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

    2,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

Everything posted by RR503

  1. Neither passengers nor operators are at fault in crowding-driven skips. It's the managerial ranks, who've fostered such a culture of fear in RTO that everything is done glacially. Pair that with insufficient service on most lines, and you have a situation that creates delay. The is skipworld in Brooklyn; most rushes see 6 s express Jay-Church. They really need to learn how to short turn again, or at least how to select the best places for skips (one interesting idea that a friend of mine suggested is doing skips in the reverse-peak direction to reduce rider impact).
  2. NYCT does additional train time, additional platform time, and customer journey time now too (which are, to be fair, calculated with a lot less rigor than at TfL) but those metrics are still dependent on the schedules themselves — they’re all relative to some expected value. What I’m looking for is a layer below that, some reporting of the real operations metrics as they exist. So dwell time, network velocity, achievement of infrastructure speeds, median headway, 25th percentile headway/75th percentile headway both in the schedule and in delivery, number of rerouted train miles etc etc etc. None of these ideas are all that original (and a lot of these data points are already tracked internally), it’s just a matter of releasing them.
  3. and run the same frequencies. The way to fix the is to...fix the .
  4. The only useful segment I can see is Red Hook-Atlantic Ave -- would be great for BRT.
  5. They really need to concoct a metric that can speak to service performance in absolute terms, not relative to a (changeable) schedule. Something like network velocity, or percent adherence to the comfort speed curve, or just runtimes for each stopping pattern. Because right now, I fear all the metrics are being somewhat muddled by changing schedules.
  6. I’m sure you can rearrange some things at Coney Island to get another track or two in. 207 would require some real expansion, but if I’ve ever seen a justifiable case for eminent domain, this’d be it.
  7. Agree on Pitkin. It’s further from Manhattan, but the relative ease of getting from there to, say, 8th outweighs that disadvantage — and we need to reduce congestion on 4th anyway. This is definitely something that should be explored for 8th/Fulton CBTC. With Linden, you’re gonna want some better way to head up the L than reverse running through Atlantic — this may be the time to bite the bullet on an Atlantic rebuild. A Culver-West End bypass would certainly be useful, but I’m not so sure that it’s immediately necessary. Just leveraging Linden, Jamaica, Pitkin, Coney Island and maybe expanding 207 would get you most of the way there on the B division.
  8. It's great to see that they're aware of the issue, but they're nowhere near solving it. We still have a bunch of Canarsie and QB-bound work trains out of 38, and we still don't have good ways of accessing Midtown/CPW lines. I remember a bunch of mornings during the recent Concourse FasTrack where service got really messed up because work trains were clearing late and were in the line of fire all the way down to Brooklyn. I'd be interested to see what other cities do here; this level of pandemonium is surely not normal in most cities. This all, of course, comes back to the basic issue here, which is work efficiency. To be sure, allocation and operation of work trains is part of the issue, but until more structural issues in MOW are addressed, I fear that we're going to suffer this to no end.
  9. I mean yes, but if you’re not going to fix relay terminal ops, you may as well throw up your hands and move to Seattle — getting that right is essential to function. With you on the rest of your post, though — off peak is the basket case here. That battle (maintenance reform and associated frequency adjustments) is much, much tougher than any service change though.
  10. Yeah, there'll be some pax for who the marginal gain in time will swing the ball between express and staying on the local, but that impact would be easily ameliorated by the more even dwell times that this'd provide. Really what needs to be done is deinterlining -- that'd separate the locals from expresses on a destinational level, which means more even crowding.
  11. To be fair, Lance, Whitehall isn't the only available terminal for s/b Broadway -- you have City Hall lower too. That said, running just to Whitehall basically means you're not gonna get more than 8tph on Lower Broadway, which in turn means that all the ridership gains that that segment has made against the will come to naught. I think that the juxtaposition of this proposal with the PCAC's fantastic report on Broadway service couldn't be better -- on one side, we have a well meaning but misinformed proposal, and on the other, a detailed report with really solid recommendations on how to improve service.
  12. All of this is true; was in today's L project newsletter.
  13. They should have made the s/b switch 20mph when they rebuilt it for the FH interlocking upgrade. So, so many opportunities have been missed with those projects. Even still, it’s possible to operate good service across that switch. You just need to make sure trains leave their terminals on time, and don’t lose something crazy between then and the merge. Both levels do, and both levels were meant to be expanded down/under LIRR ROWs.
  14. Yes, 179 gets a faster ride at the expense of all the local stops. Dunno if that’s worth it, to say nothing of the fact that you’d probably see some dwell increases as people dump for the express at Parsons and Kew Gardens. I can basically guarantee you that merge performance would change little.
  15. Can't give you an exact figure, but I wouldn't imagine that it'd be more than a few thousand per signal. Speaking of countdowns, the indications on the n/b express track between Franklin and Atlantic are live, as well as the one on the one shot on the s/b local entering IRT Times Square
  16. It really just comes down to priorities. There are a lot of ways to reconfigure service in the system that get you more capacity in the system but don't end up maxing out all Manhattan trunks. Given ridership needs, I'd argue it's high time we did use all our capacity, and there's really only one way to do that, which is the oft-proposed to 96, to Astoria, via 63, via 53 pattern. You'd replace part of ConEd with it, not build over ConEd... The number of people who think fumigation somehow will work better at 179 is scary. The limit on capacity at Forest Hills has nothing to do with that terminal's physical infrastructure, and has everything to do with the way that terminal is operated. 179 would be no different -- assuming you bump to 30tph, you'd be turning 45tph at 179, which, at 22.5 tph/track, would mean that 179 would need operations reform just as much as Forest Hills, at which point you're really just better off keeping at Forest Hills.
  17. It's the same game as other timers, really -- restoring operator confidence in their proper function -- though STs have the added dimension of necessitating the encouragement of ops to enter stations on ST, which is rarely done today. A pet idea of mine is to attach countdown indications to STs also, but that's unlikely to happen...
  18. It’s again really heartening to see advocacy orgs getting into the nitty gritty here. I’d love to see PCAC follow up on this report with more data/recs on other parts of the system — imagine what this attention given to some of the other choke points could do...
  19. The timers entering Roosevelt aren’t actually GTs, they’re STs, and across the board really T/Os are afraid of using STs. Your point about operator variability still stands, though. I’ve been going up CPW a lot lately, and the n/b express stretch is really *the* perfect place to illustrate the importance of good ops. Usually it takes 7-8 mins; yesterday it took 6 flat, as the TO wrapped it up out of 59, and then north of 86 kept the timers clearing right in front of him all the way up. Multiply these variances across a long line, and you have the difference between a functional trip and one that’s hitting its merges late and then arriving at the terminal with zero time before making its next trip.
  20. Yes, but you've just cut a bunch of mitigation costs and the cost of redoing the other half of the viaduct.
  21. You missed the key point in the Seattle example lol — despite it having redundant alts, total traffic decreased significantly. The same is true for the other examples. The development patterns that highway dependence encourage cost the US economy on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, to say nothing of the fact that they reinforce inequalities and seriously damage our environment — the latter being something to consider with special regard given that we’re a coastal city. I equally take issue with your city/highway MPG comparisons not just because I’ve yet to experience a free flowing BQE, but also because you continue to resist the notion that the displaced cars will simply disappear... That money comes from the DOT; it can be repurposed so long as our legislators remember how to write legislation. The “preserving everything” argument is nice and all, but it is fundamentally disconnected from reality insofar as money isn’t unlimited and that one mode is objectively inferior to the other. Sure, to isn’t a great alt...but that’s my point here, no? Imagine what those 4 billion could do to that trip. And FWIW, while certainly not efficient, there is already enough capacity on Brooklyn’s subways/buses to absorb the BQE traffic...so there’s that, too.
  22. ...And yet the removal of a shorter segment of road in Seattle (one with redundant alternatives) led to the loss of nearly all that traffic. Please provide evidence if you want us to believe otherwise. Cool. Unlike with subways, I don't believe preserving road capacity is some be all end all need. Free-flowing traffic isn't some god given right, despite what everyone may think. It's a privilege, and it's one that, for the safety and productivity of the city and the good of the planet, needs to be reevaluated. This isn't to say we should Delete All Freeways, but when given the option of spending 4B on a low-capacity transportation facility or doing some good with that cash, I'll take the latter. I also feel like your argument here is circumnavigating the evidence about induced demand...but hey that's me, right? Paris, Seoul and Madrid have bad public transit? Good to know. Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that there are a LOT of people going from, say, Sheepshead Bay to W'burg on public transit right now. Instead of spending this money on a facility only a relatively privileged few can use, why don't we spend that same amount on making intra-borough transit options functional (in this case, FAS- comes to mind)? I'd bet all the money in my wallet right now that that this same 4 billion spent on transit would yield significantly more saved rider-minutes than a BQE rebuild. Yes, the City under DeBlasio is not willing to fund transit. Unless Scott Stringer is not Scott Stringer, and the language in his proposal about increasing frequencies is fake, I don't see why a transfer of funds using an extant mechanism is at all unprecedented. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to hold politicians accountable to transit improvements if this is done, but conveniently choosing this moment for fatalism is disingenuous. For 4 billion dollars, we are preserving an inefficient piece of infrastructure while its effective counterpart lies underfunded. A wider Promenade is nice and all, but real intraboro transit sounds...better. Think about this this way: would you, in 30 years, advocate for keeping NYC Ferry if it needs some massive investment? It's faster than other modes for waterfront trips, and hey, it's an option, but does that justify spending untold billions on it when ridership is low, inefficiency is high, and the need on the majority mode is great?
  23. There is global precedent for highway eliminations reducing car trips; that alone is a massive positive in and of itself. This principle does not of course apply to truck trips; it’s great they were cognizant of that. 4 billion dollars isn’t an insignificant sum of money, and it isn’t a sum of money that we can duplicate easily to achieve some middling “everyone’s happy” solution. If not spent on non-essential, inefficient, high cost infrastructure, it could be spent on real, beneficial improvements — like high frequency off peak bus service, or better subway service, or new routes, or accessibility treatments. or transit improvements for (gasp) Red Hook and Cobble Hill (BRT to Red Hook, anyone?). The fact of the matter is that the areas most dependent on the BQE all have majority transit modal mixes; to spend such an outrageous sum of money on a minority while the majority’s mode is less than perfect (and, I hate to say it, when everyone is being placed in danger by the pollution of said minority) is bad planning.
  24. Yes. It’s always in the twenty year needs, was in SAS EIS, and sometimes even makes the capital program...but alas, no progress. That’s a simple improvement that really, really should be done.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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