news MTA Chairman Announces Sweeping $836 Million Plan to Stabilize Subway System

[RailRunRob]

That's not the point. Brooklyn and LIC don't represent all of NY and I have no problem paying my fair share. As someone who is not married, I'm pretty sure I am taxed much more than someone like yourself who is likely married. Single professionals like myself get to write-off less, so if there's anyone who knows about paying their fair share it's me. I'm sure you know as a small business owner that you get tax breaks. I get them as well having my own side business. The issue here is what are we getting for what we're paying? If you were telling people that they're paying a lot but they can get to work on the subway then sure that's fine.

 

The problem is what is being paid for vs. what we're receiving in return, and the answer isn't telling people to move elsewhere. The answer is to hold people accountable. Just because you pay more for something doesn't mean better quality, and basically I'm saying we already pay enough, more than our fair share. The has said that they plan to implement these improvements WITHOUT raising the fares, and that's the way it should be. They've received more than enough fare hikes in the last few years. It's time for them to start managing what they have. That's the one thing I agree with in terms of what de Blasio has said. If they need a little more funding, sure, come back to the State AND the City and show what it's being used for, but coming back with your hands out and little to show for it is simply unacceptable, and as a taxpayer, I have a problem with the astronomical costs of some of these projects. They want $8 billion to bring the system into the 21st century? Ok, sure, then I should see clean platforms that actually get power washed on a regular basis (they do have the equipment for such things, so how about they use it?), not just someone sweeping once in a while with rats running everywhere. This is what you see in other systems like Boston, which runs a much older system than ours, 24/7 or not.

 

It's funny that we can talk about how NYC is the center of everything except for when it comes to expecting accountability from the . I don't want to hear about how the system is 24/7. That is no excuse to not have clean stations that are functionally sound and trains that constantly break down because of "mechanical problems" (whatever the hell that means, but it's been a regular problem of late). That just means you have to look at how things are planned and make changes to make it happen.

 

I agree with your point of quality and accountability you raise valid points there. If I’m paying Mercedes money I expect Mercedes quality and service.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I agree with your point of quality and accountability you raise valid points there. If I’m paying Mercedes money I expect Mercedes quality and service.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I think Lhota will get the job done though.  He seems have a somewhat decent relationship with the unions and appears to be looking to have everyone on board to get this turned around. The real key to all of this besides the money is some stability at the top. We've had too many guys leave in a few years.

[RailRunRob]

I think Lhota will get the job done though. He seems have a somewhat decent relationship with the unions and appears to be looking to have everyone on board to get this turned around. The real key to all of this besides the money is some stability at the top. We've had too many guys leave in a few years.

Yeah after the genius workshops earlier this month and the conference yesterday I feel like there starting to at least turn towards the right direction. The feel and language is a lot different this time around I think he knows what’s at stake.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[bulk88]

The train gets pretty crowded actually, so I'm all for this plan. My only question is where are the cars coming from?

 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

I'll guess take all SMEE R32s and R42s from BMT Eastern, build 10 car SMEE sets (from current 8 car SMEEs), return the 8 car R160s from 207/Pitkin to BMT Eastern.

[bobtehpanda]

Oh please. Always with the real estate BS line. They're sitting on a lot of real estate that they are maximizing profit on. If they were doing that then I would perhaps agree, but as it stands they aren't.

 

The MTA has done a lot. The problem is that it holds a lot of real estate, but not a lot of it is very good. Most of the busy stations were not designed to have retail in them, and the MTA has sold off most of the good stuff (like the Jay St building to NYU).

 

They actually did a study on the yards, but the yards are too expensive to deck over. Just the first part of Hudson Yards was $1B, only for the decking. The other yards are located in neighborhoods that couldn't justify that level of investment.

 

So there's no legal mechanism to keep Albany from stealing local sales tax revenue nor one for a locality to add to the statewide rate?

 

(Example: California has statewide 7% sales tax. Cities and counties have added on additional rates for the general fund - raising it to 8 or 9%, then voters can approve additional rates, like LA's Measure R, that added 1/2¢ to it to fund transportation projects and operations when the State cutback transportation funding after Gray Davis' energy crisis and Schwarzenegger's deficit. Because they're local, the State can't raid the monies from the add-ons and it can't revoke it from LA without revoking it from every other locality without a constitutional amendment.)

 

We've tried to pass a lockbox bill several times, and then a watered down bill that would've just been public notification of funding diversions, but Cuomo has vetoed it several times even though it passed both houses unanimously.

 

NYS's emperor-type governance is not really a good thing.

 

Actually New York saw a decline in population for the first time in years, so the idea that there is a never ending of supply of people coming here is false.

 

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-state-population-drops-time-decade-article-1.2917757

 

 

Source: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/jan/20/edward-cox/new-york-losing-more-people-other-states-its-gaini/

 

There's a difference between taxing and over taxation and there are places at the moment where people with money are moving to that offer better quality.  My stance has nothing to do with me wanting to move elsewhere.  My stance is with regards to maintaining a healthy tax base here for the long term.  Cuomo admitted when he first took office that we had to lower taxes/get taxes under control to keep more of our residents here and attract and keep businesses here.  You can't possibly be that dense to believe that it's a good thing to have out of control taxes just because.  It's not healthy for any local economy, I don't care where you live.  Just look at the mess in California, or even better out on Long Island.  Plenty of people with money there, but long-term it isn't healthy for the young folks coming who can't/won't be able to afford anything. Without those people, you'll have a shrinking tax base.

 

Maybe you believe in overpaying for things just because, but I sure as hell don't.

 

NYS lost population. The five boroughs gained it, as did Westchester and Rockland counties.

 

Most of the decline is actually Long Islanders and upstaters, since upstate is subject to our laws but obviously has an economy running at a different speed. And I don't need to tell you how bad Long Island's tax rates are, especially compared to even other parts of the state.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1. The MTA has done a lot. The problem is that it holds a lot of real estate, but not a lot of it is very good. Most of the busy stations were not designed to have retail in them, and the MTA has sold off most of the good stuff (like the Jay St building to NYU).

 

They actually did a study on the yards, but the yards are too expensive to deck over. Just the first part of Hudson Yards was $1B, only for the decking. The other yards are located in neighborhoods that couldn't justify that level of investment.

 

 

2. NYS lost population. The five boroughs gained it, as did Westchester and Rockland counties.

 

Most of the decline is actually Long Islanders and upstaters, since upstate is subject to our laws but obviously has an economy running at a different speed. And I don't need to tell you how bad Long Island's tax rates are, especially compared to even other parts of the state.

1. I don't expect that trend to improve given what is going on with retail these days, thus the need to reinvent some of these spaces and make them sexy if you will.  That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to get the system cleaned up and looking like something in the 21st century. Get all of the rats out and maybe you can turn some of these areas into underground eateries or something else that people will come to. 

 

2.  That's correct, but I don't think the trend of people flocking to the City (all five boroughs) will continue the way it has. There are only so many high paying jobs and so many trust-fund types that can come here, and given the huge population loses in Upstate, we can ill afford loses here to the tax base.  I expect loses in the City to start because of the high costs of rent overall.  The only reason some areas saw increases or stability was due to people moving for cheaper rents, but those days are pretty much over.  You have so many people now either approaching 30 or in their 30's living at home with no other plan in slight that it's pathetic that they can't afford to live on their own.  Those are the sorts of people that are affected by these continuous tax increases, and the younger population may very well be shut out from renting and definitely from owning, just like you're seeing on Long Island.  The other thing that some people aren't aware of is the amount of low paying service jobs that this City has.  There is very little in between, and those jobs aren't generating a big tax base to draw from since those people don't earn much to begin with. This is why it's important to get taxes under control to attract a continuous flow of high paying jobs and those with money who can come here and afford the taxes, otherwise it puts a severe amount of strain on a shrinking tax base overall.

 

When we talk about funding the with State dollars, that tax base has to be kept in mind.

[CenSin]

Since breakdowns happen closest to aging infrastructure, that's still a great idea, especially for the 8th Avenue Line in Manhattan.

Those commuters at 155th last Monday would've been loads happier, no pun intended.

 

I think adding bi-directional functions to certain stations, especially chokepoints, would also help with congestion, allowing trains to overtake a problematic platform so customers can disembark safely.

It’s not entirely correct to assume that aging infrastructure has the best likelihood of breaking down. New infrastructure has this problem too. The 2 Avenue Line broke down a few times during its first few months. And in fact, on the very first day open to the public (and I took the very first train from Coney Island), there were signal problems holding trains up.

 

For new infrastructure, then, it’s an all-or-nothing deal when problems do crop up.

 

Years back, I drafted a few track maps for resilient trunk lines—isolated trackways, flying junction arrangements creating something akin to a clos network, and pocket tracks for gap trains at or adjacent to express stations. I’m glad someone else sees a need for gap trains.

[Union Tpke]

It’s not entirely correct to assume that aging infrastructure has the best likelihood of breaking down. New infrastructure has this problem too. The 2 Avenue Line broke down a few times during its first few months. And in fact, on the very first day open to the public (and I took the very first train from Coney Island), there were signal problems holding trains up.

 

For new infrastructure, then, it’s an all-or-nothing deal when problems do crop up.

 

Years back, I drafted a few track maps for resilient trunk lines—isolated trackways, flying junction arrangements creating something akin to a clos network, and pocket tracks for gap trains at or adjacent to express stations. I’m glad someone else sees a need for gap trains.

 

Could you possibly post those maps? I am interested to see them.

[Jemorie]

The thing with the C is, they share track with the A from canal to Hoyt. The timing of that only has A trains passing an average two C tains each trip. One in Manhattan and sometimes another one in Brooklyn. Usually its just one. This also has to account that there are no delays on the A. I recall having the last southbound express trip southbound (which I now frequent as a passenger) that may, or may not catch up and pass the last C at Canal st. If we get to pass that C we'll catch up to its leader by Shepard or at Euclid. If the C plugs us, we pass it at around Clinton or Fulton and thats the only C we'll pass.

And the crowding is usually the worst at the bends of the trains due to most of the popular stops in Brooklyn having their entrances/exits at the ends of the platforms.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

If both the and trains are on 10 minute headways each throughout the off-peak hours, that means that if you're on the express and make a connection with a local at Broadway Junction northbound, that's the only station where they connect with each other; by the time the express gets to Hoyt, the local is 4 minutes away; fast forward to 125th/145th, the local is 8 minutes away. Likewise heading southbound, pretty much how you described it: the express immediately right behind the local from Canal to Hoyt with the express eventually overtaking the local as soon as it passes it at Clinton and that's the only time the express and local see one another. A lot of people wish that the and run more frequently than they do now off-peak, especially the at rush hour. Hopefully they will bring in more cars with the R211 for this purpose. Although I believe the off-peak (except Sunday) has a 7.5 minute headway which is a start. I always wait 7-8 minutes for an off-peak anyway so that's how I know. So it looks like 7 + 8 = 15 minute off-peak headways for the two branches below Rockaway Boulevard.

[CenSin]

Could you possibly post those maps? I am interested to see them.

I’ve been rummaging through my archives. If I don’t find them, I probably will have to remake them. It takes a few weeks to design and optimize them.

 

They came in different configurations with a set for non-blocking terminal/yard track maps, a set for trunk line track maps, and another for jam-free branching/merging. Each of those came with schematics for 3-track, 4-track, 5-track, and 6-track configurations. The four properties that they all obeyed were:

1. There are at least three non-intersecting pathways along a corridor when switches are in the default position. One is backup in case of failure of any one other.
2. ​Junctions can be configured to avoid choking traffic. (An example of this is West 4 Street–Washington Square. An example of the opposite is Franklin Avenue/Eastern Parkway.)
   • At terminal stations, traffic can flow freely from any track to any platform in any direction without blocking as long as the number of trains utilizing the junction does not exceed either the number of terminal tracks or the number of tracks along the main line (whichever is lesser).
3. If a junction is utilized such that traffic from two different tracks merge into one, there will always be a cross-platform transfer before the merge. (An example of this is what 72 Street/2 Avenue was supposed to be. An example of the opposite is what 72 Street/2 Avenue will be when phase 3 is built.)
4. Straight-railing is reserved for the “expressier tracks.” A local train may traverse several diverging switches and possibly fly over other tracks through a junction, but an express train gets a straighter and flatter path. Super-express tracks have no switches connecting to other tracks except at major stations, way stations, and terminals.

[Union Tpke]

 

I’ve been rummaging through my archives. If I don’t find them, I probably will have to remake them. It takes a few weeks to design and optimize them.

 

They came in different configurations with a set for non-blocking terminal/yard track maps, a set for trunk line track maps, and another for jam-free branching/merging. Each of those came with schematics for 3-track, 4-track, 5-track, and 6-track configurations. The four properties that they all obeyed were:

1. There are at least three non-intersecting pathways along a corridor when switches are in the default position. One is backup in case of failure of any one other.
2. ​Junctions can be configured to avoid choking traffic. (An example of this is West 4 Street–Washington Square. An example of the opposite is Franklin Avenue/Eastern Parkway.)
   • At terminal stations, traffic can flow freely from any track to any platform in any direction without blocking as long as the number of trains utilizing the junction does not exceed either the number of terminal tracks or the number of tracks along the main line (whichever is lesser).
3. If a junction is utilized such that traffic from two different tracks merge into one, there will always be a cross-platform transfer before the merge. (An example of this is what 72 Street/2 Avenue was supposed to be. An example of the opposite is what 72 Street/2 Avenue will be when phase 3 is built.)
4. Straight-railing is reserved for the “expressier tracks.” A local train may traverse several diverging switches and possibly fly over other tracks through a junction, but an express train gets a straighter and flatter path. Super-express tracks have no switches connecting to other tracks except at major stations, way stations, and terminals.

 

 

Thanks for looking. These principles are great! I really appreciate it.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

It’s not entirely correct to assume that aging infrastructure has the best likelihood of breaking down. New infrastructure has this problem too. The 2 Avenue  I’m glad someone else sees a need for gap trains.

 

Actually, I've been following some of Mr. Samuelson's comments, and recall a conversation I had at Tremont Avenue some Monday morning at 2 AM sixteen months ago.

 

New infrastructure breaks down just as bad because it's sloppily built by an agency managed by sloppy old men.

[RR503]

Hell, if you're looking for decent subway track design, take a look at the IND...

 

Except for their thickness regarding commuter flows (intraborough locals, G as QBlocal, etc) they designed a system that follows those principles pretty well. They even had the wisdom to plan ahead, leaving a plethora of provisions for future expansion, almost none of which got used...

[Lance]

That's actually part of the problem. The MTA has long-since realized the IND ways of transit building with the multitudes of flying junctions, track connections and bellmouths are actually unsustainable in practice. They're right of course as the only reason why the IND lasted the longest out of the three companies was due to city influence over the two private companies. Of course, going in the complete opposite direction with a bare-bones approach to subway construction like the MTA currently does, is also not a sustainable solution either. What we must find is a happy medium where we don't have a bunch of unnecessary track connections that are barely if ever used, but also have a way of routing trains around an incident without shutting down the entire line.

[Interested Rider]

I like parts of both Mr. Samuelsen's and Mr. Lhota's plans and I hope that we can have the changes made that will bring back the system to better shape as compared with the present. My problem is the two clowns on top will try to find an excuse not to provide the funds instead of funneling money to their politically driven pet projects that provide them with votes. Breitbart had an entry this morning (which I unfortunately I could not find when I went to check on it a few minutes ago) where the emperor paid a visit to Elaine Cho (Mitch's .wife and) who is the Secretary of Transportation with the hat in hand for more money for infrastructure. It is like he wants to get first dibs on the big pork barrel bill that Trump is proposing but has not been submitted yet. If he is already going hat in hand, what makes me think that he will put up the money for the plans that were proposed by Mr. Samuelsen and Mr. Lhota? In reading the posted comments after the article, I started praying that this city and state should never have another crisis where we have to depend on the federal government as if we do,we  will get nothing. as we are hated by many politicians from throughout the country.

As far as the holier than thou occupier of City Hall, he is outdoing the late John Lindsay with the garbage coming out of his mouth as when he lies through his teeth about the subway not needing money he directs the police to make sure that there are no homeless n the subway when he rides even though he he is shown a copy of the memorandum?. He is so in love with his ideology that he when he is shown that there is money to pay for the plans he refuses to even admit that it is available as it does not meet  his ideological criteria, I refer back to the comments on Breitbart  as whenever the mayor's name appears, the language that is used indicates that if we have a problem, the city will get nothing. He is another one who feels that the election has been won and seriously with the exception of Curtis Silwa and the New York Post(the Daily Snooze once in a while wakes up to his games), no one else is taking him on. There is a vast reservoir of voters who would like to get rid of him but where is the publicity for the Republican candidate?. We have two great proposals on the table right now that need money but it my feeling the Bickersons will go back to what they did before the proposals were offered to the public. It is put up or shut up time for these two individuals! Show me the money, governor and mayor and make sure it in a locked box where you can't put your hands on it. Make sure that it not another tax that will drive more residents away from this area.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Well apparently the thinks it does, which is why the article notes that they're adding cars to the .  It actually does get pretty crowded at times.  What I've been noticing is more and more people stay on the local to get to 125th and above, and now they're actually crowded, so that means the and are not performing as well as they should, or people find them too crowded or both.

and whenever a service change because of a signal issue or mechanical problem takes some trains out of service or puts them on the local track, they fill up fast as it becomes the sole option when that happens.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

That's actually part of the problem. The MTA has long-since realized the IND ways of transit building with the multitudes of flying junctions, track connections and bellmouths are actually unsustainable in practice. They're right of course as the only reason why the IND lasted the longest out of the three companies was due to city influence over the two private companies. Of course, going in the complete opposite direction with a bare-bones approach to subway construction like the MTA currently does, is also not a sustainable solution either. What we must find is a happy medium where we don't have a bunch of unnecessary track connections that are barely if ever used, but also have a way of routing trains around an incident without shutting down the entire line.

you think they could refurbish the tunnel that used to carry the ? If I typed it right it should be the 90s edition when the was still a thing.

 

I heard they sealed it up or it fell into disuse. I poked the question to pass time while waiting for the at the Flyover that burned not long ago.

 

Some stations also had unused lower levels. Is there a way, at least for capacity, that those tracks can be used anyway? I don't think these extra beds will precede any expansion, but I think they'd be useful to alleviate crowds and mitigate service disruptions (and route around or under an incident).

[CenSin]

That's actually part of the problem. The MTA has long-since realized the IND ways of transit building with the multitudes of flying junctions, track connections and bellmouths are actually unsustainable in practice. They're right of course as the only reason why the IND lasted the longest out of the three companies was due to city influence over the two private companies. Of course, going in the complete opposite direction with a bare-bones approach to subway construction like the MTA currently does, is also not a sustainable solution either. What we must find is a happy medium where we don't have a bunch of unnecessary track connections that are barely if ever used, but also have a way of routing trains around an incident without shutting down the entire line.

You can also see the kind of choices the MTA made. It kept the IND’s ridiculous full-length mezzanines and none of the track flexibility that was the hallmark of IND design. Quite an extreme there.

[LGA Link N Train]

Well apparently the thinks it does, which is why the article notes that they're adding cars to the .  It actually does get pretty crowded at times.  What I've been noticing is more and more people stay on the local to get to 125th and above, and now they're actually crowded, so that means the and are not performing as well as they should, or people find them too crowded or both.

Well, if that's the case, then the MTA should rearrange some R32's on the into 10 car sets, take a few R46's and R68's on the and trains, and (if possible) manually rearrange some 4 car R160's and R179's into 5 car sets. The and should get new schedules so that service is more flexible on those lines. the only reason that the should remain an 8 car train is if it ran on and replaced parts of the Jamaica elevated, as for the , rearrange some R68's into full length trains, take the R68's from the and and some R46's/R160's from the and put them on the as full length trains. After that, have trains serve as an extra service on Queens Boulevard to help riders who live along the IND Queens Blvd line (like my grandma) who want to get to greenpoint, bushwick, or Williamsburg, this will benefit for the train shutdown in 2019