Subway Service is Slipping, Causing Concern Among Transit Advocates and even MTA Board Members

[CenSin]

Here’s an idea: find a remedy for artificial delays like:

• if there is a sick passenger, the train must remain in the station
• not allowing trains to get ahead of schedule (especially the ) to counterbalance later delays down the line

[Caelestor]

You're not wrong there. The current subway pretty much dates back to the 1950s with a few minor exceptions. Even the so-called expansions under the watered down Program for Action didn't really add much capacity. As you mentioned, it took over a decade to get the 63rd St/Queens Blvd connector and even that doesn't add capacity since Queens Blvd is near capacity and both Broadway and 6th Avenue are getting there. The fact remains that we need a subway for the 21st century, not one that harks back to the mid-20th. We need new trunk lines, new inter-borough lines and most importantly, we need an agency that treats its subdivisions as components of a whole and not competitors to each other. I don't know how we get there, but we will only see things get worse until we do.

 

There's 3 ways to increase capacity on the subway, from least to most difficult:

• New trains need to be articulated. The space at the ends of each car can be reclaimed for passengers, and crowding can naturally redistribute among the cars.
• New signal system. CBTC is the modern standard for running more trains more smoothly nowadays. This normally would be faster than buying new cars, but all the interlining complicates the routes except the .
• New trunk lines in the core. Building the SAS is a prerequisite for any extensions in the outer boroughs. Unfortunately, costs are too high and construction takes too long, so redirect the money to upgrading the existing system imo.

The fourth method is to utilize the commuter rail more for intracity purposes, given most of those trains are not overcrowded. Riders should be able to buy a SRO ticket at the price of a CityTicket.

[DaTransitMan4608]

The were a mess today. I got a via 7th Ave going to the Bronx on my way to ride 5439, and a via the Lex on my way out. These problems were mainly in the Bronx and Manhattan.

 

Anyway, another main factor in delays, like one poster pointed out, is the passengers themselves. They hold up the train because they can't be bothered to get their purses/book bags away from the door sensor, they get on the train sick and they have a medical episode, and the mysterious "unauthorized person on the tracks/roadbed." I agree that most of the delays here are the MTA's inability to handle capacity, but we gotta stop solely blaming them and look at the other major cause of delays. A lack of critical (maybe even basic) thinking by the general public.

[Fresh Pond]

The were a mess today. I got a via 7th Ave going to the Bronx on my way to ride 5439, and a via the Lex on my way out. These problems were mainly in the Bronx and Manhattan.

 

Anyway, another main factor in delays, like one poster pointed out, is the passengers themselves. They hold up the train because they can't be bothered to get their purses/book bags away from the door sensor, they get on the train sick and they have a medical episode, and the mysterious "unauthorized person on the tracks/roadbed." I agree that most of the delays here are the MTA's inability to handle capacity, but we gotta stop solely blaming them and look at the other major cause of delays. A lack of critical (maybe even basic) thinking by the general public.

The IRT went down the train badly today. Switch problems AND signal problems at Grand Central was just insult to injury, plus there was a building collapse near Church Av so that was just throwing salt on the wound.

[DaTransitMan4608]

The IRT went down the train badly today. Switch problems AND signal problems at Grand Central was just insult to injury, plus there was a building collapse near Church Av so that was just throwing salt on the wound.

Rail condition on 149th and a disabled train on the 7th Ave Line messed things up on the .

[FLX9304]

There's 3 ways to increase capacity on the subway, from least to most difficult:

• New trains need to be articulated. The space at the ends of each car can be reclaimed for passengers, and crowding can naturally redistribute among the cars.
• New signal system. CBTC is the modern standard for running more trains more smoothly nowadays. This normally would be faster than buying new cars, but all the interlining complicates the routes except the .
• New trunk lines in the core. Building the SAS is a prerequisite for any extensions in the outer boroughs. Unfortunately, costs are too high and construction takes too long, so redirect the money to upgrading the existing system imo.

The fourth method is to utilize the commuter rail more for intracity purposes, given most of those trains are not overcrowded. Riders should be able to buy a SRO ticket at the price of a CityTicket.

That's if the FTA doesn't get eliminated as someone says it would be.

You won't get an artic subway unless They fund the cars. What lines besides the A, F, & N, what other lines do you want artic?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[danielhg121]

You guys forgot about the fire at roosevelt avenue yesterday. Suspended 7 service and almost no shuttle bus service for an hour. It was a mess, everybody was trampling everybody to get to the bus. It was like a zombie apocalypse and the nearest human being was the bus driver lol.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Union Tpke]

You guys forgot about the fire at roosevelt avenue yesterday. Suspended 7 service and almost no shuttle bus service for an hour. It was a mess, everybody was trampling everybody to get to the bus. It was like a zombie apocalypse and the nearest human being was the bus driver lol.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

I was also stuck in that mess!

[Italianstallion]

You're a "new poster" from "Riverdale".  With 5 posts, how do you know what anyone has been saying? 

 

Well, sorreee Mr. "Veteran Member" from "Riverdale." I guess I figured out a way to go back and read older posts on this forum. Who'd a thunk it, for a dumb "new poster" like me?

He has been a user on subchat for several years.

 

Thank you. For at least 17 years actually, going back to SubTalk days.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, sorreee Mr. "Veteran Member" from "Riverdale." I guess I figured out a way to go back and read older posts on this forum. Who'd a thunk it, for a dumb "new poster" like me?

 

Thank you. For at least 17 years actually, going back to SubTalk days.

No, I just suspected that you could be a troll that's all.  You haven't been banned, so I guess that means you're legit. 

[SubwayGuy]

I'm going to keep saying this until the retards who think an urban studies class in high school makes them qualified to opine on transit system design get it through their head.

 

If you want to increase system capacity, knock it off with the half measures.

 

Two things are needed:
 

-MORE TRUNK LINES AND YARDS

-SLOW DOWN GROWTH / URBAN SPRAWL / DEVELOPMENT

 

These are the only two things that will alleviate overcrowding, and neither one is the jurisdiction of the MTA. The politicians who run this city and state MUST make it a priority or else you will get the same inferior service with shitty half measures that make improvements on paper that are quickly dwarfed by ridership increases of a magnitude far greater.

 

Boo hoo, it's expensive. So's every other damn thing in life worth having.

[bobtehpanda]

In addition to what SubwayGuy said, the MTA itself doesn't really have the power to just magically make things cheaper, since they have to operate by state bidding rules and as such have their options limited. That being said, making the subway cheaper to build is not really an argument about not building subways at all, it's to point out the opportunity cost of not getting all the subway you could get for your buck.

 

Has the MTA looked into the smaller capital projects that could boost capacity on existing lines (untangling flat junctions like Nostrand, extending tail tracks past terminals on the , , etc.)?

[bobtehpanda]

-SLOW DOWN GROWTH / URBAN SPRAWL / DEVELOPMENT

 

For a case study on why artificially limiting development does not make commuting any easier, make the strain on transportation systems any lesser, or make housing any cheaper, see: the Bay Area.

[Lance]

There's 3 ways to increase capacity on the subway, from least to most difficult:

• New trains need to be articulated. The space at the ends of each car can be reclaimed for passengers, and crowding can naturally redistribute among the cars.
• New signal system. CBTC is the modern standard for running more trains more smoothly nowadays. This normally would be faster than buying new cars, but all the interlining complicates the routes except the .
• New trunk lines in the core. Building the SAS is a prerequisite for any extensions in the outer boroughs. Unfortunately, costs are too high and construction takes too long, so redirect the money to upgrading the existing system imo.

The fourth method is to utilize the commuter rail more for intracity purposes, given most of those trains are not overcrowded. Riders should be able to buy a SRO ticket at the price of a CityTicket.

1) That is an option. Unfortunately, we're at least a decade away from seeing any new trains for the A-Division, much less articulated ones. I do hope the articulated pilot train of 211s goes well though. I'd like to think it should given how proven the concept is across the globe.

 

2) The various interlining of services is part of the reason why implementation of CBTC signalling is so slow. That and the fact we cannot afford to have parts of the mainlines out of service for any extended period of time. How well CBTC installation goes on Queens Blvd in the coming years will be a good indicator of what needs to be done to mitigate any potential service disruptions as CBTC is expanded to the Manhattan trunks.

 

3) We really need to do both. We need to have the subway in a better condition to avoid some of these service disruptions. It shouldn't take just over an inch of rain or the failure of a central switch to take out several important lines. However, we also need to expand beyond the current footprint of the subway. Even if the subway was brought to 100% good condition, that does not remove the severe overcrowding issue that causes a significant portion of the delays. We also need to reign in the costs of these expansions. It shouldn't cost tens of billions of dollars to get a simple two-tracked north-south line built in the 21st century.

 

In addition to what SubwayGuy said, the MTA itself doesn't really have the power to just magically make things cheaper, since they have to operate by state bidding rules and as such have their options limited. That being said, making the subway cheaper to build is not really an argument about not building subways at all, it's to point out the opportunity cost of not getting all the subway you could get for your buck.

 

Has the MTA looked into the smaller capital projects that could boost capacity on existing lines (untangling flat junctions like Nostrand, extending tail tracks past terminals on the , , etc.)?

I believe those ideas have been floated about by the MTA and the RPA at various points. The problem is that they never go anywhere unfortunately. Even a simple thing like moving the switches at Jamaica Center would greatly increase capacity and allow all trains to run there instead of the current setup with four of them running to 179 Street. Things like that, while not much, could greatly improve capacity. Of course, the MTA and the state tend to focus on the big ticket items, ones where they can slap a name on them when they (never) open.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Great, so when one car reeks from some homeless dude, the folks that try to escape to the next car won't be able to... 

[Caelestor]

For a case study on why artificially limiting development does not make commuting any easier, make the strain on transportation systems any lesser, or make housing any cheaper, see: the Bay Area.

 

Like in NYC, the Bay Area transportation problem is really a housing problem. People want to be in the hot spots, mainly SF, but unlike NYC, cities such as SF and Palo Alto refuse to upzone, and so the supply of both luxury and affordable housing is constrained. People are forced to move further out, and have to commute farther. Longer commutes equals more traffic, and because there are only 4 bay crossings between the SF peninsula and East Bay, the problem is very evident.

[SubwayGuy]

For a case study on why artificially limiting development does not make commuting any easier, make the strain on transportation systems any lesser, or make housing any cheaper, see: the Bay Area.

 

OK, but I was speaking more hypothetically. Those are the only two things that will prevent overcrowding, I'm isolating the single variable of "congestion" while saying nothing of rents or property values.

 

If you want to alleviate congestion while keeping property values and rents affordable, then you have to do a combination of the two. That means raising money from developers as part of a condition of getting their developments get green-lit that funds system expansion or else their project doesn't get greenlit.

[SubwayGuy]

In addition to what SubwayGuy said, the MTA itself doesn't really have the power to just magically make things cheaper, since they have to operate by state bidding rules and as such have their options limited. That being said, making the subway cheaper to build is not really an argument about not building subways at all, it's to point out the opportunity cost of not getting all the subway you could get for your buck.

 

Has the MTA looked into the smaller capital projects that could boost capacity on existing lines (untangling flat junctions like Nostrand, extending tail tracks past terminals on the , , etc.)?

 

The problem with these is that, while useful, they add extreme delays to existing service (by eliminating terminal capacity completely during construction) with no viable alternatives, and don't ultimately increase the capacity sufficiently.

 

Much of the system was designed over 100 years ago without the benefit of hindsight, and without any idea of what the future might look like. Things that were geographic and topographical "necessities" then due to the limitations of tunnel technology or building landscape seem ridiculous today. Junctions that were in relatively underpopulated areas of the city are now crossroads in the hearts of major outer borough neighborhoods that have to handle a train every minute.

 

While it'd be great to design the system from scratch, that's just not feasible. While these projects may be worthwhile in their own right, you have to provide alternatives for service in the meantime.

 

-Let's get a full length Third Avenue Subway in the Bronx that's connected to a full length Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan, and at least goes by Fordham University.

-Then you can extend the D from 205th St to Gun Hill Rd. / WPR providing a much needed transfer, and giving much of the Bronx easier access to Yankee Stadium. It also gives the D line a proper terminal, eliminates an unnecessary relay, and takes time off the line's run time when trains don't have to sit at both 205th and Bedford Park going south.

-Let's reopen the Rockaway Beach branch and send the Rock Park shuttle generally that way (full specifics of stops and transfer points to be studied first)

-Let's get 10 car trains on the C, and 6 car trains on the G

-Let's talk about adding a Queens subway line on Northern Blvd.

-Extend the 2/5 past Flatbush Ave. Make the "real" terminal at Kings Plaza with an island platform with a high speed diamond crossover (20 MPH) and tail tracks in the back. Church Ave. will have to be a temporary terminal while the work at Flatbush happens, so that means a month or two of closure while the through trackage is completed, with shuttle busing. Note: "untangling" Rogers Junction south of Franklin Ave. on the 2/3/4/5 would be a major undertaking and would cripple service on all 4 lines with no viable alternatives to turn trains for close to a year or more. It would also require property acquisition to widen the right of way, to be done correctly. It can't be done under the current service pattern.

 

That's 20 years of capital projects that still will barely make a dent, but will help quite a bit.

[Trainmaster5]

The problem with these is that, while useful, they add extreme delays to existing service (by eliminating terminal capacity completely during construction) with no viable alternatives, and don't ultimately increase the capacity sufficiently.

 

Much of the system was designed over 100 years ago without the benefit of hindsight, and without any idea of what the future might look like. Things that were geographic and topographical "necessities" then due to the limitations of tunnel technology or building landscape seem ridiculous today. Junctions that were in relatively underpopulated areas of the city are now crossroads in the hearts of major outer borough neighborhoods that have to handle a train every minute.

 

While it'd be great to design the system from scratch, that's just not feasible. While these projects may be worthwhile in their own right, you have to provide alternatives for service in the meantime.

 

-Let's get a full length Third Avenue Subway in the Bronx that's connected to a full length Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan, and at least goes by Fordham University.

-Then you can extend the D from 205th St to Gun Hill Rd. / WPR providing a much needed transfer, and giving much of the Bronx easier access to Yankee Stadium. It also gives the D line a proper terminal, eliminates an unnecessary relay, and takes time off the line's run time when trains don't have to sit at both 205th and Bedford Park going south.

-Let's reopen the Rockaway Beach branch and send the Rock Park shuttle generally that way (full specifics of stops and transfer points to be studied first)

-Let's get 10 car trains on the C, and 6 car trains on the G

-Let's talk about adding a Queens subway line on Northern Blvd.

-Extend the 2/5 past Flatbush Ave. Make the "real" terminal at Kings Plaza with an island platform with a high speed diamond crossover (20 MPH) and tail tracks in the back. Church Ave. will have to be a temporary terminal while the work at Flatbush happens, so that means a month or two of closure while the through trackage is completed, with shuttle busing. Note: "untangling" Rogers Junction south of Franklin Ave. on the 2/3/4/5 would be a major undertaking and would cripple service on all 4 lines with no viable alternatives to turn trains for close to a year or more. It would also require property acquisition to widen the right of way, to be done correctly. It can't be done under the current service pattern.

 

That's 20 years of capital projects that still will barely make a dent, but will help quite a bit.

Truly a thinking man's proposals and I thank you and those who up-voted you for looking beyond the cosmetic fixes. It's sad to see so many blinded by the "new and shiny" that they overlook what should be the main focus of the . Carry on..

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem with these is that, while useful, they add extreme delays to existing service (by eliminating terminal capacity completely during construction) with no viable alternatives, and don't ultimately increase the capacity sufficiently.

 

Much of the system was designed over 100 years ago without the benefit of hindsight, and without any idea of what the future might look like. Things that were geographic and topographical "necessities" then due to the limitations of tunnel technology or building landscape seem ridiculous today. Junctions that were in relatively underpopulated areas of the city are now crossroads in the hearts of major outer borough neighborhoods that have to handle a train every minute.

 

While it'd be great to design the system from scratch, that's just not feasible. While these projects may be worthwhile in their own right, you have to provide alternatives for service in the meantime.

 

-Let's get a full length Third Avenue Subway in the Bronx that's connected to a full length Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan, and at least goes by Fordham University.

-Then you can extend the D from 205th St to Gun Hill Rd. / WPR providing a much needed transfer, and giving much of the Bronx easier access to Yankee Stadium. It also gives the D line a proper terminal, eliminates an unnecessary relay, and takes time off the line's run time when trains don't have to sit at both 205th and Bedford Park going south.

-Let's reopen the Rockaway Beach branch and send the Rock Park shuttle generally that way (full specifics of stops and transfer points to be studied first)

-Let's get 10 car trains on the C, and 6 car trains on the G

-Let's talk about adding a Queens subway line on Northern Blvd.

-Extend the 2/5 past Flatbush Ave. Make the "real" terminal at Kings Plaza with an island platform with a high speed diamond crossover (20 MPH) and tail tracks in the back. Church Ave. will have to be a temporary terminal while the work at Flatbush happens, so that means a month or two of closure while the through trackage is completed, with shuttle busing. Note: "untangling" Rogers Junction south of Franklin Ave. on the 2/3/4/5 would be a major undertaking and would cripple service on all 4 lines with no viable alternatives to turn trains for close to a year or more. It would also require property acquisition to widen the right of way, to be done correctly. It can't be done under the current service pattern.

 

That's 20 years of capital projects that still will barely make a dent, but will help quite a bit.

In the meantime, there are things that the can do to take some of the burden off of the subways.  They could start by encouraging the use of existing services, which quite frankly they aren't doing.  Stuffing everyone onto subways when you're struggling with capacity is about as far sighted as it gets.  

[SubwayGuy]

In the meantime, there are things that the can do to take some of the burden off of the subways.  They could start by encouraging the use of existing services, which quite frankly they aren't doing.  Stuffing everyone onto subways when you're struggling with capacity is about as far sighted as it gets.  

 

The problem is that buses are slow and unreliable, and actually have a higher cost per passenger to run.

 

If you want to add capacity, subway expansion is the only way to go

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem is that buses are slow and unreliable, and actually have a higher cost per passenger to run.

 

If you want to add capacity, subway expansion is the only way to go

The thing is you're not even getting people to maximize what does exist. That's my point. It isn't just the buses either. The doesn't have the capacity on numerous lines to handle the growing ridership yet they continue to push people towards the subways with the overpricing of other alternatives. 

 

I predict that the delays will only worsen this year despite their concern based on what I continue to see during the short rides that I take. What exactly will they do to mitigate the ongoing signal problems that seem to occur almost daily on some lines? What's scary to me is we've had a mild winter. Just imagine if we had the winter of a few years ago... When you need to make upgrades to an aging system, pushing more people towards it makes no sense.

[TheNewYorkElevated]

I think that in order to take the NYC subway into the 21st century, we need politicial backing, improve system infrastructure, and make transit a priority in the Big Apple.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

 

A troubling trend in the city's subways has riders, advocates and even some MTA board members alarmed. 

 

Why should advocates be "alarmed"?  Poor service keeps them in business. (That's why Straphangers Campaign opposed the first Capital Program back in 1982.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Why should advocates be "alarmed"? Poor service keeps them in business. (That's why Straphangers Campaign opposed the first Capital Program back in 1982.)

Anyone who uses the system should be alarmed. Each week that passes, I've continued to check the website for status updates, and each time I check at random the board is lit up with delays. Last week my commutes via subway were relatively smooth, but they should be when I'm only going a few stops. I used the earlier today and it was slightly better than before. Still took over an hour from Midtown to Sheepshead Bay, but the wait was decent and the delays were minimal.