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

    1,941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Everything posted by RR503

  1. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Yes, though the timeline is...unclear.
  2. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    New countdown indication for GT signals is under test right now — idea is that by telling ops when signals will clear, they’ll approach GTs (esp 1 shots) less cautiously. First install is on the n/b express at Barclays. Video: https://imgur.com/a/W4uKhfX
  3. RR503

    R32 Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

    This is what I've heard...
  4. Those of you who have not yet read @Stephen Bauman's report on single track operations through the Canarsie tube should do so. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1500391 Damning of the plan; even more damning of our ops.
  5. Make no mistake: this increase in wrench time has pretty much zero to do with actual work efficiency, and has pretty much everything to do with the fact that they start work earlier and give work trains very high priority (see recent 4th Ave changes). I would hate for them to imitate this on the , which sees good ridership into the night, and has a signal system that is just barely capable of dealing w/ non-CBTC (so all) work trains.
  6. RR503

    R262 Discussion Thread

    A real win-win would be isolating the Lex in Brooklyn -- to BG, Utica and New Lots, to New Lots, more to Flatbush. Gets your fleets in order, fixes Rogers w/o having to install new switches and lets everyone keep yard access...but I digress.
  7. RR503

    Full Shutdown of L Train to Be Halted by Cuomo

    FMTAC for the win! Literally no one was complaining about the shutdown as if it were something that shouldn't happen before this debacle -- it was an accepted inconvenience. Cuomo probably did this because he wants to look irreverent of bureaucracy, and because he thinks running roughshod over procedure makes him look like a red tape-cutter. Remember, his governorship lives in the shadow of his father's; to make himself his own entity, he has to differentiate himself from Mario's more intellectual style -- hence all the 'git it done fast' stuff. He wants to be the 'doer' to his father's 'thinker.' It also can't hurt that he can paint himself as an 'innovator' now.
  8. This is what you get when you let maintenance crews run your railroad. Equal amounts of give (track access) and take (efficiency and creative service mitigation) are imperative, and so far nonexistent.
  9. RR503

    Full Shutdown of L Train to Be Halted by Cuomo

    I don't know what to think about the silica dust. It is indeed quite the carcinogen, but every time you run a train over skeletonized track, you are by necessity running over an area that has been recently polluted with silica. There's a degree thing here, of course (and I think this is the question that the MTA has to answer), but I think we need to be clear on terms. Setting aside the disgusting circumvention of process that has been this change in plans and the engineering stuff that's been discussed to death, I worry about service impact. What happens when the caravan of work trains necessary for this work hit's Canarsie's virtually nonextant AWS system without CBTC capability? This is every weekend for 20 months, and early in the night too. What happens when contractors find *something* that doesn't fit plan, and the tunnel can't 'wake up' on Monday morning? What happens if something isn't set right in the tunnel, and weekday service is interrupted? My point here is that I like predictability. It is without question that a full shutdown is, in isolation, more disruptive, but the inherent risk of doing massive work like this in a piecemeal fashion is large. Every time you restart service, you're introducing a point of failure. I'd rather be predictably inconvenienced than unpredictably saved.
  10. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    This is the sort of investment I think we should actually be pursuing in this city. If you can fix Marcy and Essex, there's really no reason you can't do 30tph over the WillyB. And Essex is basically already done...
  11. Median traffic speed on all those roads is well below 30 regardless of the light optimization; there's simply too much traffic through most of the day for things to move fast. That's what I meant when I wrote that quote. I see you're trying to straw man me here! Nice try. What I'm saying that if you want to make changes that'll really have a bang for their buck (and will do so w/o negatively affecting street safety) reducing the number of cars on the road should be top of the list. Better enforcement of parking regs, bus lane regs, etc are also important, yes, but I'd argue less so than actual honest-to-goodness congestion reduction programs -- especially given that their negative effects cascade as they do because there are so many other road users. The average car carries, what, 1.2 people? Don't let the mass of steel fool you -- a good sized queue of cars is easily less than midday pedestrian traffic on Ocean Parkway. Regardless, the argument here has a lot less to do with some McNamaran calculation of time lost vs time gained. It has to do with safety. Say what you like about Vision Zero; the fact of the matter is that its provisions have made a measurable impact on street safety -- see the above charts posted by Union Tpk, and traffic death stats. I'd argue they don't go far enough, but, well, that's me. When did I ever claim that lower speed limits are good because they reduce car use? Unless I'm having a bit of a block here, my argument is that higher speed limits aren't all that useful given real world cruising speeds/congestion problems, and that raising them creates a real safety risk. Sure I can. Make the subway functional again. Make an honest-to-goodness effort with the bus network (structure, enforcement, bus lanes, etc). Increase general system coverage. Run more off-peak service on NYCT and the railroads. Reduce fares on certain services. Once you have those 'outs' from driving, then I'd be delighted to go and smear sidewalk extensions and protected bike lanes all over the road network. Road space for all > road space for those who can afford to buy/rent/hail a car. I again hate to be *that* guy, but let's forget convenience for a second here. Ocean Parkway may just become, well, ocean if we don't seriously start cutting down on vehicle use.
  12. In almost all of those cases, stochastic congestion inherent in NYC reduces speed on those to around 25 regardless of what the limit is. Making the limit 25 really then just makes the lights work better. Regardless, seeing transit speeds and road priority from a solely road speed perspective is reductive as hell. The issue with slow buses (and, if I dare say so, with traffic safety) has far more to do with there being too many cars around; fix that, and then your speeds will be improved by a much larger factor than raising limits to 30-35 -- a measure which increases the risk of pedestrian fatality, much more than any shift of traffic to a lower-cap road ever could. I also hate to be *that* guy, but I'm unsure as to whether we should be prioritizing road cap without question here. Yes, we need a functional road network, but the fact of the matter is that there will almost always be more pedestrians using a given intersection than drivers...which again brings us back to the 'reducing # of cars is most important' side of things -- if you have less stress on your road network, you can afford to reduce capacity.
  13. RR503

    Rockaway Beach Branch

    The issue with that being....? I don’t love this. QB Bypass cap is better spent on a Manhattan-centric demographic, rather than one which already has under-capacity Manhattan options/a purported need to get to job centers along QB. You’re also leaving some capacity unused (8th) and are adding merges to , but that’s secondary...
  14. Well I think the full story is essential here. You don't remember there being tons of signal issues before, say, 2012, right? Neither do I. There's a connection here, and it's that maintenance forces were slashed during the recession -- which of course translates into longer cycles and less care. See: https://www.pcac.org/blog/right-sizing-the-mta-cuts-too-far-and-the-mtas-budget-efficiencies/ I think this narrative becomes more expletive when one considers the answer to your second question: the most common 'signal problem' is a track circuit failure, or an event where conductive detritus bridges the insulated joint that separates blocks. That isn't some technological cataclysm we're facing. It's negligence towards basic maintenance. Now VG8 is absolutely right that there's a f**kton of inefficiency in these processes, and that going forwards, those should get equal play with restoring previous staffing levels, but that doesn't, in my opinion, detract from the main point here, which is that we started the fire. (It also should be noted that many of those inefficiencies surround track safety practices, not so much the actual maintenance task) All of this said, the long term outlook for maintaining a system of mechanical relays is (even just on an economical level) not great. Investments in new tech (*especially* at interlockings, and in areas designed around pre-R10 braking systems) should absolutely be made. But I think there's a difference between saying "we need to hasten target equipment upgrades" and saying "ahmygad signals are killing us so let's kill all of them willy nilly..." ...which brings me to my main point. Signal delays aren't just driven by signal problems. The operating environment contributes to their impactfulness just as much as the incident. Poor junction operations, arcane flagging rules, timers, poor service change decisions, the lack of gap trains, etc etc etc all contribute to the mayhem that follows delays because they simply make the system less resilient. And I don't think I have to remind you, either, that it's not even the supposedly-signal delays but instead simple operating delays that are the overt driver of a super majority of late trains. It just so happens that fixing those issues requires more work (and less money) than going for the signal splurge.
  15. Disagree. The old signals are perfectly maintainable — and are actually in many ways easier to deal with than their newer counterparts (cough cough Bergen St Interlocking cough cough). The issue is much more poor maintenance practices and understaffing. Long term, replacement is of course key, but prioritizing replacement over actually remediating the basic issue here (maintenance) is a complex way of saying the words “let’s obfuscate.”
  16. Signal delays will be an issue until we restore past staffing levels in signal maintenance (we're down maintainers over the long term) or we make it easier to actually affect repairs -- ie reform work rules and track access protocols so that fixes (whether they be preventative or reactive) can be done quickly/efficiently. SAP generally, though, did two things: it obfuscated the operational rot that creates its own delays/significantly worsens failure incidents, and it greatly worsened the budgetary crisis we see today. Save for some its provisions in the realms of EMS response and overall staffing levels, it was otherwise a poor investment.
  17. RR503

    Rockaway Beach Branch

    NYMTC uses survey data and (I’m assuming) some complex analytic algorithms to create O/D estimations for relatively granular road segments. https://www.nymtc.org/Data-and-Modeling/New-York-Best-Practice-Model-NYBPM This was the model used in the BQE replacement analysis, for example.
  18. RR503

    Rockaway Beach Branch

    I think for this reason precisely (along w/ the fact that if this weren't true, we'd have to make it true so as to not overload QB) the RBB has to live or die on crosstown traffic. If someone can show me there's good O/D demand on the corridor for intra-boro travel and that the long transfer penalties would be acceptable to riders, then I'm sold.
  19. Lol elderly home =/= homeless shelter; one serves a disadvantaged, outcast population, while the other serves well, elderly people. Sorry, VG8. If you truly want to spread the burden, Riverdale will have to have one too.
  20. Oh, totally. Every neighborhood should have a shelter. As B35 says, part of living in a city is being an active participant in solving said city's problems.
  21. RR503

    Rockaway Beach Branch

    This reminds me: I'd love to see a cost/benefit comparison between building a Whitehall-Hoyt tunnel and the RBB. I'd imagine the tunnel would be more expensive, but it'd also be a lot more impactful -- it'd double capacity on Fulton.
  22. I'm sorry, I don't follow. We shouldn't put shelters in neighborhoods near schools...but it's okay to put them in Park Slope? I smell "anywhere but my neighborhood"-ism here... Look, I (sort of) get concerns about having homeless folks around. But you end up at an impasse. The only way to get rid of homeless people is to raise their standards of living, and the only way to do that is through shelters/housing/other social reintegration programs. So at some point, some neighborhood is going to have to take them in. And yes, the mayor sucks. The reason that there are so many luxury apartments is precisely because development is so constricted. The few units that are built are arriving in such a hot/undersupplied market that they *can* be all condos for Wall St. bros. If the rate of construction was increased, developers wouldn't be able to cherry pick market segments so well, meaning you'd actually see expansive market-rate construction. I also think these arguments about neighborhood character are fundamentally flawed. Unless you're living in an area already populated by the rich, your community's survival is contingent on rich(er) people not wanting to live there -- ie there being enough housing to absorb demand elsewhere. The second they become interested, you're sunk -- unless you can increase the supply of housing in a given area enough to keep prices down. Simple supply/demand. You speak for a very small minority of the homeless. Most avoid shelters because they're packed and poorly funded. Given the chance to, you know, have a house and a life, most will take it -- especially given that such an outsized percentage of kids in this city (1/10 of public school pop.) are homeless.
  23. Unless you straight up arrest all of them, punting them from the subway won't make them go away. We'll just have more homeless on the streets -- which means more exposure deaths. Blaming just DeBlasio is quite reductive. Much of the reason we are having such an issue with the homeless is because people don't want to see them, but also don't want to deal with solutions for the issue -- ie shelters/housing. Bob Holden in Queens got elected basically on the promise that he'd stop the construction of a homeless shelter and would generally oppose development. The same sentiments holds true across the city; people want cheap houses and fewer homeless folks, but are as of yet unwilling to see more development and more shelters. Until that disconnect is fixed, the problem only will get worse.
  24. Not at all contesting that. I'm just saying the way to solve the homeless issue is not barring homeless from the system. It's fixing the homeless problem -- more housing, more shelters, more outreach.

×

Important Information

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