Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/20/2019 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    Alright, no sweat "Supervisor Apprentice" King Transit. PM me with your last name and pass # Anyone wondering about the real reason, this is the terminal of the M9.
  2. 10 points
    We still got some horse drawn carriages out here
  3. 10 points
    I'm just glad it's not going to look like this: I like the look of the current MetroCards, but that tap card looks horrible.
  4. 9 points
    Restore The B41 Petition by the TWU Local 100 Petition by TWULOCAL100 The B41 Bus, serving the heart of Brooklyn, has lost 5 million riders in the last decade because of traffic congestion, double-parking, and other problems that can be fixed. The B41 is a critically important public transit resource in deep distress. But we can restore the B41 by putting in place bus-only lanes with a physical barrier keeping other traffic out of the B41's path, painted bus-only lanes with enhanced enforcement, and bus-priority signal technology to reduce time spent at red lights. We need Mayor de Blasio and the New York City Department of Transportation to work with the MTA to create a fast-moving bus corridor for the B41 from downtown Broooklyn across the borough to Kings Plaza. We need dedicated bus lanes and enforcement so that double-parkers and "dollar vans" don't impede bus traffic and don't steal revenue from the transit system.
  5. 9 points
    Hot Wheels doesn't count 😉
  6. 9 points
    Here is my plan for Canal Street, which I think I have thoroughly gone through. DISCLAIMER: I am sure that there are mistakes in here, and oversights. I am not an engineer, and have based this design based on the 3-D layout of the station. There might be basements, pipes, power lines, sewer lines, or other things in the way. If anyone knows of anything of the like please call me out. If there are any egregious mistakes do so as well. If anyone can think of a better way to accomplish the goals of making this station ADA-accessible while drastically reducing crowding at the station and making transfers easier, please post it. This is meant to be a discussion starter. One of the goals of this layout was to reduce the number of elevators needed. The Centre Street Passageway reduces the number of elevators on the two Nassau Street Platforms from 4 to 2. This passageway makes it easier for people needing elevators as the platforms would not be constrained with two pairs of elevators. Here is my not so great map of the general plan. Pentagons are elevators by the way. Canal Street Plan 1 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr Levels: L-1 Surface/Station House L-2 Nassau/Lexington/Broadway Main Line platforms/Mezzanines A, B, and C L-3 Bridge Platform/New Canal Street transfer passageway L-4 Centre Street Passageway New entrances: - North end of IRT and BMT platforms to Howard Street and Hester Street - South end of IRT platforms to Walker Street New Passageways: - Centre Street Passageway o Paralleling the Nassau platforms at a level lower down and located at L-4 o Provides access to the Downtown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase J and Elevator J o Provides access to the Uptown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase K and Elevator K o Provides access to the Uptown Bridge Platform by Staircase H and Elevator H o Provides access to the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway by Staircase I and Elevator I - Canal Street Transfer Passageway o Between Broadway and Baxter Street, paralleling the Downtown Bridge platform, providing direct access to the BMT Main Line platforms, the IRT platforms, and to the BMT Nassau platforms via stairs or elevator down to the Centre Street Passageway o Includes the crossunder passageway between the BMT Main Line platforms, which will be widened. o Access to the Downtown BMT Main Line platform via Staircase A and Elevator A o Access to the Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and Uptown BMT Bridge Platform via Staircase B and Elevator B o Direct and level access to the Downtown Bridge platform is provided. o Access to the Downtown IRT platform via Staircase E and Elevator E o Access to the Uptown IRT platform via Staircase G and Elevator E o Access down to the Centre Street Passageway via Staircase I and Elevator I o Access to the Southwest Stationhouse via Staircase N and Elevator I Mezzanines: A – Connects the Uptown Broadway Main Line Platform (same level) with the Uptown Bridge platform with Elevator C and Staircase C at this mezzanine’s eastern end – Provides access to the Downtown Broadway Main Line Platform and the IRT and BMT Nassau Platforms via Staircase B and Elevator B to the Canal Street Transfer Passageway B – Connects the Downtown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms - Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase D and Elevator D - Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase E and Elevator E C – Connects the Uptown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms - Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase F and Elevator F - Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase G and Elevator G Stationhouses: A – Northeast corner of Centre Street and Canal Street o Elevator H provides direct access to the Uptown Nassau platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform B – Southwest corner of Centre Street and Canal Street o Elevator I provides direct access to the Downtown Nassau platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform List of Elevators: A – Between the Street Level, Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and the Transfer Passageway B – Between the Downtown BMT Main Line platform and the Transfer Passageway C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator) E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator) G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) and Canal Street Transfer Passageway (Back side) H – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Uptown Bridge Platform, the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House I – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) /Canal Street Transfer Passageway (back side), the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House Staircases: A – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and the Downtown BMT Main Line Platform (L–2) B – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and Mezzanine A/Uptown BMT Main Line platform (L–2) C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway H – From the Uptown Bridge Platform down to the Centre Street Passageway I – From the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway down to the Centre Street Passageway J – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Downtown Nassau Platform K – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Uptown Nassau Platform L – Between the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House M – Between the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House N – Between the Canal Street Transfer Passageway and the Southwest Station House Remove: - Staircase between the Downtown Bridge platform and Mezzanine A; access to Broadway entrances and Main Line platforms preserved via elevator and stairs to Mezzanine A closer to Broadway Other improvements: - Double width of Bridge platforms - Reopen closed entrances Sources: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/canal-street-station-3d4c5ff5942242e0babe21e9e7d8d85d https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/Canal St (N)(Q) web.pdf
  7. 9 points
    Full program updates can now be seen at the top 👆of this thread for your convenience. This way everyone can keep current or reference something without having to go back and find the information in a previous post or page. As mentioned elsewhere, this will be rolling out across all major threads in all forums.
  8. 8 points
    Get bus lanes in Get the SBS in and Artics and actually crack down on dollar vans Boom problem solved
  9. 8 points
    Why are you embarrassing your uncle like this....
  10. 8 points
    Seriously, you don't think about sick passengers delaying things until you see it happen. I got to 74 St-Broadway, and heard someone had passed out on the platform, and saw a man unresponsive very close to the platform edge, with people surrounding him, including the C/R. Someone started to do CPR, and after maybe 10 minutes, EMS arrived and took him away, but service was already well past screwed by then, as it was the 7 during rush hour. Still, it made me realize that sick passenger could be anything from someone who just puked all over a car to someone who might be having a stroke or a heart attack and needs urgent medical attention. Quite possibly he might've not made it in the end; I'm not sure, but I can say that taking him all the way to Hudson Yards would not have been the right course of action, as you suggested they should do.
  11. 8 points
    So, some smart ass who decided to say that because their parents (or the like) work for the MTA and says that I'm wrong about how I list the years of the buses on the rosters and on my site. Welp, let me clarify how I find out the MODEL year of a bus because I don't just come up with the shit out my ass. It's called a VIN or Vehicle Identification Number which is a unique code of 17 numbers, including a serial number, used by the automotive industry to identify individual vehicles. To educate even further, the 10th digit in a vehicle code identifies the year in which the vehicle is modeled. So for prime example, 5FYD8FV07HB052201 is the VIN for MTA's New Flyer Xcelsior #7484. So the code H makes it a 2017 model. Sometimes a vehicles model year will not sync up to the BUILD date. An example of that case would be MTA's New Flyer Xcelsior Artic #6126 which by code is a 2019 model BUT it was built in 2018 or in the reverse case of the C40LFs (#320-569) which are 2011 models built in 2012. On TTMG, for photos, we use model years instead of build dates. On the rosters, specifically depot summary we apply the model year as well but on the fleet summary, we'll apply both the model year and build date. For those of you using Fleet View (and I know there is tons of you), most of the time they use the build date and not the model year. Below is a chart for the model years for that 10th digit. Enjoy!
  12. 8 points
    After cycling through this entire thread again, I see a lot of ideas flying back and forth, which is wonderful. However, a few of them are a bit troubling in my opinion. If the idea is to fix Bay Ridge transit, that cannot be done at the expense of other riders, especially when the number of riders impacted is potentially high. I'm not going to delve too deeply into specifics here, but I guarantee you that any plan that puts any Coney Island service via Whitehall during peak periods is dead on arrival. Riders may not be looking for a direct route from Bay Ridge to midtown, but they sure are doing so from the Sea Beach and Brighton lines. To give these riders the shaft to appease the ones along 4th Avenue is a grave disservice to everyone affected.
  13. 8 points
    You laugh, but little do you realize Wallyhorse is Prendergast, forever exiled to transit forums.
  14. 7 points
    I think some depots (such as Ulmer, Quill) have higher priority over what fleet they want, would explain why all the remaining ZFs are still at Ulmer and the final batch of RTSs is at Quill. That said, this article is just inflammatory and whoever wrote it probably has no knowledge of how the bus system works. Not surprising being from one of the tabloids, but still poor journalism nonetheless. Gleason doesn't have any RTSs because they aren't CNG. Speaking of which, Gleason operates many routes in the poorer areas of Brooklyn, including Sunset Park and Brownsville.
  15. 7 points
    Multiple reasons: Lack of enforcement by the NYPD has allowed dollar vans to fester out of control. The prevalence of dollar vans (nowadays almost exclusively cutaway vehicles) has taken ridership off of the B41. Runs get cut as a result of decreased ridership (but the demand is there as shown by the dollar vans). What I see needing to be done, in no particular order: Any XE60 buses should be dedicated to Flatbush Depot for the B41 (which would warrant it with stop and go traffic) for increased capacity. State Trooper/MTA Police crackdown on the dollar vans (since the NYPD won't do so) with a contracted towing company for impounding vehicles. Bergen Beach service would be designated B40 as a distinct route. Select Bus Service introduction to the B41 and an Eagle Team/MTA Police/State Trooper enforcement. (On the B82 SBS, some Eagle Team stops have resulted in as many as 12 people being removed from a bus for fare evasion.) Modifying the schedule for fare evasion as follows (bullet points) First offense: 50 times the base fare (currently that would be $137.50) Second offense: 100 times the base fare (currently that would be $275) Third offense: Class A misdemeanor (Section 165.15 of the NY State Penal Code). Checks due to the person could be intercepted to pay the fines. As for why I would want police enforcement---oftentimes, farebeaters are people committing other offenses. As for what route should be highlighted next, after the B41...I'd probably say the Bx9 or B15. Notice how the dollar vans have all but disappeared from Utica Avenue since SBS began.
  16. 7 points
    because not only has the B41 lost passengers, runs have been cut to borderline dismal levels. in Flatbush, the "big 3" on the run boards used to be the 41, 44 & 46, all having over 100 runs. the 41 is barely in the high 80's now. at least 20 runs disappear over a decade? unacceptable.
  17. 7 points
    Hello good sir, I'm a fellow salesman and would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge!
  18. 7 points
    train approaching Avenue M leaving Coney Island after coming from the yard and at Coney Island Two trains at Coney Island End of the Culver platforms Looking north towards the yard Brighton Beach Looking south from Kings Highway and approaching Newkirk Plaza
  19. 7 points
    So the goal now is to merge everything into a megacorporation. How's that Bus/NYCT Surface merger going? It's been what - 10 years? I'd've been impressed if they came out and said "We're breaking up the since even big business realized conglomerates are crap." Plus ça change.
  20. 7 points
    3201-3198, 3202-3205 (coupled in that order) are in service as of this morning
  21. 7 points
    Found this on Reddit, a 160 train with the FIND stuck on both the AND programs...
  22. 7 points
    Firstly, let me be among those who commend you for your accomplishments and continued hard work. With that said, you really don't owe anyone any explanation as to who you are, what you've achieved & what you are looking to accomplish going forward. As you see, no matter how "decorated" and successful you are or have been, there will ALWAYS be detractors who believe they know more or better than you. Keep fighting the good fight. There aren't too many people doing so.
  23. 6 points
    Been reading some posts concerning Bay Ridge (R) service and the ,somewhat, related work train stacking complaints. Starting with the Bay Ridge complaints and being a veteran of the IRT my solution is based on my experiences. Leaving Dyre or WP heading s/b the E180th St supervision or Mott supervision sees a significant gap about to happen on the n/b (2) or (5) line or both. SOP is to turn a s/b train back north at E 180th or 149th-GC to cover that gap. Sometimes a train from both lines is turned back north for service. Same thing would happen further down the line at Brooklyn Bridge, Bowling Green, Times Square, or South Ferry. I don't know the plant on the BMT southern division but I do know that trains can be turned back south at Whitehall and ,IIRC, Court St. That seems to be the easiest solution in my book. Notice that in my IRT solutions nowhere was a (3) or a (6) brought into the mix. The idea was to KISS and keep the problem isolated to affect the minimum amount of service disruption, Why would one extend the (J) line to Bay Ridge? That line is long enough as it is. Work train stacking on the Fourth Avenue corridor. Surprised it wasn't thought of years ago. I'll go back to my work train experiences mainly in the IRT. Someone asked why work trains weren't stored in every yard. They are sometimes but in the IRT back 30+ years ago it was a matter of yard space. Westchester Yard was the home base for all IRT work trains. Diesels were serviced there, rails, signals, and construction material were stored there. East 180th was out of the question. Space was so tight that we laid up trains on the WPR structure from Pelham Parkway down to Bronx Park East as well as the two layup tracks south of Pelham Parkway on the Dyre line itself. 239th Yard was no better with the (2) , (5) and two refuse trains stored up there as well as (2) trains stored downstairs at Gun Hill Road on the Third Avenue platform level. Lenox barely had room for the money train and 137th yard was out, period. 240th was a no-go before the flyover into 207th was constructed. Trains were laid up nightly from 225th St to 238th St on the structure. I've worked jobs that started at Westchester Yard and the train had to travel to 168th St on the (1), 149th St-GC lower level, Nevins St in Brooklyn, Eastern Parkway-Brooklyn Museum and Franklin Ave and Times Square. Many times these jobs were piggy-backed where two or more work trains were involved with a specific order and direction included. Just think about the travel time and trackage covered just to reach the work site and return to home base the next morning. Many times by the time everyone was in place and the work started we might have two or three hours before we had to pack up and head home. I can remember many mornings when the Joralemon tube, the Lex Express, and the Pelham Express were tied up well past 6 am. That's why, IMO, those work trains are stacked on Fourth Avenue. Just tell the road trains that are scheduled as such to run " express on the local track" which was a simple procedure back in the day. As an aside to those who say store those trains and run them up the West End, or Culver Lines and wait to be slotted in I suggest the following. On a train that's being flagged to a work site, meaning someone standing up on a flat or crane car as the eyes and ears for the diesel operator, I will personally rent a pickup truck and pick a night with wind chills down near zero, and prop you standing up in the bed of said truck while I travel north on Ocean Parkway or McDonald Avenue at 10 or 15 mph while the elements rip you a new one. Just ignore the rain, sleet and wind while we creep toward Downtown Brooklyn on our way to Midtown. Remember to bring an extra set of clothes too. I can almost guarantee the sentiments I just posted is why many present day RTO people have stopped posting regularly. Seems to me that many posters have forgotten that there's a human element involved here too. Joking(?) comments about taking sick customers to a terminal to speed up service. I thought we were better than that. Just my thoughts. Carry on.
  24. 6 points
    Exactly. We're looking at this from the wrong angle. Even discounting the extreme costs to rebuild and/or bury the existing elevated lines, they themselves are not the issue here. The problem here is that pieces of the structures are flaking off like dead skin, but unlike dead skin, these rotting pieces of wood, steel and metal are quite dangerous when they fall to the ground, the last two incidents involving such a scenario have proven quite soundly. No. What needs to be done is that the MTA must secure their infrastructure and prevent such incidents from happening in the first place. Whether that involves walking the length of every elevated track both above and below the structures remains to be seen, but they cannot continue to treat this as a one-off occurrence and simply ignore it.
  25. 6 points
    "The speaker of a different language" You'd think we could make it through even just a joke article on SI Live without some dumb, xenophobic comment–but no!
  26. 6 points
  27. 6 points
    By disagreeing, you're actually making my point. Very few are riding from 95th St to 42nd St on (R) - they're typically switching to (N) at 59th or (D) at 36th St. Or they're taking the express bus. Or, gasp, driving. So recreating old BMT services is fairly pointless, as is attempting to create a route that captures Manhattan fares, since the problem is that the service frequency along 4th Av is unreliable. But because the unreliability part is not because of 4th Av - it's because of QBL delays, or the merges on Broadway in Midtown, or even route length, the focus should be how to fix the issues that make 4th Av local stations intolerable. That doesn't necessarily mean a new through-route - that could mean doing a split of one route, or doing a rationalization. But putting your (K) onto the Nassau Line and/or Jamaica just causes more issues since now you have it held up by terminating (J) (Z) trains at Broad St; holding up (J) (Z) trains at Broad St or Chambers, or even at Essex St blocking (J) (Z) and (M) . Reconnecting Nassau to the Bridge now delays (N) (Q) because of not just diverging switches and DeKalb; you now have a level crossing. And you still have the 57th St issue, (R) 's length, and you haven't fixed the reliability issue - you've spread it to more areas. That's a solution, but not a viable one IMO; rationalizing the services patterns and proper operation of the infrastructure is a more viable one.
  28. 6 points
    The LFSs are on their way, 8508 and several others are currently in New Jersey at the service center.
  29. 6 points
  30. 6 points
    It's NY - can't actually have government accountable to the people, cuz then they'll expect government to listen to and obey them. I really miss West Coast government progressivism. Might've been annoying to have to vote for water board directors and have three pages of ballot propositions to vote 'NO' on, but we could change EVERYTHING on EVERY election day. Instead, we get the all-empowered executive who puts lipstick on pigs and expects us to say how pretty they are.
  31. 6 points
    There are times I want to ragequit NYC. This is one of them. Centralization is great...if it's centralization, and if it's done well. MTA has a history with poorly executed centralization plans (Rail Control Center, MTA Capital Construction) and Cuomo has a history with masking power grabs with reform (think the split of the chairmans' position). While I think that a well executed functional union of these departments would be great, I worry that it will a) not be well executed, and b) will be a managerial union more than a functional one, meaning the agency presidents lose control of key agency functions. This is especially relevant given Fast Forward -- if Byford loses control of it, I don't know where we are as a city... Equally disturbing to me is this idea that we're gonna make this better by recruiting people from outside the agency. New blood is needed, sure, but there are a LOT of really smart, competent, creative folks within the agency who already have a close understanding of system problems that need to be given more voice and power. Easy to apply broad brush "all MTA mgmt is bad; start again" thinking to this, but the reality is more nuanced and any reform program should address that. I worry that 'culture change' is going to amount to more political shills, and appointments of the type we saw during the fiberglass-and-glue redux of the Canarsie plan. "Identifiable hardship" sounds like a fancy way of saying that they're gonna let patronage/focus group politics go wild here. Medical exemptions for non-emergency, non-ADA vehicles seem to exist independent of the reality that most people take transit to doctors appts (though I guess I can understand an exemption in some more extreme cases...?) As for the other proposals, am I the only one who believes that revenues from a marijuana tax should be reinvested in communities who have been hit hardest by asymmetrical enforcement of such laws? This is basically already the case. Ripping the mask of the political control, I guess? Good to see that they understand that the issue has more to do with design and enforcement levels, not punishment type, I guess? All the same, a waste of a bullet point. I'd love to have seen something else (more on that later). This is literally the MTA board. Good lord. It has been demonstrated time and again that design-build isn't the solution, it's good management of two inherently independence functions. This focus on 'innovation' is dangerous, too. UWB may be a workable technology -- but we don't know that it is, and unless you're willing to let me replace your circulatory system with that of a penguin because hey, it might be more efficient, you should be worried about this. Ad libbing signal system design was one reason we got in this mess; let's not take that mentality to the next level to fulfill some moonshot idea that gets the system out of the hard work of incremental improvement. I honestly don't know what to say bout the Columbia/Cornell deans coming back. State of the art is great if state of the art has been proved functional. The last time the deans showed up, we got 'innovative' tunnel repair, and this time, it looks as if we're getting UWB rubber stamped. There are absolutely parts of capital construction that could use an update, but they fall on the boring end of the spectrum, and are generally best addressed by people with, you know, experience with the MTA. Oh yay, let's have the one statement supporting continuity be of the most wasteful part of subway recovery plans.
  32. 6 points
    Today I rode an 179 that had an software issue of some sort. Train pulled into 34th St, doors opened the announcements went normally until it said the next stop was Kingsbridge Rd and the FIND shut off, seconds later, the FIND came back on and everything was normal again. When I got off the train the outside sign said "Via Concourse". That was one confused train.
  33. 6 points
    My apologies. Moving forward, I will tone that down under one condition. You stop throwing jabs at other member and stop complaining unless you plan on doing something or have a serious point to get across. In other words, we need to to contribute if you are going to be here rather than annoy our users/members. Debates are fine, but arguments are for children. The back and forth ends now.
  34. 6 points
    I feel that no matter what distance you live in, students should have access to free transportation. There should be no reason that in 2019 a student isn't able to get to their school just because of their inability to pay a half fare, or because their family has economical struggles, or inclement weather outside. If most students have a Full Fare, then Half fare shouldn't be an option. In places like D.C. Students ride free, regardless of travel distance, and regardless of time. With the new fare payment system making its debut, it's about time that the Revises their student transportation policy, and re adjust their policies to include all students with free transportation. I know that distance is a bullshit excuse, because there are students who live less than a mile away from school and they are given Full Fare's for economical, or other reasons which just simply makes it unfair for others. Another thing is that people need to shut the f*ck up about students taking public transportation, it is none of their business to even instigate that, and we are no lesser than them in order for us to be chewed by some grown ass hypocrite who probably is stuck in a 9-5 job being paid less than $15 an hour. Public Transportation is PUBLIC. It is a system where anyone is entitled to use it regardless of age, color, race, or sex. I absolutely have no problem with students riding on buses and trains trying to get to an after-school, library, their home, a ball game, the park, or etc. It's their right as citizens of the City of New York to utilize the City's resources to their benefit. I am tired of seeing these people proselytize themselves as more than students just because they get a paycheck. I know some students can be @$$holes when on the bus, but it's life, nothing's perfect. Just as adults have a right to ride public transportation, so do students, because Public Transportation is in place to benefit everyone, not just a certain class of people, just because they want to be self centered and act like breadwinners. This is one big societal problem, and it is none of their business to be concerned over a Student's choice of travel.
  35. 6 points
    Give me a little money, an hour, a megaphone, and access to all R crews and I can start us down the road to solving dwell and terminal ops. Give me access to subway schedulers, cars, and money and I can fix the N crossover in a month or two. Give me an expanded SPEED team and an interdepartmental review team and I can have signal changes going in a month. These are not long term fixes, they’re just fixes that require an attention to detail.
  36. 6 points
    I use the 4 or so times a week. Trust me when I say I know how bad it is. But I think trying to fix that by cutting the line’s East River crossing is not just an acquiescence to operational incompetence, but is also a really dumb way of making the Brooklyn leg of the shorter. As I’m sure you all are tired of hearing me say, any conversation about routing changes needs to start with one about operations — whether or not just getting that side of the house together fixes the targeted problem, which here seems to be reliability. In this case, the answer to that question is, to an extent, yes, and I think that it’s mitigations that speak to that sort of issue that need to be the focus here. I’ve spent months here detailing specific strategies that I think could be helpful, so I won’t go into detail, but things like dwell control, terminal operation, scheduling, maintenance related operations and speed management seem pertinent to the . Some routing changes, though, address problems that transcend operation issues, and there are some operations issues that can’t be completely solved operationally. While this proposal’s stated raison d’être is operational, and I don’t think that it’s goal is unachievable operationally, I think there are absolutely route changes that could be made to the and related lines that would benefit service delivery/frequency. Examples of this would be Broadway deinterlining, Queens deinterlining, a Nassau-Bay Ridge service, etc. These aren’t far fetched ideas that take some sort of wizard to conceive; a glance at a track map and a service diagram would present the above solutions to a 6th grader with an attention span long enough to absorb the necessary information. What is required is merely care and creativity—elements that seem to have been lacking here. But let’s entertain for a second the possibility that all of this is totally wrong, and the electeds are completely correct in their belief that a shorter is the only way to make a better . Cutting the at Court achieves that goal, yes, but so does running the to Essex, a service pattern that would preserve Lower Manhattan connectivity. Could they not have gone for that pretty objectively better option? I’ll leave it to the forum to decide. *** I’m leaving this as a postscript because I think that this isn’t an important argument in the scheme of things, but there’s no way in hell that Whitehall will be able to turn and service — which means one of them is getting cut to Canal, which means less service to Lower Manhattan, etc etc
  37. 6 points
    When the rest of the 5 car sets start coming in, the foam will pick up.
  38. 6 points
    Seems like another Wallyhorse thing is coming true. All hail the Wally.
  39. 6 points
    The only M42 supplement I need is my two feet.
  40. 5 points
    https://maxrose.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=65 Thought this was interesting since we've been discussing the in the proposals/ideas thread for months now... People on Twitter are calling for an Essex-95th "shuttle" instead, which @RR503 might find interesting...
  41. 5 points
  42. 5 points
    Listen do not let the conductor opportunity pass . I’m sorry but I don’t know what kind of advice that was. Listen If you come in as conductor that’s fine , when they reach you for train operator you can leave as well . The only thing is that if you haven’t passed probation as a conductor and you don’t like train operator or can’t pass the training then you won’t have conductor to fall back on in the event you hadn’t passed probation . And besides if you come in as a conductor, they’ll always have promotional to train operator . What ever you decide take whatever comes first don’t let anything pass waiting for another .
  43. 5 points
    Short turning is useful, especially when you need to thin out heading towards some disruption, but (and I'd really love to hear what your experiences w/ their operation are) gap trains strike me as the better way to work with gaps. Short turning into a gap is as much of a cascade as pulling an interval from another line, whereas a gap train keeps the issue isolated. Problem is, as always, the operational expense of anything in this system... Bringing a Nassau service to Bay Ridge would (if they can learn how to operate lengthy lines) help with Lower Manhattan O/D traffic -- more ways for people to avoid the IRT. I really appreciate you posting these experiences, TM5. I think it's key to understand the operational side of things. That said, I think we have an undeniable issue with work trains and work productivity in this city. I can't think of another system anywhere that stores such a large share of its trains in one yard, so frequently sees work trains crap out on the road, and begets so little productive time while causing so many delays as a result. Yes, we have yard space issues, but those are attenuable -- even just making better use of Linden and Jamaica (both of which host work sets today) would do worlds for service (provided that you give good AWS coverage from Linden-BWJ). I don't know enough about the ins and outs of this issue to put together some really fine pointed proposal, but again, we are unique in our incompetence here. On Fourth Ave: the issue with work train delays there isn't just speed, but also junction capacity. The tide of work trains hitting Dekalb stacks the express track, which is essentially why trains are running local these days -- you don't want s and s stuck behind that. The current setup increases and headways to 12 minutes (which is itself unacceptable) but it works, I guess. I think the larger issue at hand is that we are increasingly willing to hand over the railroad to unending maintenance without looking at ways to reform maintenance processes, which simply isn't a recipe for success in the long term -- the subway is for riders, after all. This is why I bring up evening out work set distributions, considering alternate routes, reforming actual practices to reduce the need for work sets, etc. *** An interesting international comparison on sick passenger incidents, for those who were discussing them: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/person_ill_on_train
  44. 5 points
    Most importantly, every car is (potentially) different as constructed and the testing must be performed and conform to class specifications individually, regardless if its a 4-, 5- or (as with the R-188) even a 6-car link. The success of any single car (or unit) is not considered a success for the associated overall fleet of cars in any way. The pilot, production and delivery sequence was and is per advance agreement between NYCT (Car Equipment) and Bombardier. Initial priority was granted to the 260 8-car trains (at the time to begin in 2015) to allow replacement of the 272 existing Phase I R-32's and MK R-42's. Subsequent changes in service and planning have rent those plans asunder against a backdrop of overall fleet enlargement (rather than 1-for-1 replacement), but Bombardier still continued to build on the original trajectory and thus produced and delivered the reduced quantity (188) of 4-car sets first. NYCT more recently revised its desired quantity of 5-car sets several times in lieu of lateness penalty payments. IIRC, it first went from 40 to 80 to 120, then 120 to 130, while concurrently reducing the quantity of 4-car sets from the original 260 to 220, then 196, and finally 188. The final, VERY revised quantity of 120 5-car R-179's was then moved to the end of the production "run" out of necessity at the Plattsburgh end. Also to reiterate, NYCT is currently capable of processing one linked set (regardless of length) at a time, involving personnel at 207 Street and Pitkin, Engineering and Car Acceptance and finally RTO for (test) crews, instruction and logistics. Then there are the vendor (Bombardier) representatives. Each unit will proceed through the same process the same way, regardless of length. Through time, across numerous types of equipment contracts, work sites and procedures can vary. For example, the first batch of R-160B's that were delivered from KRC in 2007 were delivered to and processed at Coney Island Inspection House, where they ultimately entered service on and . The R-160A-1's were initially delivered at 207 Street but processed at East New York, where they went into service on the old and later as well as (after a partial CBTC upgrade) . As the program proceeded, later R-160s of all types were delivered to 207, then processed at Pitkin, then tested from Jamaica for or East New York for . . This is manly because of storage space and "pit time" considerations at the various facilities.
  45. 5 points
    I caught both sets of R179s on 8th Avenue at the same time by dumb luck. Not the best video but decent enough.
  46. 5 points
    So we have a retired MTA Chief Officer in my group that has been quite blunt with regards to the mess that is express bus service:
  47. 5 points
    It actually doesn’t matter what bus it is. TA requires that employees be trained on every bus type and model no matter what type it is. Quill operators for example have to be qualified on 7 bus types. GA operators for instance had to train on early 7000’s, late 7000’s and 9500’s. Same with the Orion VII E10’s. Very operator I’m the city was trained on the Orion VII, but still had to train and qualify on the 7000’s As of late MTA has gotten real strict with things. For example, and employee I know transferred from GH to GA durning M train ops. He was qualified on the 4700’s, but not the 6000’s. Dispatch went to give him a bus and said WAIT! You aren’t qualified for that. My friend said it’s the same damn bus. Thats not how TA looks at it. And to a greater extent, every transit agency in America with artics has to train their operators on both a 60 and 40 even if they are the same type. They do not maneuver the same. Mechanics don’t have to be retrained in this fashion when it comes to these things. They just need to be refreshed or notified of a part or spec change.
  48. 5 points
    LONG OVERDUE! MTA Metro-North Railroad President Catherine Rinaldi has announced that effective Sunday, April 14, Metro-North is opening New Haven Line trains for travel between Fordham and Manhattan. The change means railroad customers will be able to access an additional 96 weekday trains for travel between Fordham and Manhattan that previously had been off-limits, more than doubling existing service of 93 daily Harlem Line trains. On Saturdays, 67 New Haven Line trains will now be available for such travel, bolstering the existing 83 Harlem Line trains. On Sundays, the railroad is adding access to 65 New Haven Line trains to the existing 63 Harlem Line trains. During off-peak times, when waits can be longest, the changes mean service between Fordham and Manhattan will operate roughly four times an hour instead of twice an hour. Previously, New Haven Line trains stopped at Fordham only to enable travel between Fordham and points north, in Westchester County and Connecticut. Customers at Fordham seeking to travel south to Grand Central or Harlem-125th Street, as well as customers at those two stations seeking to travel to Fordham, were directed to Harlem Line trains. Southbound New Haven Line trains stopped at Fordham to discharge passengers only, and northbound New Haven Line trains stopped at Fordham only to receive passengers. The move comes after Metro-North completed a $15.1 million renewal of the Fordham station, which included doubling the width of the northbound platform, building a new entrance at Webster Av. and E. 193rd St., rehabilitating the historic station building, adding permanent artwork, larger stairways, and new entrances to Fordham Plaza, which was simultaneously rebuilt and reconfigured by the NYC Department of Transportation. In the east Bronx, the MTA is planning to build four New Haven Line stations in the East Bronx along the rail line to Penn Station. On the line that serves Fordham, Metro-North recently doubled off-peak and weekend service to Melrose and Tremont, which began as a pilot program in October 2016 and was formalized a year later. “The rule about boarding at Fordham had a long history, but that’s no reason for us to continue to uphold it,” said Metro-North Railroad President Catherine Rinaldi, who authorized the rules change after discussing the matter with Connecticut Transportation Commissioner Joseph Giulietti. “In fact, it was long past time for this antiquated and customer-unfriendly rule to be eliminated. I thank the leadership of the MTA and the Connecticut Department of Transportation for supporting this change.” Commissioner Giulietti said: “I applaud Metro-North for managing to change this archaic rule in the spirit of better serving our customers. This will make a critical difference for commuters on the Harlem and New Haven Lines.” As a result of this policy change, revenue from the sale of train tickets between Fordham and Manhattan, which previously had gone entirely to Metro-North, will now be split between Metro-North and the State of Connecticut.
  49. 5 points
    THANK YOU! It's about time someone said that.
  50. 5 points
    Was sworn in yesterday. 114*
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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