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.

RR503

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    2,983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    105

RR503 last won the day on January 6

RR503 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,919 Excellent

7 Followers

About RR503

  • Rank
    Oink

Profile Information

  • Location
    Drainage ditch

Recent Profile Visitors

3,590 profile views
  1. No, it definitely is too much. No rational human being would want to work in the conditions Byford faced -- incessant and uninformed interference from above, etc. Moses was a master of his craft: he built a coalition that would support road construction independent of political leadership, and then carefully avoided angering any constituency with power. It is telling his downfall partially stemmed from LoMex -- the first one of his highways to traverse a large swath of middle class neighborhoods. In the end of the day, though, it's the lack of vision that's going to kill us. Seemingly nobody with power in this region knows what they wish to work towards. Without goals, why make change?
  2. I was at 2 Broadway today for a meeting; arrived just a few hours after the news went out. The number of shocked faces, of employees furtively talking in hallways, the amount of sadness in that building was remarkable. The fate of the agency's operations aside, I and many others are extremely concerned about how Byford's departure -- both in that we are losing his leadership and in that competence and creativity are being rebuked -- will affect the long term health and culture of the organization. The MTA is already risk averse and terrified of proposing change; I fear those tendencies will only get worse.
  3. It makes me a special sort of upset to watch politicians -- those who hold the purse strings make declarations like when it's really the fault of those very pols that this is the case. Like, setting aside how insufferably all-or-nothing that statement is, who do they think makes these decisions? Same goes for the members complaining about service cuts. The whole point of redesigns of this sort is that they put resources where they will generate the most ridership and create the most benefit; there are going to be more winners than losers, but there will be losers. Saying "OMG this plan cut service in x area" is like saying "water is wet" in the case of a budget neutral redesign. If anyone cared to fix the budget neutral aspect, then, well, the win/loss issue would tilt further towards the former. This sort of behavior, taken in concert with today's news, _really_ makes me worry about the future of transit in NYC.
  4. Aside from the merge being between rather than , there is no difference in the number of merges in your plan vs the one put forth by NYCT, and NYCT’s better serves Nostrand and doesn’t shove all of Lex into one mediocre terminal. As for options at Utica, you can transfer, which in my experience is what most people seem to do anyway.
  5. Flatbush can do (likely a good bit) more than 18 if you recrew faster and schedule tighter. A not insignificant amount of time is consumed via pocket dwell today. They use both pockets at Utica AFAIK. Policy would definitely help at Utica, but it's unclear to me how much can be changed without also tinkering with schedules to absolutely minimize time in pockets. It's also one of those things where the other service alternative provides a better overall experience -- at least someone new gets a one seat ride up the East Side.
  6. I agree! Luckily, there's a simple fix for Rogers: add two switches -- and no, there is room to do that. Multiple NYCT studies can confirm. I don't follow how a lack of turn locations factors into this. to Flatbush, to Utica, to New Lots
  7. That, health/pension costs, and the stagnation/decrease in labor productivity (wages, which get all the attention from the Post crowd, are not really an issue).
  8. This is SOP with CBTC -- it allows faster acceleration and braking to be set to basically whatever level. Already CBTC operates trains significantly faster than does fixed blocks; here's to that being expanded. Would you rather the train sit outside the terminal for 10 minutes a la ? It's annoying, but until runtimes are stable and the agency can find the resources to rewrite schedules to reflect runtime gains, this is what we've got.
  9. $0 of congestion pricing revenues will go to the operating budget. It's being bonded to pay for the shiny new objects in the 50 billion dollar capital plan. The operating budget remains in tatters. As for the lockbox, the bill as written merely prevents funding from being removed from the MTA, it doesn't guarantee any adds. The long-term utility of just more money is questionable at any rate; MTA's operating costs on a per service-hour basis as well as in aggregate have been escalating wildly ahead of inflation over the past decade or so. Without adequate cost controls and resource prioritization, adding more would just amount to kicking the can down the road.
  10. I don't think CI needs express service. There are one or two new devs coming up down there, but the center of ridership growth on Brooklyn routes over the past 15 or so years has been in Sunset Park, Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, etc, and without other routing interventions, the Dekalb/Manhattan/Queens segments of these routes basically mean they're maxed out, save for maybe 1tph here or there. For example, on the , while back in the '70s only about 60% of ridership was on the IND portion of Culver, today over 75% is. Obviously in the specific case in the riders at Church and 7th would benefit from express trains, but generally speaking the center of line ridership is too far north (and is tending further northwards) to sustain express service at the expense of local service from Church north -- let alone from Kings Highway north. The same goes for any . On Sea Beach, even if _every single_ Stillwell rider used this and this ran local from Stillwell to Kings Highway, you'd only be serving 22% of Sea Beach ridership. The fares a bit better -- 28%, and 62nd could be a legit transfer opportunity if scheduled right -- but still, not great. And this is all before we discuss the operational barriers to some of these issues, whether that be the complexities that come with trying to run a short turn op and an express/local crossover without a grade separated junction (hello Parkchester), or scheduling challenges given time savings, or otherwise. None of those barriers are _intractable_ but they make an unattractive ridership proposition seem suboptimal operationally too. Really unless you can increase the size of the capacity pie, you're robbing one area to serve another -- and are making a poor tradeoff at that. My question is why not focus on non-express service improvements in runtime? There is a lot of messy signaling and merging on BMT south; cutting down some of that could save all riders time. Now, the above is qualified with the assumption that we can't increase the size of the capacity pie. But say we went ahead with ops fixes, and ended up with the ability to run 30tph down the 4th Ave express tracks. Then what? I'd suggest . West End express has intermediate stops, which allows for transfers and larger catchment, has bad-but-not-terrible short turn facilities at Bay Parkway, and is really quite fast. I don't think you'd necessarily want to split the evenly, but I can see a world in which it'd work.
  11. Well sure, but again in the base schedule it's written to work as you suggest -- the and can 'float' and end up perfectly in between the and service created by the Nevins transfer as they don't interact with lines aside from the and . In fact, excluding the , the only part of the A division that doesn't get even headways overnight is the Eastern Parkway corridor, where they've decided an easy transfer at Nevins > evenly spaced service. It's when running supplemented service, especially when running schedules that rewrite service on one of the two lines but not the other, that this all gets messed up. I don't see how countdown clocks prevent the scheduling of even headways? Or is your point that they may inform people as to how long they have before the train arrives if they're considering some untoward action?
  12. The base schedules on Lex and IRT West align and for a cross platform at Nevins and then interpolate the and to provide an even enough 9/11/9/11/9/11 pattern on the trunk portions of those routes, as intra-corridor ridership is high and transfer flows between trains aren't strong enough for the agency to prioritize a connection for one direction (ie giving => xfer riders a 3 minute wait would mean giving => riders a 17 minute wait). The and take sufficiently different routes that the calculus is different for them -- they run a 6/14/6/14 iinm. Worth noting that these are _base_ schedules. Supplements frequently throw this all out the window.
  13. No speed changes, though perhaps they recalibrated them... I'd be curious to know whether the speedup have a discernable startpoint, though. What I've noticed is that rushes on corridors like the Lex and QB will go okay enough until some train overdwells/is too timid with STs, at which point everything goes to hell. It's possible that as crews got moved around during the pick, the crew least comfortable with those conditions got moved around in the rush.
  14. The effect is much less pronounced in tunnels -- there generally is registered a good bit of travel time between stations. Regardless, given the somewhat constant direction of the error, if you know how to weed it out of your calculations (using arrival-arrival or departure-departure metrics) you can circumvent issue.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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