no middle class person could ever live there, and handing away millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks for these developers to destroy middle class housing to build luxury housing with a few units for the poor. So the middle class gets priced out, gets a crappy commute, and decides to buy a car but doesn't use it all the time. And you have complete gridlock thanks to the urban sprawl this generates. It's extremely poor planning, and CBTC won't "fix" any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have gone on record as saying this in the past and I still stand by it. You cannot mash old and new technology together. You can build to newer standards, but retrofitting is always problematic at best. CBTC is an incomplete, poorly designed system for as large, complex, and interconnected system as NYCT. When it fails, it fails catastrophically causing entire line shutdowns which are completely unacceptable in this day and age. This is the problem with relying on computer based technology is the very high failure rate - think how often your computer crashes, forces a restart randomly, or an application fails.

 

It's no coincidence that as we rely more on computers, we are more prone to errors, hacks, and computerized miscalculations or errors that often occur as a result of design flaw. CBTC attempts to override this by making everything "fail safe" which causes multiple BIEs over a single issue, makes it very difficult to establish limited service (depending on the failure) and otherwise cripples the line.

 

On top of that, there are 2 different CBTC systems going in - the one already in the place on the L, and the one going in on the 7. Spaced apart by not really that many years, they are incapable of communicating with each other out of the box, and a vendor will be establishing the ability for the 2 systems to communicate with each other. Going forward, this will continue to be an issue as every new CBTC system needs to be able to communicate with all existing ones to establish the full interoperability of the system that NYCT requires. Computer (and signal) manufacturers just don't build to this standard, it's all about cheap. Hence why you can buy a PS4 and can't play PS3 games on it, let alone PS2, or PS1, to use a common example. This will hinder the effectiveness of the "system wide rollout" you are all talking about.

 

I have been saying this for years - the only cure to alleviate congestion is more routes. This city basically hasn't built a new route since the 1940s (unless you're counting the IND takeover of the Rockaway line from LIRR), and has actually LOST transit since the 50s with the destruction of the els which did everything that is being talked about - provided service on other corridors in Manhattan as well as to underserved / congested areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn. While there is no way to bring those lines back, it's time to have a serious discussion about long discussed proposals - such as a subway line on Utica Ave. in Brooklyn, a 3rd Avenue subway in the Bronx connected to the 2nd Avenue line in Manhattan, extending the D to connect with the 2, a far west side line in Manhattan which could double as a crosstown subway in the Bronx, an air train to LaGuardia that's Manhattan based, more subways in Queens, more train yards to facilitate all of this, and extension of lines that end in currently inefficient terminals (such as Flatbush Ave 2/5) to newer terminals that have higher terminal capacity.

 

The impact of spending billions of dollars on quickly obsolete signal systems like CBTC, which have shortcomings when viewed specifically for NYCT (they are marvelous when installed properly in systems where each line is completely isolated from the rest), becomes readily apparent. If you're going to spend billions, spend it right, and have something to show for it at the end. Build new lines. New lines = less congestion on existing lines = less demand for inefficient and expensive to run buses = less street traffic. Everybody wins.

 

I believe that a specific issue mentioned with New York's version of CBTC is that the MTA insisted that it interface with the existing signalling system, which means that the CBTC suppliers would have to learn how the old signalling system works.

 

All signalling systems are computerised these days, because no one makes electromechanical ones anymore. Isn't ATO on the A-Division computerized as well?

 

A systemwide standard for signalling isn't that ridiculous considering that there are already industry standards; Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and USB are all standards that consumers are intimately familiar with, and the entire internet works on common specified standards. It's not as if Verizon has to install new cell towers every time a new cell phone comes out.

 

We need more routes, but we also need more signalling capacity. New routes are ridiculously expensive compared to building SBS, or even building subways in other places - if any other city had to pay $1.5B for a mile of subway, they wouldn't do it at all! Coupled with how long it takes to take a new subway route from the drawing board to reality, we need to do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that a specific issue mentioned with New York's version of CBTC is that the MTA insisted that it interface with the existing signalling system, which means that the CBTC suppliers would have to learn how the old signalling system works.

 

All signalling systems are computerised these days, because no one makes electromechanical ones anymore. Isn't ATO on the A-Division computerized as well?

 

A systemwide standard for signalling isn't that ridiculous considering that there are already industry standards; Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and USB are all standards that consumers are intimately familiar with, and the entire internet works on common specified standards. It's not as if Verizon has to install new cell towers every time a new cell phone comes out.

 

We need more routes, but we also need more signalling capacity. New routes are ridiculously expensive compared to building SBS, or even building subways in other places - if any other city had to pay $1.5B for a mile of subway, they wouldn't do it at all! Coupled with how long it takes to take a new subway route from the drawing board to reality, we need to do both.

 

Except each installation is based off different software, and there are multiple manufacturers of this equipment. As for ATS, it is not a signal system, it is supervision of the existing signal system that allows trains to be identified and routed automatically (vs having tower operators do it), and shows a comprehensive picture of the system and the trains moving through it. But the signal system is still standard Fixed Block.

 

Think of it like why you can't play Windows 95 games on Windows 10, or on Apple platforms. Except, it's trains. It's the nature of the beast with software and computers, as well as the reliability factor and the catastrophic failure. But our society just continues to blindly leap into new technology without mastering it first and worship it at the altar of consumerism. While foregoing countless opportunities in the process to make things really better in our world. For all the GPS technology in the world you can order a pizza and follow it from the oven to your door but 2 prisoners (Richard Matt and David Sweat) break out of prison and run away, and it takes weeks and millions of dollars to finally find them. Our priorities are ridiculous when it comes to technology. You have to have awareness of the area you are tackling, and in NYC Transit that means acknowledging that legacy systems will have to continue to exist in perpetuity, or be very slowly modernized in ways consistent with the original spirit of the thing. Or you have to build entirely new sections and gradually phase out the old stuff. But software and tech is constantly changing at a downright stupid pace. Don't believe me? Look at all the fools lining up to overpay for new phones just because a new model came out. The old model works fine. But manufacturers have figured out that if you phase out "old" technology after a few years, it creates obsolescence which requires you to come back and buy from them again. It's scumbag business practices, and rather than just reject this whole rat race and go with something that works, people fall into the trap of constantly buying the same inferior garbage over and over again. Signal manufacturers are subject to this same stupidity, and in some cases, may also be part of it themselves. So why not buck the trend, and service everything in house? Because there's no money for capital funding for old tech. Why? Because politicians like shiny new shit so they can look good. Doesn't matter if it works, just "hey look I did something". NYCT is big enough to manufacture and maintain the entirety of its old signal system, and possibly even provide services to other older systems in the country.

 

POLITICIANS love CBTC because it's new and shiny and sounds good on paper. But in reality?

 

The equivalent is looking at midtown gridlock and saying we need better timed traffic lights. Will it help? Maybe. But not noticeably. What will help? New routes. A new route adds 20-30 TPH to a busy section of the city. All the work for CBTC on the L added only a handful of TPH. And at great cost, and with many other delays caused by CBTC failure that would not have occurred under the old system. Many of the service increases you are seeing, particularly in the evenings and middays, would have been perfectly possible even under conventional fixed block signalling...the limiting factor was equipment (trains) and spare ratio.

 

SBS is a complete nonstarter, and CBTC has it beat soundly by a wide margin on the grand scale of usefulness. Poltiicians love it because it's quick and dirty - you can set it up quickly and they can pat themselves on the back and run for re-election having "done something." Except buses are, dollar for dollar, the least efficient form of public transit in the city. There is a higher farebeat ratio in buses than elsewhere, a higher labor cost per rider, a higher fuel cost per rider, and for the rider the bus is a miserable ride - crowded, slow, delayed, and often unevenly and unpredictably spaced (even SBS). Paying off-board might save a whopping 5-10 minutes at best off an hour run that could be accomplished in twenty minutes with a subway line. Buses really only excel at one thing - providing service to isolated areas that need transit, but not a ton of it, and act as feeder routes to the nearest subway line. They are also useful running parallel to subway lines for commuters who wish to travel shorter distances. But they are not good for major rides that are in demand as they are slow, contribute heavily to traffic along the route, and expensive to run. SBS has also made catching farebeating harder on runs, as Eagle Teams can't be everywhere. At least in the old days a bus driver could refuse to move the bus until a freeloader exited or paid, as the ire of fellow passengers could sometimes be used to great effect. Or, a single cop riding could see the farebeat, and ticket him as the bus moved along to its destination, whereas now the Eagle Team must block all exits and scan the entire bus for 5 minutes for POP receipts while it sits idling...

 

We are reaping what politicians have sown. They are elected to make the tough choices and have refused to do so because it is all about "looking good," and it's cool to dump on public transit, cut funding, and blow money on idiotic pet projects as has been done. They love to throw in multimillion dollar studies in funding. Years ago, they would order experimental cars. That way, after you spent money, you had something to show for it, whether the concept worked or not. Or, they would modify older cars to test the concept in play - such as when testing for clearances for 75 footers in the B Division. But now, everything is all about studies. So millions of taxpayer dollars gets a government agency and politicians a shiny 200 slide PowerPoint and some relevant facts, about a third of which are probably obsolete or inactionable by the time it comes to make a decision.

 

Look at what a farce education has become in NYC. I'm not saying politicians getting involved in transit is a good thing, you already see the effects of Cuomo doing so (system wide shutdown for a light dusting of snow, with trains secretly running anyway, and no one, not even the employees was really filled in on any of it).

 

See the con game that is going on, be outraged, and called the elected "leaders" to the carpet for their failure to lead, and demand that they do so now and be accountable for their choices. Otherwise you can just expect to get packed into shittier and more crowded cattle cars and buses, with more delays, the oddball "accident" where a piece of infrastructure that is undermaintained falls apart and everyone panics for a day then goes back to their cat videos on Youtube, and like sheep, you will blame the MTA when it happens because "they make all this fare money" which isn't even enough to cover the costs of maintaining the system let alone expanding it, which is actually a great bargain in light of the fact that it costs you as much to ride a subway for over 10 miles as it does to sit down in a taxi and take it 1 block. And the politicians will escape blame as they have for decades, and you will continue to vote for replaceable moron after replaceable moron solely based on the stupidest of concepts - party affiliation - while the city council and developers continue to pull the wool over your eyes and laugh all the way to the bank as they do so...blind to the billions of dollars of productivity the city loses every year to train and street congestion which could have easily been reduced if the city had followed through on any 4 or 5 of the nearly dozen things that were first being talked about in 1930.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could make a nice list of the ways in which the MTA mismanages our current system to create or aid in the problems it has yet somehow more routes will be our magic wand to solve congestion. Let's see the people who are making the case for more subway lines make that same case when:

- The subway is shut down between 1-5:30 am systemwide. 24/7 service as convenient as it sounds is a huge problem as a whole. Having the entire system (or most of it if we need to start there) available at one time for track and station maintenance is far superior from a safety, management, and convenience to riders perspective than the current situation with most work taking place on weekends where service across the system is altered for the worse. 

- Subway cars with open gangways are ordered and make up at least a majority of the system's fleet 

- Signals are updated to the point where 40 TPH can run along a single track as is already being done in some cities.

- Once the above happens revise schedules to where no individual station sees less than 12 TPH during peak times (regardless of the line that serves it) or 7 TPH during off-peak times while the Manhattan core lines see anywhere up to 40 TPH during the peak. 

- Bus service actually does it's job filling the holes left by the subway system. I propose adding late night transit coverage as one of those holes but it's nothing that a special late-night bus network with discounted fares can't accomplish. 

- A zone-based fare scheme (notice how it's zone-based instead of distance based) where subway trips into Midtown from places like the UES or UWS will be more expensive than a trip to Midtown from East Queens or the North Bronx. This scheme should be complimented with modern payment technology in the form of an agency distributed smartcard and/or mobile payment

 

Let's put it this way. If some CBTC equivalent ran on the Lex you could conceivably run 40 TPH between the (4) and (5) during the AM rush and likely 30 on the (6). That would be an increase of 17 TPH over the existing service which is nowhere close to marginal. Now if those 17 TPH and the others even can fit an additional 100 passengers or so you've increased capacity by 7,000 per hour right there. If capacity can be increased by that much just from doing things that will need to be done anyway (our legacy signals and current car fleet will not survive the next few decades regardless of how well maintained they are) then that opportunity has to be tapped before one can say that the system and maxed out and needs to be expanded. If other areas of the system see increased capacity we've far exceeded the 20-30 TPH that a new Manhattan core line would bring with legacy systems. Proposals for new subway lines sell the existing system short and that's Jubai's word. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the blind worship of technology based on a list of what it is believed to do, without regard for actual.

 

I could make a nice list of the ways in which the MTA mismanages our current system to create or aid in the problems it has yet somehow more routes will be our magic wand to solve congestion. Let's see the people who are making the case for more subway lines make that same case when:

- The subway is shut down between 1-5:30 am systemwide. 24/7 service as convenient as it sounds is a huge problem as a whole. Having the entire system (or most of it if we need to start there) available at one time for track and station maintenance is far superior from a safety, management, and convenience to riders perspective than the current situation with most work taking place on weekends where service across the system is altered for the worse. 

 

New routes do not require overnight shutdowns. Overnight shutdowns are also extremely difficult to implement. You would have to pay Train Operators to lay up trains at night, as well as additional labor expenses in paying them to inspect trains for morning put-ins whereas now that is not required for the handful of trains that remain in overnight service. Not only this, you would be taking away the only reliable way for many of them to get to work to start service for the AM rush. NYC also has people working 24/7 and you would be doing most of them a huge disservice, since people start going to work a little after 4AM usually. By 5-530 PM trains are starting to run at closer to capacity, especially in working class neighborhoods that are further away from the CBD. That means your service window of closing is 1-430. Not only is that not really enough time to get any real work done, it would actually increase the costs, decrease revenue, and significantly reduce the usefulness of the system.

 

- Subway cars with open gangways are ordered and make up at least a majority of the system's fleet 

 

Not a bad idea to try, but again, why not just build in an order for 10 cars? Why spend millions "studying" it, and at the end we are out of millions of dollars collectively as taxpayers and have nothing to show for it but a powerpoint? Order a train, run it around the system light as a test train, see how things go. If it goes OK, try it with people on it. If that works, order a whole bunch of them.

 

- Signals are updated to the point where 40 TPH can run along a single track as is already being done in some cities.

 

Not possible. Terminal capacity is your limiting factor on a line. All the people who keep pushing "new signals" fail to understand that this is how a rapid transit system works. Unless you want trains flying into terminals only to make stops mere feet from bumping blocks, or zipping over switches at high speeds to get in or out, this simply isn't possible. At best you're looking at around 24 TPH capacity for most terminals as is currently the case. Every train that utilizes a 2 track island platform ending in bumping blocks has to cross a switch either entering or leaving and come in slowly and safely to avoid the chance of the train hitting the block. You also have to build in time for passengers to alight and board, and the crew to change and do a quick pre-inspect of their train (2 mins). These are the TA's own rules for safety, if you skimp on those you skimp on safety. The only way to increase capacity beyond this are things that transit is already doing like having multiple terminals. Why do you think the IRT has dropouts at 137, 215 on the 1, Burnside on the 4, 138/3 Parkchester AND Pelham on the 6, and Willets Point is a rush hour terminal for selected 7 trains (or, B Division examples, the selected E's to/from 179 St., F's to Kings Highway)? That's a way to increase terminal capacity for the line by utilizing multiple terminals. But as long as a two track line like the L continues to really only have 2 places to turn a train (14-8 and Canarsie) all the signalling in the world doesn't mean anything because you are going to wind up with bottlenecks stretching from both terminals. Never mind you also have to leave time for layups to be cleaned of passengers before they head to yards at the peak of service volume also.

 

- Once the above happens revise schedules to where no individual station sees less than 12 TPH during peak times (regardless of the line that serves it) or 7 TPH during off-peak times while the Manhattan core lines see anywhere up to 40 TPH during the peak. 

 

Again, these numbers are not coming from anywhere except someone's imagination. This level of service is not warranted and does not really grow revenue. New corridors grow revenue and reduce congestion where a better alternative exists. Consider the 2nd Avenue Stubway. Just by adding stations at 72/2nd, 86th/2nd, and 96th/2nd, you take passengers coming from the N/R/Q who currently transfer to the 4/5/6 at 59-Lex and give them a one seat ride (via the Q) to their destination. This takes thousands of people off the crowded 4/5/6 trains AND the east side corridor in general. Never mind also that the transfer between the F and Q 63/Lex will give an alternative to passengers taking the M to the crowded 53-Lex station who want the far upper east side of Manhattan.

 

Once you get far out of the CBD that level of service is not warranted. Railfans always love to talk about more trains in Queens, and they love to send them to 179 St. since it has an extremely high terminal capacity due to the presence of the express and local tracks which relay on different levels. Except, after Continental, the crowds really thin out (except for the E, but most of those people are going to Sutphin Blvd. or Jamaica Center). So the service would not be warranted. Operations Planning has a lot of people who study this.

 

Also, no matter what signal system is in play, more trains = more delays = longer running times. It sounds good to "increase capacity" but are you really? Let's say it takes 22 trains to run a 6 minute headway on a 60 minute (1 way) running time line with two pocket terminals and no relays at each end. So let's add 2 extra trains per hour, it'll be great! Except that now you end up with an extra 6 minutes of delays due to train traffic caused by the which causes the running time to be lengthened to 66 minutes. Well, now you are still running the same 6 minute headway (66 minutes * 2 = 132 minutes round trip / 22 trains since you subtract 2...one from each end...for dual pocket terminal operation from the 24 total = 132/22 = 6 minute headway). So it now takes longer to get to the same destination and the system as a whole is capable of holding slightly more people at the same time because it has forced itself to, but a rider only notices the same (or worse) levels of crowding and the fact their commute now takes longer than it used to.

 

On the contrary, when you build a new line, you are free to spec it as you please, with high speed switches and tail tracks at terminals if need be so train can come in faster, and higher terminal capacity. Also pretty much everything you are adding represents new capacity.

 

- Bus service actually does it's job filling the holes left by the subway system. I propose adding late night transit coverage as one of those holes but it's nothing that a special late-night bus network with discounted fares can't accomplish.

 

Except buses are slow and unreliable. The overnight service is laughable. There is room for improvement here. Buses are fine at "filling holes" which is what I wrote in my earlier post. But bus service, even SBS, no matter how frequent will never replace a train. Bus bunching occurs constantly and leads to long breaks between buses. It is difficult to evenly space buses and correct this gap in service when it occurs. The Bx12 is a great example of something that would be a moderately used subway line if built, but is currently a slow, crush loaded bus route. Probably 3/4 of the runtime of that line during daytime hours is between 207/Bway and Fordham University. The rest of the line is fine. But that one piece, a section that would probably take about 10-15 minutes tops on a subway line can often take close to an hour. Yet due to the absence of a subway line, this is the only way to get there. Consider also the buses to Kings Plaza in Brooklyn which would be better served by extending subway routes such as the 2/5 to make stops closer out that way where transfer is available to buses providing feeder service to the various areas not right on Nostrand. Not only that, but if the line were extended, Transit could provide a modern terminal for the line which would tremendously increase the terminal capacity of the 2 and 5 since it wouldn't be necessary to crawl in at 5 MPH as now due to how close the bumping block is to the end of track (and the fact that an overrun could be disastrous with passengers walking only feet behind the block). Riders would benefit too, as those who need the train needn't walk all the way around to get to the other pocket should they miss the next departure.

 

- A zone-based fare scheme (notice how it's zone-based instead of distance based) where subway trips into Midtown from places like the UES or UWS will be more expensive than a trip to Midtown from East Queens or the North Bronx. This scheme should be complimented with modern payment technology in the form of an agency distributed smartcard and/or mobile payment

 

This becomes problematic no matter which way you slice it. You either expect the people using the system the least to pay the most for it (since you do at least agree distance based would be problematic since it forces many of the poorest riders to pay the most).

 

But secondly, what benefit does "modern payment technology" add? It costs billions to implement and doesn't generate a dime in new revenue. Mobile payment comes with its own sets of problems - security...you really want to just give the MTA your bank account info like that? What about students, or people who just don't have bank accounts or credit cards, or tourists from foreign countries who use banks that are not supported in the app? Despite the "modern fare payment" options in most other cities, if you want to pay cash you can, and there is usually some variation of a station agent to help you if you want.

 

Let's put it this way. If some CBTC equivalent ran on the Lex you could conceivably run 40 TPH between the (4) and (5) during the AM rush and likely 30 on the (6). That would be an increase of 17 TPH over the existing service which is nowhere close to marginal. Now if those 17 TPH and the others even can fit an additional 100 passengers or so you've increased capacity by 7,000 per hour right there. If capacity can be increased by that much just from doing things that will need to be done anyway (our legacy signals and current car fleet will not survive the next few decades regardless of how well maintained they are) then that opportunity has to be tapped before one can say that the system and maxed out and needs to be expanded. If other areas of the system see increased capacity we've far exceeded the 20-30 TPH that a new Manhattan core line would bring with legacy systems. Proposals for new subway lines sell the existing system short and that's Jubai's word. 

 

New lines don't sell the existing system short, they reduce the strain on it, and allow it to function better, more consistent with its intended purpose. OK great, CBTC adds 40 TPH. So you have trains back to back to back to back. Now during AM rush hour you have a signal problem, say north of 59th St. on the 4/5. Under conventional signalling, 1 train gets tripped, walks around, finds the problematic signal, reports, ensures it's safe to proceed and moves out. Total delay, maybe 10 minutes or so. When the train gets to Brooklyn Bridge, they probably give it a skip to Bowling Green. The other trains have to hold but eventually get moving, and most of them if not all are able to make their scheduled trips uptown from Utica/Flatbush.

 

With CBTC, the same signal problem could cause every train between 86 and 59 to go BIE at the same time, which, due to the increased capacity, now means where 2 or 3 trains were stuck behind it south of 86th, now 6 or 7 trains are stuck behind it. And since it's CBTC, all those trains just went BIE. So 7 or 8 different trains now have to communicate with control, troubleshoot to find the problem, and overcome it. And the solution may involve every train needing to go 10 MPH between 86th and 59th St. until the problem is corrected, whereas under conventional signalling, it's entirely likely the solution may only necessitate trains going 10 MPH between the problem signal and the one after it. Service would be at a standstill. Brooklyn terminals would have to start holding back their service to maintain even spacing of trains at longer headways so that people going uptown aren't just stuck waiting for the next train in, say, 30 mins or more during rush hour. This adds significantly to the delays from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Bronx terminals would have to start holding back their service to avoid jamming the bottleneck solid with too much capacity, but they still have regular service coming uptown to them, and they need to make sure those trains have space to get into the terminal. So they'd have to send trains out, and intermediate stations would have to be used temporariy as terminals to short turn trains back. Except with CBTC, you've flooded the line to such capacity that this process now takes far longer than it used to since it's still going to take 5-10 minutes to get everyone off a train to turn it anyway. So what used to be a 20 minute delay turns into 45, 50, or an hour. Or service gets so bad the entire corridor needs to be shut down until service can be restarted (seriously how many times have we had to hear "No L trains between 8th Avenue and Broadway Junction" - the irony of which being between Broadway Junction and Canarsie is the only portion of the line that still has conventional signals!)

 

With a new line, you don't have any of this. The corridors aren't even connected, and you have an alternate route available. So you have a BIE north of 59th St. Now you can post a mobile alert advising people travelling between 86 and 59 to take the Q on 2nd Avenue to avoid the delays. This helps to reduce the existing crowd conditions on Lex Ave. The Lex line would still have problems, but under conventional signalling and headways they can be more easily overcome, and trains can clear the problem area and resume normal operation. The other corridor isn't even affected. Think of new corridors like when they run general orders. Some aspects of the system are extremely well designed. There's construction on the 1 line, no trains between 96 St. and 168 St. Great, make an announcement at 59 St. or 168 St. and at both locations they can take the A or C which stop nearby. This can come in handy for either the 1, A, or C if any of them become plagued with delays, construction doesn't have to be the only reason to encourage people to use this alternate route. More alternate routes = more options = less delays and better service.

 

Stop making excuses for politicians and their lack of leadership. Call them out on it instead of trying to make the TA do even more with less as it has been for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city has missed a golden opportunity by catering to developers. With all of the gentrification going on, the city could have easily said to developers they would not approve plans without dedicated funding set aside for transit improvements for the areas these developments occur in. So you might lose a deal or two here or there, but someone will take it since there is money to be made after all. But instead they're so focused on creating "affordable" housing with income limits so low no middle class person could ever live there, and handing away millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks for these developers to destroy middle class housing to build luxury housing with a few units for the poor. So the middle class gets priced out, gets a crappy commute, and decides to buy a car but doesn't use it all the time. And you have complete gridlock thanks to the urban sprawl this generates. It's extremely poor planning, and CBTC won't "fix" any of it.

 

I don't think this is a totally fair opposition to the city's affordable housing policy. The housing is specifically bracketed--to the significant opposition, I might add, of many community advocates--so that middle-income New Yorkers are included in the plan, and so that it doesn't go exclusively to extremely low-income renters. If you look at the numbers, it's not a terrible breakdown. Regardless, that emphasis on housing in many ways takes away the transit leverage the city might have: when you require 25-30% affordable housing from developers, if you stipulate transit funds on top, they might walk. And the city has little leverage on this: without more tax revenue from higher rates on the woefully undertaxed upper class (thank Cuomo and upstate for the catering to the elites, despite what the mayor has called for) and new federal funding for subsidized housing, all it can really do is bargain with developers. The ideal is that city has enough money that it can subsidize some housing by itself, and that the developers are forced to follow the city's demands. But we have a government upstate and a governor with no interest in the middle class, so the rich keep their money and the city suffers, turning to the real estate industry when a housing crisis hits. The developers are, after all, the ones with the money, and they control what will or won't get built. It's only because of their extreme desire to build that a margin as significant as 30% is even possible.

 

That said, the city has proposed some new transit options significantly better than any I've heard from past administrations. Bloomberg's lame-duck 7 extension, complete with axed 10th Ave station, was no great piece of infrastructure. But the Utica Ave extension study? That is, actually, a relevant idea. It's only pitiful that it's the same one I have a copy of on my desk, from a 1973 NYCTA allegedly introducing 'new' ideas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the blind worship of technology based on a list of what it is believed to do, without regard for actual.

 

 

New lines don't sell the existing system short, they reduce the strain on it, and allow it to function better, more consistent with its intended purpose. OK great, CBTC adds 40 TPH. So you have trains back to back to back to back. Now during AM rush hour you have a signal problem, say north of 59th St. on the 4/5. Under conventional signalling, 1 train gets tripped, walks around, finds the problematic signal, reports, ensures it's safe to proceed and moves out. Total delay, maybe 10 minutes or so. When the train gets to Brooklyn Bridge, they probably give it a skip to Bowling Green. The other trains have to hold but eventually get moving, and most of them if not all are able to make their scheduled trips uptown from Utica/Flatbush.

 

With CBTC, the same signal problem could cause every train between 86 and 59 to go BIE at the same time, which, due to the increased capacity, now means where 2 or 3 trains were stuck behind it south of 86th, now 6 or 7 trains are stuck behind it. And since it's CBTC, all those trains just went BIE. So 7 or 8 different trains now have to communicate with control, troubleshoot to find the problem, and overcome it. And the solution may involve every train needing to go 10 MPH between 86th and 59th St. until the problem is corrected, whereas under conventional signalling, it's entirely likely the solution may only necessitate trains going 10 MPH between the problem signal and the one after it. Service would be at a standstill. Brooklyn terminals would have to start holding back their service to maintain even spacing of trains at longer headways so that people going uptown aren't just stuck waiting for the next train in, say, 30 mins or more during rush hour. This adds significantly to the delays from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Bronx terminals would have to start holding back their service to avoid jamming the bottleneck solid with too much capacity, but they still have regular service coming uptown to them, and they need to make sure those trains have space to get into the terminal. So they'd have to send trains out, and intermediate stations would have to be used temporariy as terminals to short turn trains back. Except with CBTC, you've flooded the line to such capacity that this process now takes far longer than it used to since it's still going to take 5-10 minutes to get everyone off a train to turn it anyway. So what used to be a 20 minute delay turns into 45, 50, or an hour. Or service gets so bad the entire corridor needs to be shut down until service can be restarted (seriously how many times have we had to hear "No L trains between 8th Avenue and Broadway Junction" - the irony of which being between Broadway Junction and Canarsie is the only portion of the line that still has conventional signals!)

 

With a new line, you don't have any of this. The corridors aren't even connected, and you have an alternate route available. So you have a BIE north of 59th St. Now you can post a mobile alert advising people travelling between 86 and 59 to take the Q on 2nd Avenue to avoid the delays. This helps to reduce the existing crowd conditions on Lex Ave. The Lex line would still have problems, but under conventional signalling and headways they can be more easily overcome, and trains can clear the problem area and resume normal operation. The other corridor isn't even affected. Think of new corridors like when they run general orders. Some aspects of the system are extremely well designed. There's construction on the 1 line, no trains between 96 St. and 168 St. Great, make an announcement at 59 St. or 168 St. and at both locations they can take the A or C which stop nearby. This can come in handy for either the 1, A, or C if any of them become plagued with delays, construction doesn't have to be the only reason to encourage people to use this alternate route. More alternate routes = more options = less delays and better service.

 

Stop making excuses for politicians and their lack of leadership. Call them out on it instead of trying to make the TA do even more with less as it has been for decades.

So where do I start

-I like the whole what if CBTC or it's equivalent fails in operation. Any manufacturer worth their salt should be working with the agency to make sure reasonable protocols are established in case of any malfunctions. If that cannot happen then either one or both parties in the deal are lacking in competence. Also the whole point of signal modernization is that they are significantly less likely to fail then older systems. There is no subway line in the world under CBTC operation that rings up as close to as many delays as a typical NYC subway line. The aim of rapid transit is not to reduce the magnitude of delays (although should be done when possible) but to reduce the frequency of them. Your average rider will be far less annoyed by one-hour suspensions of service once in a blue moon than they are with constant delays that leave them 5-10 late to their jobs and appointments. 

- More revenue is constantly bought up as if this is some pressing need of the agency that cannot be resolved through fare increases. In order to even get that you would need more riders using the system. Even if ridership increases due to population growth (which I feel will decrease in coming years) will the increases be large enough to where we need track space for an additional several hundred thousands of riders to be fed into Midtown during peak hours. That part is what I find ridiculous. I don't see where the extra people that will flood the system with new revenue are and will be in the distant future. Revenues from riders shouldn't even matter if the appropriate funds are being provided by the folks in Albany. 

- Higher service levels on existing lines in the outer boroughs are clearly warranted. The major crowding issue comes from the accumulation of riders along the outer borough lines most of whom are seeking Midtown or Lower Manhattan thus offering little chance for turnover. If there was high turnover at these stops in the Bronx or Queens or Brooklyn outside of downtown then the most efficient solution is to run as many trains as possible into the high traffic stops and as few as possible elsewhere. Whatever riders are turning over are far outnumbered by those heading into Manhattan so you have to treat the service like a funnel where you need a wide space (lots of service from the outer terminals) in order for the funnel to be effective. The MTA does a very good job at constricting the outer width of said Manhattan funnel doing shit like running southbound (5) service from terminals on different lines, running peak direction express service on lines like the WPR and running (3) service as frequently as (2) service in when the latter carries a far higher demand. Some of the service patterns are so idiotic I wonder if these "Operations Planning" people have ever been on a train in their lives. All we need is to remove said constrictions and see how crowded these trains are entering Manhattan then. 

- It it's so essential that the subway stays open 24/7 then when will critical maintenance work get done? We need to severely curtail the amount of weekend service disruptions because ridership is far too heavy for the BS re-routes and cuts that go on. Taking the subway on weekends even for seasoned commuters is just a mess when there are far less people using the subway at 2 am on a weeknight somehow getting access to service almost equally as good. There should be no more than 2 general orders on any individual weekend. 

- I'll end by saying that peak-hour crowding is the least of the issues facing the subway. We need to call out the MTA for providing half-assed delay filled service on both subways and buses. Expansion is a new toy and you should only get those when you've been responsible with the current ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.

 

So where do I start

-I like the whole what if CBTC or it's equivalent fails in operation. Any manufacturer worth their salt should be working with the agency to make sure reasonable protocols are established in case of any malfunctions. If that cannot happen then either one or both parties in the deal are lacking in competence. Also the whole point of signal modernization is that they are significantly less likely to fail then older systems. There is no subway line in the world under CBTC operation that rings up as close to as many delays as a typical NYC subway line. The aim of rapid transit is not to reduce the magnitude of delays (although should be done when possible) but to reduce the frequency of them. Your average rider will be far less annoyed by one-hour suspensions of service once in a blue moon than they are with constant delays that leave them 5-10 late to their jobs and appointments. 

 

Because NYC's subway is one of the most complex in the world and one of the most heavily trafficked. Other systems that have heavy traffic were often designed later and avoid physical characteristics like sharp curves which require slow speeds, or other physical attributes that can't be changed at this point. Also, NYC's system is arguably the most interlined in the entire world which create unique constraints that cannot be solved by looking at what other systems who do not operate under those constraints do. And there are protocols in place for CBTC failure, but most of them are not very good. They basically all consist of the train operator operating without signal protection and the train is limited to 10 MPH or less until the train leaves the problem area. Depending on the scope of the failure, it could be a rather large area. If you're going to double down on capacity because the system "allows" you to, then you'd better be able to handle that capacity when something goes wrong. Otherwise you're going to have a lot of problems - people stuck between stations for an hour getting fed up, and walking through tunnels, mass evacuations in the event a major failure, etc. You rarely hear of large swaths of entire lines being shutdown during rush hour, but since CBTC has gone in on the L it happens seemingly once or twice a month, and since CBTC equipment has gone in on the 7, it has occurred at least twice. Expect more of it in the future.

 

- More revenue is constantly bought up as if this is some pressing need of the agency that cannot be resolved through fare increases. In order to even get that you would need more riders using the system. Even if ridership increases due to population growth (which I feel will decrease in coming years) will the increases be large enough to where we need track space for an additional several hundred thousands of riders to be fed into Midtown during peak hours. That part is what I find ridiculous. I don't see where the extra people that will flood the system with new revenue are and will be in the distant future. Revenues from riders shouldn't even matter if the appropriate funds are being provided by the folks in Albany. 

 

Absolutely, yes. Completion of a full length Second Avenue line with provision for extension along 3rd/Webster Aves. in the Bronx would do wonders. It's just too bad the cheap plan was chosen with no express service. If they are talking about developing the west side the way they are, now would be a good time to talk about a far west side subway line to help the crowded 7th/8th Ave lines and handle the coming development on 10th and 11th aves, such a line could also extend north and provide crosstown service in the Bronx, and extend east into Brooklyn at the south end from, say, 23rd St. to help relieve congestion in Greenpoint and Williamsburg, giving Greenpoint folks a one seat ride into Manhattan instead of sending them to Court Sq. to add to congestion coming from Queens, and giving Williamsbug folks and alternate way into the city when the L is acting up or crowded. Continuing that line out to Woodhaven Blvd. along Metropolitan Ave. wouldn't be bad either as it will fill a gap in subway service for quite a few people. Extension of the 2/5 along Flatbush Avenue with a proper terminal at Kings Plaza would do wonders for ridership, and for that area as well by reducing the need for quite so many buses to feed to Nostrand/Flatbush since Kings Plaza would be close by, and also extend capacity with a terminal allowing for quicker train entry. Just a couple of ideas. These would expand service in areas that are somewhat car dependent currently, and increase ridership. In Manhattan, they would take ridership off some of the most overcrowded lines which lessens the strain on those routes and makes them more efficient, and therefore profitable. Remember, delays cost money - whether it's overtime, free Metrocards to angry letter writers, etc.

 

- Higher service levels on existing lines in the outer boroughs are clearly warranted. The major crowding issue comes from the accumulation of riders along the outer borough lines most of whom are seeking Midtown or Lower Manhattan thus offering little chance for turnover. If there was high turnover at these stops in the Bronx or Queens or Brooklyn outside of downtown then the most efficient solution is to run as many trains as possible into the high traffic stops and as few as possible elsewhere. Whatever riders are turning over are far outnumbered by those heading into Manhattan so you have to treat the service like a funnel where you need a wide space (lots of service from the outer terminals) in order for the funnel to be effective. The MTA does a very good job at constricting the outer width of said Manhattan funnel doing shit like running southbound (5) service from terminals on different lines, running peak direction express service on lines like the WPR and running (3) service as frequently as (2) service in when the latter carries a far higher demand. Some of the service patterns are so idiotic I wonder if these "Operations Planning" people have ever been on a train in their lives. All we need is to remove said constrictions and see how crowded these trains are entering Manhattan then. 

 

I'm not saying the outer boros don't require more service. Read what I'm saying carefully. I'm saying that the extra service is not required for the length of the run. This is a second reason why rush hour service will "short turn" at a weekday only terminal during the week. Consider the F. Due to the switch configuration south of W8th St., you can't run enough F trains to provide service in Queens/Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn from Coney to 179. So you need to short turn somewhere. Why Kings Highway, why not 18th Ave? Because Kings Highway is where the ridership really thins out on that particular line. But you don't need more F trains between Kings Highway and Stillwell....

 

- It it's so essential that the subway stays open 24/7 then when will critical maintenance work get done? We need to severely curtail the amount of weekend service disruptions because ridership is far too heavy for the BS re-routes and cuts that go on. Taking the subway on weekends even for seasoned commuters is just a mess when there are far less people using the subway at 2 am on a weeknight somehow getting access to service almost equally as good. There should be no more than 2 general orders on any individual weekend.

 

Ridership is heavy until 1AM in midtown. That means people are getting home at 2-230. A system wide shutdown for an hour or two is expensive to implement and doesn't provide the window to work that people think it does. New routes offer the possibility of partial system overnight shutdowns like we see in fastrack in the future but with better service alternatives since parallel service is available that can handle the capacity. Presently, these shutdowns are 12-5. It has to be because shuttle buses have to be provided where no service is available, and shuttle buses are inadequate to handle train capacity, except in the extreme overnight window. But if alternate subway service could be provided, a shutdown could conceivably begin at 9PM provided a nearby train route was capable of making up the service. That would provide a much larger window to perform necessary repairs.

 

- I'll end by saying that peak-hour crowding is the least of the issues facing the subway. We need to call out the MTA for providing half-assed delay filled service on both subways and buses. Expansion is a new toy and you should only get those when you've been responsible with the current ones. 

 

Except the crowding is not just during the peak. It's during middays and evenings too, which have seen the largest service increases over the past 15 years.

 

You are oversimplifying and assuming effect is cause. Buses are terrible as main trunk routes because they can't be evenly spaced well as I wrote in my last post. They work best as feeders to subway lines or parallel to existing lines for riders traveling short distances. You can't blame the MTA for traffic conditions. But you can provide alternate routes that reduce street traffic into the city. The MTA bears some responsibility for subway delays, but not as often as you'd think. Most delays are caused by passengers. Sick passengers happen when you pack people into cattle cars since there's not enough capacity for crush loads. Crime, lost property, and fights also have a little bit to do with this, as well as the fact that police are hamstrung from kicking the most aggressive homeless/panhandlers etc. out of the system, who represent a small subset (extremely problematic though) of the larger homeless population in the city, and who disproportionally are involved in many of the incidents that delay service in the system...whether it's refusing to leave a train going to the yard causing delays as trains wait to enter the terminal while this person is removed, or delays where police have to be summoned. With less crowding and more enforcement of standards of American behavior here (and not 3rd world garbage like we all put up with on a daily basis taking public transit), many of the delays will get a chance to take care of themselves.

 

There is no way to make the current system handle the needs of the future without expanding it. This is a system built in 1930 that is largely unchanged and has actually been reduced with the destruction of the Els in the 30s through 50s which reduced capacity and even left some neighborhoods without service.

 

The people saying "do more with less" are politicians who are so worried about maintainig their image, being reelected, and doing right by their campaign donors, that they are unable or unwilling to face hard decisions, and speak openly and honestly about our problems, challenges, and opportunities. By parroting what they are saying, you demonstrate an interest in, but not indepth knowledge of, the subject area. As most politicians do. Why should Cuomo order a shutdown of the underground portion of the system as well as the above ground for a "terrible" 8 inch snowstorm? His job is not to do that, his job is to name someone (Prendergast) to run the system and then provide Prendergast with the tools he needs to do his job as best he can, and periodically review performance against stated reasonable goals to see how Prendergast is doing. But politicians aren't content with that - they have to dictate everything to everyone when they don't have knowledge of the area. And you have a few smart people who work in these agencies who can craft up half-measures as stopgaps (things like SBS) which can help a little bit. But rather than use them as what they are (stopgaps) politicians will wholeheartedly embrace them and call for widespread use because it looks good on paper and has a quick result. Except it's a stopgap. It's like looking at a leaking dam, someone introduces you to Bondo, says "this should hold things till we can repair the dam!", and then you run around saying "Bondo! It's amazing! Let's use this everywhere there's a crack! We never have to fix another dam again!" Well sooner or later the dam is gonna fail. And when the system eventually maxes out, which is coming without real capital improvements including system expansion, hopefully I'll be recently retired, sitting in my back yard in my house that I own with my wife and my car saying "I told you so."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly i don't think the entire system will ever get CBTC. The system is just too complex. By the time we do Queens Blvd, there will probably be a brand new signalling system that is all the rage and abandon CBTC for it, while ignoring other problems in the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the (MTA) always does...

Listen, they need to focus on fixing the current subway problems before ever thinking of CBTC. For one, we need to have that transfer between the (L) and (3). Another one, Chambers St needs to have an overhaul cause that station is appalling. Another one, 111 St on the (7) needs to have its platform fixed on the north end cause the platform is slanted down towards the tracks and somebody could trip an fall. I can list about 7,000 other things the MTA needs to fix before thinking of CBTC because honestly, CBTC isn't needed. If they want to increase TPH, then think of new schedules, have some trains drop out durin rush hour to free up TPH and not cause delays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the (MTA) always does...

Listen, they need to focus on fixing the current subway problems before ever thinking of CBTC. For one, we need to have that transfer between the (L) and (3). Another one, Chambers St needs to have an overhaul cause that station is appalling. Another one, 111 St on the (7) needs to have its platform fixed on the north end cause the platform is slanted down towards the tracks and somebody could trip an fall. I can list about 7,000 other things the MTA needs to fix before thinking of CBTC because honestly, CBTC isn't needed. If they want to increase TPH, then think of new schedules, have some trains drop out durin rush hour to free up TPH and not cause delays.

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. You act like CBTC and this transfer connection can't happen at the same time, but they are, surprisingly, both in the Capital Plan. On top of that, the point of more TPH is to increase capacity. Making trains short turn and replacing them with other trains doesn't actually boost TPH or capacity. That's like saying taking $20 out of your bank account and putting in another $20 changes the amount of money you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase:

 

CBTC is a way of boosting TPH right? It has worked so far with the (L) and the (7) because they are both independent lines. If the MTA is going to install CBTC on a line like Broadway, 7th Av or Lex Av, it's gonna be to complex because you have more then 4 different lines on each one. And remember, if there's a mechanical malfunction, the whole line stalls, which causes more delays and whatnot. This is why I think the (7) and (L) should have CBTC only, and thats it. Besides, in a couple of years a new signaling system is gonna come out and everyones gonna forget about CBTC. 

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.