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

    1,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

RR503 last won the day on April 12

RR503 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,059 Excellent

3 Followers

About RR503

  • Rank
    Oink

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

1,543 profile views
  1. Did anyone see Brad Lander’s recent email about “rogue F expresses?” Twas cause for a good laugh.
  2. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    When commuters discover the NYC subway is the world's most complex choose your own adventure story....
  3. They won't for three reasons. 1. They're thinking of terminating some (m)s at Bway Jct, so using the middle track there would not be conducive to smooth operation. 2. Express service only works when trains can pass each other. Given the (j)'s long headways, no such thing could happen. You'd just end up with pairs of (j)s running closer into Manhattan/beyond Bway J. 3. We need all the service we can get at the Jamaica line's local stations. They will be the main alternatives to the (l), so unless you're into platform crowding, running any exp service during the shutdown is a patently bad idea.
  4. And how are those millennials liking MNR? Sure, they use it, but I've heard few wax lyrical about its convenience and flexibility. What's more, when the next generation comes along, the one that grew up with Uber and Lyft, MNR, and as you say LIRR especially will have to become as intuitive as those services. It's too easy these days to cop out of public transit. I also find it deeply ironic that despite your claim to disagree with me, you wrote the bolded part. What I'm arguing for is just that -- a service increase. Riders in the city get higher capacity trains at predictable intervals, while those in the suburbs get more capacity, regularized intervals, and unified stopping patterns. Is that really so bad? I'd love to be able to take MNR without checking a schedule. Its being heavily subsidized is a factor of its current reality. This study may very well not preserve that. For all we know, it may endorse the elimination of conductors in favor of fare gates and the like. In terms of capital costs, you're absolutely right, shit costs money. But again, compared to building a subway line to Rosedale, a platform extension seems free. First off, the MTA isn't running this study. This is a NYCDOT thing, that is not reflective of MTA policy whatsoever. And I can assure you that there'll be more internal resistance to this sort of creative thinking than there would be to really any subway expansion. Secondly, for the last time, regional rail would not replace the subway. The vast majority of regional-rail served markets in NYC are ones that have no subway alternative (think pretty much anywhere on the LIRR in Queens). This would be a way to bring transit to those neighborhoods cheaply and quickly, while generally facilitating transit on new corridors.
  5. You seem to have wholly missed my argument. My argument regarding constructs is this insistence that commuter rail infrastructure -- despite its having plenty of excess capacity -- can only be used for commuter trains. I call bullsh*it. Using that excess capacity (with some capital improvements) to create a high-capacity regional rail network is a cheap and simple way of increasing transit service and capacity in NYC. You say passing the buck, I say pragmatism. Building subway lines to Bayside, Laurelton, Yonkers or wherever just doesn't make economic sense, even if construction costs weren't what they were. Luckily for us, there exists rail infrastructure that serves those markets, and does so well. Why not capture it? Yes, it'd cost money, but what the subway needs right now is not cash. It's a management shakeup. The subway crisis right now actually has nothing to do with maintenance; it has to do with obtuse operational practices coming home to roost. Look at the delay data, and you'll see what I mean. I think that Voice article has it. In the long term, building subways to serve new markets is imperative, but again, I don't see the construction of a regional rail system and the construction of new lines as mutually exclusive. They serve different markets; the one will not supplant the other. That's like saying that because not every subway line is like the Lex, the subway isn't overcrowded. I mean hey, the line is quite roomy, so how bad can it be? Creating a regional rail network would not effect MNR/LIRR's performance beyond their use of the same infrastructure. New trains and station capacity would be furnished to provide the service. And FWIW, the LIRR's issues are also caused by an internal management structure resistant to common sense. It's not like switch heaters and wires with insulation are new technologies. With you on loading guidelines though. More generally, NYC commuter rail needs a reinvention. The next generations of New Yorkers will be among the most impatient ever. They aren't gonna wait around for an hourly train to take them to the city; they're gonna Uber. Similarly, they won't be bothered to understand the complexities and irregularities of scheduling and commuter rail transfers (Jamaica). They expect a system as navigable as Amazon's website, with the predictability of a Prime shipment. The current rail system doesn't provide that. It runs infrequently, and without any common interval, trains don't have regularized stopping patterns, and they are wont to end anywhere. Coupling better utilization of heavy rail capacity in the city with a rethink of commuter rail service management could yield a system with the intuitiveness of a subway and the comfort/speed of commuter rail. So yes, there'll be disruption to the status quo. Sadly, that's how progress works.
  6. The pilot is being changed/pushed back for a variety of reasons, none of which are funding. It was originally supposed to start last year, but then the whole Penn Station trackwork thing happened, diverting attention away from it. They now are attempting to start i this year, but without Penn in the plan, so that when the next round of trackwork comes, there won't be an onrush of new commuters trying to use the station. I have been upvoting officiallyliam this entire time because I agree with his general argument. Sure, I may differ with him about funding, but I'm with him about pretty much everything else, and he's a damn good debater to boot. I also think again that we can't speak in absolutes about funding yet. We have no idea what they're going to propose.
  7. Where did I ever suggest these commuter rail reimagining programs would cost nothing? Do not put words into my mouth. They definitely will, and I'd imagine that the study will come up with some way of funding them (TIF, some new tax, repurposing some funds, etc). Maybe I was too delicate about this earlier, but here goes. I work closely with those involved in creating Freedom Ticket. Unless I've really missed something, it is not being delayed due to cost concerns. It is being delayed because bureaucracies are slow, and the LIRR is the slowest of them all.
  8. Wow. Insightful observation, VG8. A perfectly operated system works well. Fields medal for you. FWIW I ride the buses too. In fact, I'm paid by the agency those bloody buses. While I appreciate the image of the entire New York commuter rail system being pulled out of someone's behind, your attitude here is about equivalent to that of an insecure adolescent jock losing an argument. You refuse to do anything but find the most peripheral details and puff them up like MTA construction costs, making minutiae of questionable importance into the centerpiece of rudderless discussions while degrading the level of discussion with almost comical levels of ad hominem. So I ask again. Do you have any cogent, comprehensive counterargument to present?
  9. If there is no strain on the buses, why are you literally always complaining about crowding on them? Please make a cogent, facts based, specific counterargument, or for once in your life, at least consider you may be wrong. Sorry if my post wasn't clear about this. I'm not advocating for the dissolution of commuter rail-style service. I think suburban folks deserve comfortable, expedient means of accessing the region's core. What I'm objecting to is the insistence that the infrastructure that those trains use cannot also be used for a regional rail, RER type service serving inner ring suburbs/city folks. I absolutely agree that we should be making subway capacity investments. But I also think given the existence of this capacity, and the relative cost-effectiveness and expediency of implementing this sort of thing, it should be done too. Money doesn't grown on trees, and regional rail investments are a great way to get good dollar value.
  10. I don't feel like quoting all that has been said, so here we go. Those who are addressed will know who they are. Commuter rail is a construct like any other. It's a delineation borne out of tradition and nineteenth-century corporate boundaries, and one that has persevered to the twenty-first solely because no one has made an effort to change them. Almost exactly when the distinction between city and suburbs was blurring, the companies that ran 'commuter rail' were going bankrupt, and needed to be saved as fast as possible. This meant preserving existing management and operational structures, and instead focusing on the construction of a monetary raft to support threatened services. Since that era, we have been treated to just stagnation in roles. 'Commuter rail' still serves the 'suburbs,' while 'rapid transit' serves the city. What I'm getting at is this: these distinctions need not exist. Before I elaborate, let me make this abundantly clear, so a certain member doesn't conveniently miss what I'm saying and paint me as a Poughkeepsie-hater: suburban commuter services with all their trappings and comforts need to exist as they do now. There is simply no good reason for trains from relatively Poughkeepsie, or even Croton Harmon to make every stop within city limits, just as there is no reason for the to make all stops on Fulton Street. The salient point here is that this infrastructure exists, and is well below its design capacity. The study whose announcement this discussion sprang from is meant to address just this question of how to bring latent capacity on heavy rail lines into use in our city's transportational scheme. This isn't just some excuse to pressure the MTA to lower city rail fares to $2.75, and then walk away. This is a full fledged examination of capital, operational, and managerial changes that could be made to the system to make it a viable mode of transport for New Yorkers. Its conclusions may include things like platform lengthening, car redesigns, resignalling, a new fare system, and so on. It may also include suggestions that would paradigmatically change the 'commuter rail experience' for those in NYC. The only reason we don't have a crossover commuter rail/rapid transit type system running in the inner ring suburbs/in the city is because of those silly distinctions. Yes, those further out should keep their experience given their commute lengths, but given that the density and track capacity exists in these inner areas to support such a service, there really is no reason we should not harness these corridors to take some strain off of our subways, buses, and streets. Now, responding to this sort of proposal, there comes the very salient critique of the subway not being able to handle the overflow from these services. This I think is overblown. Let's look at GCT. As I mentioned before, a not-insignificant fraction of New York's jobs market is within walking distance of the terminal, creating a massive O&D market for the station itself. And while increased intra-city service would certainly cause additional people to make the MNR switch at the station, I'd imagine that those who are considering the merits of commuter rail versus their existing, subway-based travel patterns would opt for continuing with the subway if taking the MNR would require them to make that transfer. Escaping the subway for only part of one's route, and then having to reenter it at its most unpleasant of points is not an advertisement for changing one's travel pattern. At other terminals, capacity exists, so this is less of a concern. I think its also worth keeping in mind the changes in travel patterns that have occurred over the past few decades. The commuter's world isn't just 'everywhere to Manhattan.' Given that many of our city's heavy rail routes link these potential outer-borough job hubs, I see a facilitation of their use going hand in hand with economic decentralization and a growth in non-conventional commuters. So hey, maybe I am a young, arrogant, map toting, ignorant little shit trying to change the time honored traditions of our venerated commuter railroads. But I think that someone needs to challenge these idiotic distinctions and categorizations we put on transit. In the end, our job is to bring the greatest good to the greatest number. Doing so sometimes requires us to get creative.
  11. RR503

    additional rails for what?

    Those are guard rails. The idea is that if a train derails on an elevated portion of a line, the guard rails will keep the wheels relatively near their normal path, preventing them from falling off the structure.
  12. Just a layup yard. Corona doesn't have space for all the cars that'll be needed to run full service with CBTC, so they decided to make up for that fact by building tail tracks down to 25th st. All of that said, those tracks are usable depthwise for an NJ connection (not that we should build one).
  13. To add on to what @officiallyliam said, if you're really worried about people from Croton having to make more than a few stops, there is a massive and very abandoned yard at Tarrytown that could be used for staging short turns, along with place at Greystone and Yonkers for creating pocket tracks to turn trains. The entire Hudson line is a capacity playground. Why not have fun with it?
  14. Oh sure, but if the tradeoff is between some elevator work and infrequent service, I think the latter would be regarded as the lesser of two evils. Remember platform crowding is a function of frequency. Again, this isn't an actual proposal, merely a hypothetical.
  15. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    I'm honestly surprised that you aren't foaming over the chance to use Nassau. What I'd do is just extend the weekend to Chambers or Broad. Chambers preserves the shortness of the weekend route,and adds zero merges to the already unreliable weekend and . Going all the way to Broad brings you xfers to the on top of those available at Canal/Chambers. IMHO either of those are simpler than playing relay/reroute games on the frequently-being-worked-on 6th ave express tracks. As for 96th st, that's just too mergy and too far. The last thing we need is for all to be reduced to 5tph whenever there's a 6th ave GO. To be fair, that's because it was terribly advertised. "Take the instead" just confuses people. If they had the Vignelli style maps with the additional service highlighted, I'd imagine it'd have done better.

×

Important Information

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