Here’s why your commute sucked this morning

[RailRunRob]

We've been over the investment in infrastructure now a gazillion times, but nevertheless there are two separate issues at play here. You can't compare Europe to NY because most of the cities are pretty small, not only in size but in population.  If anything, I would argue that the transportation in some places in Europe should be worse than it is, given how old many cities are, but there's a cultural understanding there that the entire system is important and that buses, ferries, trams, trains and subways all matter.  Having that mindset costs nothing and makes a hell of a difference in how one proceeds.  Aside from that it's about being innovative in terms of how you maximize funds that are available to you.  It's only now in the last few years that the has been making strides to make small changes that have a big impact on how we travel.  We can look at the bus system as an example.  It's astonishing that a city as big as NYC has had SBS service less than 10 years while numerous cities in Europe have had a similar system in place for well over 10 years.  The is only complimenting our subway system with some bus lines (mainly feeder lines) and doing everything possible to discourage usage elsewhere.  That in turn is exacerbating an already difficult situation with our subways, as everyone turns to them.

Okay so using that logic. America is this the issue. I'll use 1971 as the turning point. Besides the fact that's year the dollar left the gold standard that's the point the financial sector became the dominant player in our economics. The Fed started playing the market like a fiddle. Let's not even go into derivatives and amount money made on hot air.  When the US was more manufacturing base 45-50% of the market there was interest in innovation and investment into things like transport and education. A company like GE makes more money playing the markets then making products. The point here is that 80% of our infrastructure especially in New York was created before this point a different age altogether. I hear you, in theory, make what you have work sounds great. But where not starting from nothing this isn't a very agile situation.  We built a Rolls Royce of a system in New York in a golden age. When you build at that level there's a certain amount that needs to be put into the system certain detail. Make what you have work is telling me to take Toyota money and maintain my system to RR or Bently standards. The problem solvers the builders the people with the answers you seek are all trapped within that finance box. And there hands are tied until somebodies pockets are taking a hit. So telling me a small city Italy implemented something 10 years ago is like telling me a small business switch their computer systems 10 years before a Walmart. Less people in chain  less approval needed to get things done.  

[Around the Horn]

Okay so using that logic. America is this the issue. I'll use 1971 as the turning point. Besides the fact that's year the dollar left the gold standard that's the point the financial sector became the dominant player in our economics. The Fed started playing the market like a fiddle. Let's not even go into derivatives and amount money made on hot air.  When the US was more manufacturing base 45-50% of the market there was interest in innovation and investment into things like transport and education. A company like GE makes more money playing the markets then making products. The point here is that 80% of our infrastructure especially in New York was created before this point a different age altogether. I hear you, in theory, make what you have work sounds great. But where not starting from nothing this isn't a very agile situation.  We built a Rolls Royce of a system in New York in a golden age. When you build at that level there's a certain amount that needs to be put into the system certain detail. Make what you have work is telling me to take Toyota money and maintain my system to RR or Bently standards. The problem solvers the builders the people with the answers you seek are all trapped within that finance box. And there hands are tied until somebodies pockets are taking a hit. So telling me a small city Italy implemented something 10 years ago is like telling me a small business switch their computer systems 10 years before a Walmart. Less people in chain  less approval needed to get things done.  

 

Two words, one name: Robert Moses 

 

and we've been playing catch up ever since...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Okay so using that logic. America is this the issue. I'll use 1971 as the turning point. Besides the fact that's year the dollar left the gold standard that's the point the financial sector became the dominant player in our economics. The Fed started playing the market like a fiddle. Let's not even go into derivatives and amount money made on hot air.  When the US was more manufacturing base 45-50% of the market there was interest in innovation and investment into things like transport and education. A company like GE makes more money playing the markets then making products. The point here is that 80% of our infrastructure especially in New York was created before this point a different age altogether. I hear you, in theory, make what you have work sounds great. But where not starting from nothing this isn't a very agile situation.  We built a Rolls Royce of a system in New York in a golden age. When you build at that level there's a certain amount that needs to be put into the system certain detail. Make what you have work is telling me to take Toyota money and maintain my system to RR or Bently standards. The problem solvers the builders the people with the answers you seek are all trapped within that finance box. And there hands are tied until somebodies pockets are taking a hit. So telling me a small city Italy implemented something 10 years ago is like telling me a small business switch their computer systems 10 years before a Walmart. Less people in chain  less approval needed to get things done.  

Oh please.  And what has changed with the now that these projects can move but couldn't before? The is as bloated as ever despite their claims of cutting costs.

[RailRunRob]

I would say that is nothing to be proud of, and those numbers are still up for debate anyway. As was noted in my previous post, some of this "strain" is caused by the and their refusal to do more to complement the subway.  

Complement how? Holding them accountable okay I understand that $6 Billion for Phase 2 is outrageous. They the MTA is one part of a bigger Machine it's not like it's properly funded from jump. They could balance their books and cut the fat but it's not like doing that is going to suddenly free up enough to fully fund everything. You're coming from the point that the MTA is getting over and taking which they probably are to some degree but the major issue is on the State and Fed levels.

Oh please.  And what has changed with the now that these projects can move but couldn't before? The is as bloated as ever despite their claims of cutting costs.

Name one American agency that isn't bloated? DOT's anything.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Complement how? Holding them accountable okay I understand that $6 Billion for Phase 2 is outrageous. They the MTA is one part of a bigger Machine it's not like properly funded from jump. They could balance their books and cut the fat but it's not like doing that is going to suddenly free up enough to fully fund everything. You're coming from the point that the MTA is getting over and taking which they probably are to some degree but the major issue is on the State and Fed levels.

Name one American agency that isn't bloated? DOT's anything.

For starters running service efficiently and frequently enough to actually have people use it.  The subway delays are being exacerbated by poor bus service.  You yourself admit that you rarely use the buses and you can't understand that?  Maybe that's why.  You don't use the buses to see how bad things have become and why subways are so overcrowded to begin with leading to more delays.  Buses continue to lose millions of riders each year.  Those riders don't just disappear. They find other ways to get around.

[RailRunRob]

For starters running service efficiently and frequently enough to actually have people use it.  The subway delays are being exacerbated by poor bus service.  You yourself admit that you rarely use the buses and you can't understand that?  Maybe that's why.  You don't use the buses to see how bad things have become and why subways are so overcrowded to begin with leading to more delays.  Buses continue to lose millions of riders each year.  Those riders don't just disappear. They find other ways to get around.

So just so I'm clear are you saying the MTA has the money to implement these improvements but there choosing not to?

[Around the Horn]

So just so I'm clear are you saying the MTA has the money to implement these improvements but there choosing not to?

 

This is where the perpetual "MTA has two books" conspiracy comes in...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So just im clear are you saying the MTA has the money to implement these improvements but there choosing not to?

Well that depends on how you want to look at it, but from my point of view I'd say yes.  If you're running bus service at the bare bones (and creating new lines at that to supposedly attract NEW riders) and running them on 30 minute headways in some cases, you're setting them up to fail.  In addition to that, instead of addressing reliability issues, cutting bus service doesn't mitigate the problem either.  We can look at the recent M5/M55 split as an example, along with several other lines.

 

This is where the perpetual "MTA has two books" conspiracy comes in...

No, not at all.  If there isn't money to run some of these bus lines, they should've never come up with them to begin with.  I wonder how the M12 will do when the ridership stats come out because it's a joke to think that a local bus with 30 minute headways will draw any real riders unless they have no options at all. 

[RailRunRob]

Well that depends on how you want to look at it, but from my point of view I'd say yes.  If you're running bus service at the bare bones (and creating new lines at that to supposedly attract NEW riders) and running them on 30 minute headways in some cases, you're setting them up to fail.  In addition to that, instead of addressing reliability issues, cutting bus service doesn't mitigate the problem either.  We can look at the recent M5/M55 split as an example, along with several other lines.  

But how would know this without looking at the books yourself to see what's allocated and what was used? Also, M55 is expected to attract new riders? It duplicates Broadway and 6/8th Ave Lines. I was under the impression they cut the M5 for reliability issues. What's the ridership of the M5 in lower Manhattan do need the old headways? Does the depot have an enough buses the maintain the headway on both segments? Wouldn't you need all this information?  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But how would know this without looking at the books yourself to see what's allocated and what was used? Also, M55 is expected to attract new riders? It duplicates Broadway and 6/8th Ave Lines. I was under the impression they cut the M5 for reliability issues. What's the ridership of the M5 in lower Manhattan do need the old headways? Does the depot have an enough buses the maintain the headway on both segments? Wouldn't you need all this information?  

The M5 was extended to South Ferry in an attempt to save money from the 2010 service cuts.  It was extended in part to compensate for the loss of the M6.  Instead of it saving money, it become more unreliable and lost more riders.  After 2010 it saw an increase in ridership in 2011, but looking at the 's figures, it has lost more than 1 million riders if you go back to 2010 through 2015.

 

Source: http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus_annual.htm

 

The has admitted that it is doing better financially.  

 

Regarding your other questions, they're only running four buses in each direction most of the day.  If they can't spare eight buses, there's a big problem.  It is no secret that the fewer buses you run, the less likely people are to take them because of the long waits, and a bus running every 15 minutes during rush hour is not going to draw any serious riders unless they absolutely have to take it, so my point is you are not drawing people away from the subways with current bus service across the city.  In most cases you are pushing more people to the subway (which the can't even accommodate).  I believe years ago, the changed their loading guidelines on buses which essentially allows them to run barebones service on numerous lines, and even on lines that are experiencing overcrowding, they have had a hard stance when it comes to adding more service, so they sure as hell aren't making bus service marketable overall.  

 

You are extremely naïve when it comes to the and how they operate, particularly with bus service.   The M5 has been a disaster for the last 6 years, so of course 15 minute headways looks great on paper after you've lost 1 million riders.  

[checkmatechamp13]

And NYC is different how exactly?  With the constant delays some trains ARE running at almost 20 minute frequencies during the rush, despite what the schedule may say. 

 

For starters, he mentioned frequent rush hour service and the existence of overnight service, so that's one way. And other cities have delays on their bus/subway lines that run every 20 minutes as well. 

 

No, not at all.  If there isn't money to run some of these bus lines, they should've never come up with them to begin with.  I wonder how the M12 will do when the ridership stats come out because it's a joke to think that a local bus with 30 minute headways will draw any real riders unless they have no options at all. 

 

In 2015, it got 464 riders on a typical weekday, and it uses 4 buses to run service for most of the day. To give you an idea, the B71 got over 1,000 riders per weekday, and used 2 buses for most of the day, and the MTA considered it to be a "low ridership" route. (I personally didn't because it was short and efficient. But half as many riders using twice as many buses.....gives you an idea of how it's doing)

 

If the other new routes (Bx46, B84, B32) are any indication, the M12 will probably get around 550-600 riders per weekday this year. Again, not good (especially considering some of those riders are using it as a short-turn M31/57 instead of along 11th/12th Avenue which it was designed to serve). 

 

I don't know what's so hard to believe about that.  I take the Lex line often, and it's pretty easy for there to be delays. The is set to run every 8 - 10 minutes during most of the rush.  Any little delay could easily push that to 20 minutes.  I could use a few other trains as well if you would like.  There is a world that exists outside of your own commute.

 

I don't care what your TPH is.  If there are delays all of that crap goes out of the window.  Just using the and as examples, if you have 6 scheduled trains per hour, that's a 10 minute wait on average, and any delay can push that to 20 minutes. Using your own example of giving yourself an extra 10 minutes, there's your 20 minute wait.

 

And the has alternatives so the only riders who are waiting the full 20 minutes are those who just missed a train and don't want to make any extra transfers.

 

And he's not talking about the TPH in terms of being a benefit. He's saying that you have to figure out how to reroute all those TPH around the problem area at West 4th.

 

Answered this in the "What If" Thread.

 

From what I understand, trains couldn't get through West 4th Street at all (meaning on either level). And the entire IND (except for the ) basically passes through West 4th, so if you can't get trains through on either level, you're basically screwed. You can terminate some trains at Herald Square and Penn Station from the north, and Delancey Street & Broadway/Lafayette from the south, but at the height of rush hour, you're going to be have a conga line on both trains.

 

 

That's a good question, and one that seems to be up for debate.  What's interesting is the way that the accesses on-time performance.

 

 

Also (and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe OTP is only measured at the timepoints. So if a train has to do a battery run to make up time, the passengers affected by that aren't counted.

 

So just so I'm clear are you saying the MTA has the money to implement these improvements but there choosing not to?

 

These new bus routes are purposely designed to be inefficient. For example, rather than extending the Bx46 to Yankee Stadium and supplementing the Bx6 (while also helping more Bronx residents reach the part of Hunts Point that it serves and boosting ridership), it just ends at Prospect Avenue. The at Yankee Stadium, even the Bx41 +SBS+ that the MTA loves to talk about, riders from those lines can't reach the part of Hunts Point along the Bx46 without making 2 transfers (which is made worse by the Bx46's headways)

 

The B84, with the same resources, the MTA could restructure the route with the B20/83 and provide better service for that whole portion of ENY. They would give Spring Creek riders quick and easy access to all the lines at Broadway Junction instead of having to choose between a direct, infrequent ride to the train (B84) and a decently frequent but slow, circuitous ride on the B83 to Broadway Junction.

 

Even once they have the route down, there's plenty of examples of large gaps in service caused by bad dispatching. For example, on weekend nights, sometimes the S46 tends to bunch on 30 minute headways. There's no excuse for that. If southbound buses are about to bunch up, the late bus should be turned around at Forest Avenue so it can attempt to get back on schedule heading northbound. There's no point in both buses following each other to the West Shore Plaza (ridership south of Forest is low. I should know because I live there)

 

BrooklynBus gave an example of an hour wait followed by six Q101 buses in a row. They couldn't have turned around some buses in Queens to maintain even service on that end?

[RailRunRob]

The M5 was extended to South Ferry in an attempt to save money from the 2010 service cuts.  It was extended in part to compensate for the loss of the M6.  Instead of it saving money, it become more unreliable and lost more riders.  After 2010 it saw an increase in ridership in 2011, but looking at the 's figures, it has lost more than 1 million riders if you go back to 2010 through 2015.

 

Source: http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus_annual.htm

 

The has admitted that it is doing better financially.  

 

Regarding your other questions, they're only running four buses in each direction most of the day.  If they can't spare eight buses, there's a big problem.  It is no secret that the fewer buses you run, the less likely people are to take them because of the long waits, and a bus running every 15 minutes during rush hour is not going to draw any serious riders unless they absolutely have to take it, so my point is you are not drawing people away from the subways with current bus service across the city.  In most cases you are pushing more people to the subway (which the can't even accommodate).  I believe years ago, the changed their loading guidelines on buses which essentially allows them to run barebones service on numerous lines, and even on lines that are experiencing overcrowding, they have had a hard stance when it comes to adding more service, so they sure as hell aren't making bus service marketable overall.  

 

You are extremely naïve when it comes to the and how they operate, particularly with bus service.   The M5 has been a disaster for the last 6 years, so of course 15 minute headways looks great on paper after you've lost 1 million riders.  

 

I feel the same way about your views on running a Business there's some naivete there. Your views of corruption and folks getting over and taking something from you is clouding your judgment a bit. I agree you need to hold people accountable the MTA is no different.  But when you never had to run a business, balance books answer to investors, pay interest on loans or lock in more invest how could you possibly see the full picture? You're almost saying that everything your saying has never come up at an MTA meeting how could you possibly know that?There has to be something your missing. But by all means, you should voice your opinions on service. Your points I get it but how we know this fact and just your perspective on it? Your routes your views? That's where your losing me.  Your M5 point is basic. The MTA tried to save money you make a route longer these more variables more things to go wrong so yeah it affected reliability. This M55 spit is way to try to rectify this oversight they got it wrong. why would you need more then 4 buses when you're covering South Ferry to what 8th and 14th street? You have redundancy north of those points. Your pushing more people on the subway? These people were already on the subway. What's the stats on the M5 ridership from 2011-2015 south of 14th street?  Bus Ridership started sliding at the turn of the millennium. It's part of a larger trend. Buses just seem to harder adjust the MTA fully owns the rails. Roads another story the DOT controls a big portion of that responsibility. The MTA has to work within their box.   But okay name a US based  Agency that you think is doing a better job than the MTA? Someone the MTA should be looking to?  WMATA? SFMTA? LAMTA?

[RailRunRob]

 

These new bus routes are purposely designed to be inefficient. For example, rather than extending the Bx46 to Yankee Stadium and supplementing the Bx6 (while also helping more Bronx residents reach the part of Hunts Point that it serves and boosting ridership), it just ends at Prospect Avenue. The at Yankee Stadium, even the Bx41 +SBS+ that the MTA loves to talk about, riders from those lines can't reach the part of Hunts Point along the Bx46 without making 2 transfers (which is made worse by the Bx46's headways)

 

The B84, with the same resources, the MTA could restructure the route with the B20/83 and provide better service for that whole portion of ENY. They would give Spring Creek riders quick and easy access to all the lines at Broadway Junction instead of having to choose between a direct, infrequent ride to the train (B84) and a decently frequent but slow, circuitous ride on the B83 to Broadway Junction.

 

Even once they have the route down, there's plenty of examples of large gaps in service caused by bad dispatching. For example, on weekend nights, sometimes the S46 tends to bunch on 30 minute headways. There's no excuse for that. If southbound buses are about to bunch up, the late bus should be turned around at Forest Avenue so it can attempt to get back on schedule heading northbound. There's no point in both buses following each other to the West Shore Plaza (ridership south of Forest is low. I should know because I live there)

 

BrooklynBus gave an example of an hour wait followed by six Q101 buses in a row. They couldn't have turned around some buses in Queens to maintain even service on that end?

Okay, this make's sense. They could optimize with the same resources. Just asking to get another perspective maybe I was missing something was this what VG8 referring to? I didn't receive it in this way.

[itmaybeokay]

I don't know what's so hard to believe about that.  I take the Lex line often, and it's pretty easy for there to be delays. The is set to run every 8 - 10 minutes during most of the rush.  Any little delay could easily push that to 20 minutes.  I could use a few other trains as well if you would like.  There is a world that exists outside of your own commute.

 

Yes it's pretty easy for there to be delays - but you are claiming that 20 minute gaps between trains is the *norm*. You use the word constant. This means, unchanging, ever present, the antonym of occasional. I know, and have experienced, the errant 20 minute wait for a train during rush hour. Happens a couple times a year. Even when I take the ®arely, I find the intervals to be generally close to as scheduled.

 

I know there are other routes man - All I'm trying to do is point out that your argument transforms a fact which is occasionally true into constantly true which is then used as an impugnation of the entire system. I look at the same data and say "It generally runs pretty well". 

I know I won't change your mind. Perhaps I'm posting for the benefit of others. Perhaps I revel in futility. Shrug. 

 

I don't care what your TPH is.  If there are delays all of that crap goes out of the window.  Just using the and as examples, if you have 6 scheduled trains per hour, that's a 10 minute wait on average, and any delay can push that to 20 minutes. Using your own example of giving yourself an extra 10 minutes, there's your 20 minute wait.

 

I didn't quote the TPH as a "Look how many trains there are". 

 

I quoted the TPH to try and show how difficult of a situation monday's incident is to route around. There was suddenly a huge bottleneck and the results were - well, were monday. I was saying, hey you've got all these trains in the pipes, show me how you shove them around better with minimal delays. Shrug.

 

 

Sure delays happen, but they are occurring more frequently, which some people seem to want to ignore or refuse to admit. I've been monitoring the 's status page this week randomly, and so far at least four or five lines have seen delays every day this week (that is from Monday until today).  

 

- Delays every day so far this week

 - Delays every day so far this week

- Delays every day so far this week

- Have seen various delays so far this week

 

So again that's 12 subway lines out 23 total that have seen a delay of some sort.

This isn't a reliable sampling methodology. A sick passenger that is met by paramedics in minutes causing no appreciable delay may still get a nod on the status page. Even when it's cleared, the page may still show delays. (Rightfully so! I would rather know that there could be residual delays)

 

Further, note that, say, a delay in brooklyn on the will show up as N/Q/R/W on the status page, even if the delay never affects the manhattan trunk. 

 

To demonstrate the flaw in this logic, if I take a look at the LIRR twitter page: https://twitter.com/Lirr 

 

I see that individual trains on the Hempstead, Port Jefferson, Montauk, Port Washington, West Hempstead, Babylon, Ronkonkoma and Far Rock branches were delayed. So - It's fair to say 100% of trains were delayed, right? That's my point. They are quick to update the status page *as they should be* but I generally don't change my plans when there are delays without a reroute or shortturn. 

 

Most of the delays stem from signal problems, and that's something that seems to be a bigger problem each year.  The question is what is the doing to mitigate the delays that it can control?

 

Well - long term they are replacing the entire signal system... 

 

Finally, for those blaming the weather for these delays, we will be receiving a warm up for the next few days. I want to see if these delays continue with the warmer weather.

PM rush today there was a sick passenger on the 4 and signal problems on the J that were cleared in 30 min. *Shrug*

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I feel the same way about your views on running a Business there's some naivete there. Your views of corruption and folks getting over and taking something from you is clouding your judgment a bit. I agree you need to hold people accountable the MTA is no different.  But when you never had to run a business, balance books answer to investors, pay interest on loans or lock in more invest how could you possibly see the full picture? You're almost saying that everything your saying has never come up at an MTA meeting how could you possibly know that?There has to be something your missing. But by all means, you should voice your opinions on service. Your points I get it but how we know this fact and just your perspective on it? Your routes your views? That's where your losing me.  Your M5 point is basic. The MTA tried to save money you make a route longer these more variables more things to go wrong so yeah it affected reliability. This M55 spit is way to try to rectify this oversight they got it wrong. why would you need more then 4 buses when you're covering South Ferry to what 8th and 14th street? You have redundancy north of those points. Your pushing more people on the subway? These people were already on the subway. What's the stats on the M5 ridership from 2011-2015 south of 14th street?  Bus Ridership started sliding at the turn of the millennium. It's part of a larger trend. Buses just seem to harder adjust the MTA fully owns the rails. Roads another story the DOT controls a big portion of that responsibility. The MTA has to work within their box.   But okay name a US based  Agency that you think is doing a better job than the MTA? Someone the MTA should be looking to?  WMATA? SFMTA? LAMTA?

The is a public agency that isn't completely run like a typical business. For the record, I DO run a business and I'm held accountable every year, believe me, so you seem to be mixing things up a bit.  We're talking about the agency running more efficiently with what it has, and that is not happening.  It's that simple.  Why do you need to run more than 4 buses?  Well a better question is who is going to use a bus that runs every 15 minutes at the most and will likely wait longer because of delays?  They have a responsibility to take people out of their cars and get folks to use ALL forms of mass transit that they're providing, not just subways. Seeing that you rarely use buses, I wouldn't expect you to understand how they should complement the system overall.

 

Yes it's pretty easy for there to be delays - but you are claiming that 20 minute gaps between trains is the *norm*. You use the word constant. This means, unchanging, ever present, the antonym of occasional. I know, and have experienced, the errant 20 minute wait for a train during rush hour. Happens a couple times a year. Even when I take the ®arely, I find the intervals to be generally close to as scheduled.

 

I know there are other routes man - All I'm trying to do is point out that your argument transforms a fact which is occasionally true into constantly true which is then used as an impugnation of the entire system. I look at the same data and say "It generally runs pretty well". 

I know I won't change your mind. Perhaps I'm posting for the benefit of others. Perhaps I revel in futility. Shrug. 

 

 

I didn't quote the TPH as a "Look how many trains there are". 

 

I quoted the TPH to try and show how difficult of a situation monday's incident is to route around. There was suddenly a huge bottleneck and the results were - well, were monday. I was saying, hey you've got all these trains in the pipes, show me how you shove them around better with minimal delays. Shrug.

 

 

This isn't a reliable sampling methodology. A sick passenger that is met by paramedics in minutes causing no appreciable delay may still get a nod on the status page. Even when it's cleared, the page may still show delays. (Rightfully so! I would rather know that there could be residual delays)

 

Further, note that, say, a delay in brooklyn on the will show up as N/Q/R/W on the status page, even if the delay never affects the manhattan trunk. 

 

To demonstrate the flaw in this logic, if I take a look at the LIRR twitter page: https://twitter.com/Lirr 

 

I see that individual trains on the Hempstead, Port Jefferson, Montauk, Port Washington, West Hempstead, Babylon, Ronkonkoma and Far Rock branches were delayed. So - It's fair to say 100% of trains were delayed, right? That's my point. They are quick to update the status page *as they should be* but I generally don't change my plans when there are delays without a reroute or shortturn. 

 

 

Well - long term they are replacing the entire signal system... 

 

PM rush today there was a sick passenger on the 4 and signal problems on the J that were cleared in 30 min. *Shrug*

On some lines, 20 minute gaps occur regularly, and I already explained how that is possible.  Not that difficult if you have a train scheduled every 10 minutes and there's a delay.  Now on lines with more frequency, it's obviously not such a problem, but does occur.

 

You also simply refuse to accept the fact that your view of the system may be because of what lines you use and WHEN you travel.  That makes a HUGE difference, and I already conceded that earlier when you noted your commute.

[R10 2952]

The problem was that ice blocked the drains from doing their work. It was below freezing for most of the day, nothing they could've done about it.

I don't know about that- seems more like the pipes were not properly insulated, which is why they froze up in the first place.  The subways in Russia don't get thrown out of wack over a minor temperature change; neither do the trains in Scandinavia.  Or even Hungary for that matter.  I got caught in those delays on the IND and was pretty pissed when I found out what the cause was.  The system needs to be brought to a better state of repair; we can't have catastrophic disruptions every time we get an inch of precipitation.