Lance

If this is a manufacturing fault, I have to wonder at what point does the MTA just sue Bombardier for a complete breach of contract? How many major incidents must occur before they're held responsible in a fashion more than just giving the MTA a couple more cars? If this decoupling happened in one of the river tunnels or on an incline, this could've been disastrous. Bombardier was paid to produce and deliver a series of train cars that would last several decades and replace the ancient cars that are in service at the time. With the latest major incident, these new cars are once again out of service indefinitely while the situation is investigated. We cannot afford to keep a bunch of 43 ton paper weights lying around unused because they're unsafe to operate.

Well I'm glad the essentials won't have to pay out of pocket for this, but I do wonder how the MTA budget will look after this is over. By agency tallies, even with reduced ridership, there are 10,000 riders during the overnight hours. That won't be small change for an indefinite service suspension, especially if Cuomo continues to expand the PAUSE.

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it. Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

Why would I know? I don't work for the MTA, nor do I have any familiarity in IT. I imagine the answer from @bobtehpanda is likely correct though.

Why would the F return to 53rd Street? The whole point of the current service pattern is to give 53rd Street both local and express service to Queens. Besides, what's gained here anyhow? Those switches will still be in use regardless, just to a different endpoint. Currently, F trains go between 63rd Street <> Queens Blvd express using the switches near 36 Street. If the F and M were to switch, it'd be almost the exact same thing, with the exception of the M going to the local tracks instead of the express ones. Also, what serves 63rd Street on the off-hours when the M doesn't run? Sure, the F can run up there in its place, but then you have that situation where trains are running to via different lines depending on the day of the week, which is something the MTA likes to avoid unless otherwise impossible (see current weekend M service). So, you're calling for another reduction in service on top of an already reduced service plan? Somehow, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'm not surprised. Even after we get past the COVID service reductions, the 32s would only be around as a buffer for another catastrophic failure of the 179s, which is not a good enough reason for retention unfortunately. They should keep a few sets on property just in case, but they cannot keep the entire fleet in revenue inactive simply on the chance that something may happen with the 179s. These new cars need to prove their worth as that was the whole point of buying them.

Exactly. And you know what I haven't heard in this proposal: who's paying to transport these people around. Is the city going to foot the bill for this partnership? The state? Or will the essential workers we've been thanking so much for keeping things running have to pay more just to get to/from work?

The Times Square shuttle will bow out Friday night in an effort to move crews to other lines.

As part of the renovation work being done at the 138 St-Grand Concourse station, the wall tiles and name plates have been recently removed, unveiling the long-obscured original name tiles behind those AG name signs. https://forgotten-ny.com/2019/11/138th-street-station-mott-haven/ I never even thought there would be mosaics with 138th Street written out given the MH ceiling mosaics and the fact it was named for the area and the old NYC railroad station. While the Mott Haven tiling may be too far gone to save/preserve, the longform mosaics are in good enough condition to fix. According to a Redditor, there's a "do not touch" sign next to the 138th Street mosaics, so there may be a chance there.

Because that would actually make sense. Can't have that, can we?

I suppose the better question that needs to be asked is, why can't this be done remotely? It's 2019. One shouldn't need to physically plug into the onboard computers to update the system these days. Naturally, that will be an added expense, but considering the existing hardware likely needs replacement anyhow, perhaps it's a good idea to look into. Side question: how are the digital ads updated on the 142s/160s?

Since the MTA has provided a new list of potential stations to be made accessible in the coming years, here's an update to the Planned Accessibility map I've been working on.

Probably just had to remove preventing the switch from locking in the correct position. Or something similarly minor.

From what I read, it doesn't sound like anything is in danger of collapsing. It's just more and more of the stations becoming ever more decrepit. That's what makes this all the more concerning. For example all of the Pelham elevated stations except Westchester Sq were rehabbed in the last five - ten years. To have all that work rendered useless in such a short span of time is telling. Where is the money for these renovations going because it's obviously not being used for long-lasting materials.

Why bother when they'll be gone in a year or two? The OMNY cards however should be much more durable (and expire less frequently). Hopefully.

It's one of the station announcers you hear for various service changes. They really wanted him to sound like Charlie though.

I forgot about the N running local south of 36 Street.

An in-house transfer between 59 Street and Lexington Av-63 St would require a lot of yo-yo-ing unless the MTA eminent domains the adjacent brownstones along Lexington Ave to facilitate a better transfer. If they don't, the proposed transfer would be forced to utilize the upper level Lexington Ave line platform. It was a relatively cheap way to bring more Queens Blvd local service without having to build an entirely new tunnel, of which had at the time been in the planning stages since the 1930s. The Queens Blvd local tracks were vastly underutilized prior to the 11th Street cut, so anything to mitigate that was seen as a boon. 9 Avenue is a less obstructive terminal than 59 Street is. As you mentioned, terminating at 59 Street would require relaying on the Sea Beach express tracks west of 8 Avenue, whereas 9 Avenue has the center track completely clear, allowing for a much quicker turnaround. Besides, if the terminal was moved, all you'd do is move the merge and change the routes impacted.

Then you're just reducing service on Broadway. Even under the persistent 12-minute service levels, that's 15 trains per hour on Broadway under those conditions, ten on the local tracks and five on the express. Even if we remove the restriction, you'd have to boost N and Q service to meet the currently restricted levels overall. Also, you'd have to run the N via Whitehall, thus giving Sea Beach the extremely slow ride.

They took a chance with Kawasaki back in the '80s after St. Louis Car closed up shop. There's nothing preventing the MTA from expanding beyond the usual candidates if it becomes necessary.

Lack of options at this point. Astoria is out due to the station rehab at Astoria Blvd. 96 Street is also out due to the M extension for the Canarsie work. They probably don't want to introduce a triple merge between the M, Q and R between Lexington Av-63 St and 57 Street.

That may be, but do you realistically see that changing in the immediate future? Transit is extremely hesitant to change their operations and they have leadership quite content with the status quo. If trains have to be fumigated on a through track in order to relay, under present procedures, they will inevitably cause delays upstream. A way of mitigating this for this scenario would be to treat the short-turning trains like standard 6 trains where every train returns back to service, but that would have to be the case for all short-turning Broadway locals as City Hall has no tail tracks for storage. We are of the same mindset here. However, the MTA is not interested in running additional service simply for the sake of it. That is unless our main man Andy C. orders them to, then all bets are off. The weekend M extension is only in place so people don't bum-rush the limited L trains running cross-river during the slowdown. With the L running normally along its full route and intervals this weekend, the justification for expanded M service is removed in the eyes of the MTA.

A lot. The lower level is completely bare-bones with only a minimalistic set of platforms and one access point via the in-service upper level platform. Unlike Bergen St, in which the lower level actually did see active service for some time before being abandoned, City Hall was never actually placed into service as the plans changed during construction. Only the tracks are well maintained to facilitate post-rush hour layups. In order to get the station completely passenger-ready, those platforms would have to be completely rebuilt and new exits would have to be installed for better passenger flow. All of this would have to be ADA-compliant as this would fall under a major renovation. It would be much more likely that the lower level would just be used to relay trains terminating at Canal St, but that would just replicate the problems of Forest Hills, where through-running service gets trapped behind terminating trains, so that's ill-advised in my opinion. That was intentional. The MTA corporate scheme of the late '60s onwards was implemented on the buses and trains to illustrate the unification of the various transit systems under the MTA umbrella. The purpose of the extended M is to provide alternate service during the partial Canarsie closure, not to provide additional 6th Avenue service. If the L is running its normal route, under these circumstances, there's no reason for the M to run to midtown.

One thing I see around a lot of these service ideas is that they fail to take into account people's commutes. And before anyone says well, they can just transfer, introducing a bunch of forced transfers that did not exist previously will just add to the delay problems, not reduce them. Another thing I've noticed is this belief that long-standing routes should be changed or eliminated to allow for different routes to exist, which ignores why the services have existed for as long as currently have. I'll go into the actual proposals in more detail below, but the idea of taking the E route for example, which has existed as the main Jamaica - Manhattan via Queens Blvd express route since 1937 with very little changes to the northern half of its route, and turning it into a local out of Forest Hills is a disservice to the passengers who use the route. Now, to address a few of the oft-proposed ideas that have floated around for a while now: The first idea actually has the better chance of being realized, mostly because it has the least negative impact. The only real negative of sending the N to 96 Street and combining the R and W into one Astoria - Broadway - 4th Avenue is the loss of direct Astoria - Broadway express service that Astoria has enjoyed since 2001. However, as there are so few local stops between 57 Street and Canal St, it's not that bad as long as the service levels are maintained to where they are presently. The real issue would be how to solve the problem related to the loss of half of Queens Blvd local service. The first iteration of the second idea, taking all of the first idea above, but sending the N via 63rd Street to Forest Hills, does very little but make 4th Avenue riders happy at the expense of Sea Beach, Brighton and 6th Avenue. Removing service from the 11th Street connection removes the merge between the 60th Street tunnel and the Queens Blvd local tracks, but introduces a new one near 36 Street between the Queens Blvd line and 63rd Street. Even the much-maligned 34th Street switch issue is replicated at Lexington Av-63 St where trains would have to cross in front of each other to get to 2nd Avenue / Queens Blvd or 6th Avenue / Broadway. Since everyone here hates the two current merges the R makes, I'm a little curious why shuffling the deck and moving them around is a better solution. Regarding the second part of the second idea, which also flips the roles of the E and N, the N would have to run more service to match current output made by the E. Current output by the N clocks at around 8 trains per hour during the height of the rush hour, so the question is whether the N needs 15 TPH to meet demand at Jamaica Center and Sutphin-Archer. Then there's the issue of cutting service on the flipped E to compensate, which is another non-starter. As we all know around here, the MTA is extremely hesitant to actually add significant amounts of service to any line. Little piecemeal boosts during off-peak periods, sure, but a major boost to Sea Beach service on top of maintaining current output on the E to meet demand on 53rd Street and 8th Avenue; I'm skeptical. Lastly, for the proposal that sends all 6th Avenue service to Jamaica while all 8th Avenue service is truncated to Forest Hills as locals, that plan is once again, dead on arrival. Ignoring the fact that under such a proposal, one of the Jamaica services gets shafted with short trains under the guise of improving service, and as I mentioned in the opening, it introduces a bunch of forced transfers that did not exist before. Under this plan, anyone seeking Queens Blvd from 8th Avenue is subjected to Queens Blvd local-only service unless they transfer to other lines for 6th Avenue - Queens Blvd express service. The problem is that the stations east of Roosevelt Av are more heavily used than the ones west of it, adding more time to riders' commutes should they choose to stick with the service rather than transfer. Then there's the issue of service imbalances as it pertains to demand. I alluded to it in the 2B proposal, but it should be noted that 53rd Street is much more utilized than 63rd Street (Lexington Av-63 St gets its boost in usage from 2nd Avenue), so it begs the question of why it's suggested the lower-used line somehow needs 30 trains per hour while 53rd Street is subjected to the output cap enforced by Forest Hills. Finally, as with the N to Jamaica Center idea in 2B, an extension of the M to Jamaica requires a boost in service levels to meet current demand. The lower floor of service that's required in this plan is 12 trains per hour, the current max output of Jamaica Center, while the F would see 18 TPH out of 179 Street to maintain the combined 30 for the express tracks. Again, that's on top of maintaining the current service levels on 53rd Street and 8th Avenue. All in all, the above ideas mostly either offer very little net gains, negatively impact a larger group of riders than it helps or will cost too much to implement in this current service cut-happy MTA. This is actually a better version of plan 3 above, seeing as it maintains the availability of 6th and 8th Avenue options for Queens Blvd express service (and doesn't one of the Jamaica terminals short trains for no reason). It also reduces the strain on Forest Hills operations by moving one of the terminating locals away from there. Of course, the issue is whether that would be enough justification for sending a local to 179 Street when history and ridership patterns suggest such a route will not gather nearly as many passengers than its express equivalent.

Everything that uses the present MetroCard is slated to switch over at some point. It's too cost-prohibitive to do otherwise for the non-MTA operators.