Via Garibaldi 8

They are if the conductors can't collect tickets regularly due to overcrowding, which is happening currently on the trains going to Penn.

And? That still doesn't mean that you have the terminal over served while the majority of the ridership is at Penn Station. Makes no sense. I would certainly hope that it does, that is that GCM sees increasing patronage from LIRR riders, but unless there is some wild dash of new LIRR commuters flooding the station (unlikely given the fact that riders were clear in stating that the majority would still need Penn Station), you have to balance the service so that you mitigate the dangerous overcrowding at Penn and still have service that is attractive enough to use at GCM. From a cost standpoint, they are not only losing money on the amount of empty trains serving GCM (railroad service is actually pretty costly to subsidize even though no one mentions this fact, as it is a commuter service that by nature sees lower turnover compared to the subway), but the conductors have been unable to collect tickets from the trains leaving Penn Station, so this must be addressed ASAP. Atlantic Terminal has to be fixed, as it too is seeing overcrowding, either to or from.

These are the small things that make a big difference. They've actually been doing the same thing with the bus redesigns where they give the drivers less time to deadhead to start their trip. That was another reason why with the Staten Island Redesign, buses were starting late, and from what I have heard, this continues to be an issue at times, though not as bad as before. It's a really dumb move that likely doesn't save that much in the overall scheme of things, and as you said, leads to angry riders, some of whom they have lost permanently, as they turn to driving. When you make public transportation inconvenient, you lose even more in the long run. Now more than ever as riders have more flexibility in terms of when they start work and what days they work, this is not the time for the to screw over commuters, and yet somehow, they managed to turn a good thing into a mess.

Of course you would paint it that way. There will always be entitled riders that only think of themselves, but let's not make it sound like the did a good job here and a few people are just complaining just because, which is your usual narrative. When you have cars leaving Grand Central with ONE person in them, and cars that are overcapacity leaving Penn Station, it is clear that changes are needed to balance things out. They also royally screwed over Atlantic Terminal riders. The transfers in general are poorly timed (this is the case at several stations) and force people to run around the terminal (specifically the Jamaica station) or face a longer commute that may make them late to work through no fault of their own. What it comes down to is they spent a lot of money on GCM and they want to make it appear that it is a success. No one wants to spent billions of dollars on a shiny new terminal that is barely used. It could be that demand was much higher for Grand Central pre-COVID, but the problem is ridership patterns have changed substantially in some cases as we move to a post-COVID environment and the was given plenty of feedback before releasing these schedules, so it's not like they didn't know as they are trying to claim.

That was precisely my point. Your argument was about development and where people hang out at. lol Both irrelevant... The majority of the ridership wants/needs Penn Station. They did a survey months ago to see which terminals riders needed but didn't adjust the schedules accordingly, so this is not about ridership not catching on or people being WFH. The riders were very clear. Most need Penn Station.

Yeah, but the complaints are coming from weekday commuters. Those are the primary riders. What they're building isn't relevant. What's relevant is where most LIRR riders work and what their destinations are. There is development on the East Side too. Doesn't automatically mean that service is dictated by development.

I'm not sure what in the world you are talking about. As someone who has worked near GCT for many years, there is plenty on the East Side, both off-peak and weekends, but that's neither here nor there. This is about commuters and where they work, not where they hang out at. Most clearly work on the West Side or near it and service should be adjusted to accommodate those riders, as they have become accustomed to getting trains from Penn Station.

Some people have still been working from home and are just returning to commuting. Then you have people that have been following the schedules and didn't like them and you have the which has planned this poorly to say the least.

Their attitude is that trains are too frequent now to hold them and so basically they expect people to not only transfer but to also wait longer to do so when they've already elongated the commutes of many people with these asinine schedules. Most of the media and people from the outside are only focusing on the new train station, which already had leaks on day two, but not on how abysmal the service situation is. When you consider that they put out schedules in advance to get feedback from riders, this is even more of a **** up to put it bluntly. If you're able bodied, you can perhaps run around like this, but for anyone with mobility issues or that is elderly, forget it.

Correct.

They're only doing that because there has been a huge uproar from MANY LIRR riders and there has been media coverage on this mess. I've been tagging a few reporters myself that cover the LIRR. It's a disgrace. They had months to prepare for this and come out with shortened trains among other nonsense leading to dangerous overcrowding levels.

The schedules are ridiculous. I've seen countless posts from LIRR commuters livid about overcrowded trains from Penn while they run empty trains from GCM along with the insane transfer conditions where people have to transfer at Jamaica with minutes to spare and then RUN up escalators or stairs to get to the other platform to avoid missing their transfer, when before they had direct service or had a train right across the platform. Another example of the not giving a damn about their customers. The interim LIRR President had the nerve to say that "customers will adjust" to the new schedules. What's going to happen is someone is going to be injured during the mad dash and sue the LIRR, as they should. There are videos out showing this insanity on Twitter. They had an opportunity to fix them when they surveyed riders and opted to keep this mess that they have now. If people need GCM, great (provide the service that is needed), but they've changed the schedules in a way that forces some people into longer trips or they are forced to go out of the way to GCM to have a reasonable commute. Just stupid all around.

Metro-North and LIRR both use the same trains (at least the newer ones anyway in terms of the seat configuration). CityTicket applies to the LIRR & MNRR stations within City limits off-peak. The LIRR already has weekly and monthly tickets, so in essence the more you ride, the more you save. The fares shouldn't be lowered too much because of heavily subsidized they already are. One of the main reasons they were lowered was because there were plenty of seats available along commuter rail lines that served stations in NYC that were in subway deserts, so they've done plenty to attract ridership.

Yeah, but I don't hear anything about the key word... Riders... You are just proposing a bunch of proposals with no data to support it.

Every 15 minutes based on what though? I'm all for increased service if there is demand, but to run a train every 15 minutes just because makes no sense. I believe fare integration is something that will happen once OMNY is fully rolled out, but something else you aren't aware of... People don't like having to make tons of transfers. If you ask the average commuter if they prefer a direct trip or one with transfers, they will almost always say a direct trip. Personally, fare integration has nothing to do with why I don't use Metro-North more. Pre-COVID, I had monthly MNRR pass and an express bus pass, but I still opted for the express bus more. Why? Because I hate transferring. Now I am in walking distance to two MNRR stations, but I still only use the service sparingly because a huge chunk of my trips would require a transfer after getting off of Metro-North, so yes, high fares can be a deterrent, as can a lack of fare integration, but those aren't the only two reasons. As much as you may want a train every 15 minutes, that's just not the way things work. As it is right now, some of the reverse-peak trips aren't carrying that many passengers as it is, so running more frequent service isn't going to change that. I've taken some reverse-peak trips on the Hudson Line to go from Manhattan back home. I was often times the only passenger in my car and maybe we'd get a few others. Now I'm also aware of how busy New Haven and the Harlem lines are reverse-peak, but again, I'm not sure that adding more service just because is the answer.

Well the fares have already been lowered to $5.00 within City limits during all off-peak periods. To lower them any more would be absurd given the high cost already paid out to subsidize Metro-North & LIRR fares and I'm of the opinion that if people want faster rides, they should pay for them, and I say this as a Metro-North commuter of over ten years. The subway is $2.75 and gives people access to the entire City for a pretty reasonable price. I also don't know how much reverse peak service you think is needed when the Harlem Line is one of the busiest railroads in the country and already has pretty frequent service. Again speaking as someone who has taken the line over the years. I live along the Hudson Line and we have great service. A train every 30 minutes or less off-peak, with some express trains that may serve all of three stops to and from Riverdale. Those trains see usage, but with work from home, I don't see them being anywhere near as crowded as they were. Just not happening.

Sorry, but that's not correct. personnel came out and changed those physical schedules. I saw that with my own eyes and that is something confirmed by my contacts at 2 Broadway, both the old ones (one retired) and the current ones. The printed the scheduled and changed them out. That is the only thing they had to do with the bus stops. Everything else the DOT handles or oversees, including the bus shelters. You are also correct about who removes, moves or adds bus stops. That is something that was confirmed by both DOT reps I've spoken with and reps.

As far as the removal and moving of bus stops, while the DOT handles it, actually the has the say over moving them or removing them. I've had a stop moved and I had to go through the to have it done and when it comes to moving stops, they generally don't like having it done. Their planners believe they know what's best and so moving a stop is like pulling teeth. The one that I did get moved took a number of months. The puts in the paperwork after surveying the bus stop and giving the OK, and from there, the DOT executes the request. The DOT will not move any stop otherwise. I tried it and my request was kicked back to the . As for the DOT being in favor of cutting costs, I would imagine they wouldn't mind. Speaking of these redesigns, I believe the plan is to remove all of the old school bus stops and replace them with the lollipop style ones as each redesign is done. Brooklyn does not have any and neither does Staten Island to my knowledge, but Queens has a ton left over from the private lines. DOT generally likes to keep those up until they do some sort of makeover or something like they did with Woodhaven Blvd and then they will replace them. In their mind, even though they are old, there is nothing wrong with them.

Just wanted to clarify something about bus stops... The only thing the actually has to maintain at bus stops is those timetables. The poles and signage are all maintained by DOT. Removal of snow from bus stops is also under the purview of the DOT, though done usually by DSNY (either actual employees or people they hire to assist). Point is the doesn't do much when it comes to any upkeep of bus stops, and they made it clear that by eliminating timetables at bus stops, it saves them $550,000/yr. What they really care about is cutting down on mileage, and speeding up service, not so much for the actual riders, but because it allows them to cut costs. Ultimately they need to do this because if they don't, with the way their operational costs continue to increase, it will only be worse later on.

This is the latest... https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-and-mta-announce-second-avenue-subway-phase-2-moves-forward

They've been ambiguous about it on the railroads because they keep pushing back the next phases due to programming issues. I've inquired about it and it's been pushed back yet again. They likely aren't pushing it because people can already buy e-tickets, BUT if the new set up is supposed to include free transfers or anything like that, then that's where riders lose out. Personally it has meant that I don't take the Hudson Raillink shuttle anymore because I don't use a Metrocard anymore and that's the only payment method those buses take, so when I do take Metro-North if the weather is nice I will do the ~15 minute walk or just go by car.

The cost is always going to be a factor. With CityTicket, that cost is $5.00 vs $2.75, but they should never be the same fare. With the railroad you are paying for a commuter service that should be much faster than the subway and therefore that time saved requires a premium. Same thing with other such services. The LIRR will never be a service for the masses because it was not planned as such, not to mention that there is a higher operating cost to run the LIRR & MNRR because you pick up fewer riders. As I said earlier, the subway covers more destinations and thus is more geared to the masses, plus you will have far more turnover than you will on the railroad. Using myself as an example, once I get on MNRR, we usually do not pick up any more riders south of that, or if we do, very few and then everyone gets off at Grand Central. There are a few reasons for that... Accessibility of the stations, the cost, the frequency and the destination. Can't compete with the subway.

The same argument could be made for keeping them though. If they are lightly used stops, then that means that if no one wants them, the bus continues on. What some people don't understand is local buses are not subways where you have a local stop every say six blocks or so. The bus usually makes a stop every two blocks or so and while the spacing may seem short, that is why people take the bus in the first place... Because they either may not be that mobile to walk that much or they simply don't want to do deal with the walking involved with the subway, so Metrocard data is fine and you should have some data to analyze, but bus stop removal should not be based solely on that. The promised that stops that were by hospitals, schools, etc. would be kept. They did not keep their promise and proceeded to propose removing stops that served important hospitals or places of employment or that were very popular. That just doesn't make sense, as the point of these redesigns is to improve the service AND attract new riders, not push away customers by making the service less convenient. Now I'm not anti-stop removal. There are some stops that absolutely should be removed, but it shouldn't be done haphazardly and just by looking at maps or Metrocard data. That is not the way that you analyze which stops should be removed and which ones should be kept. You need to go and RIDE the buses and understand how people use the bus - that is ridership patterns. You also can't determine ridership patterns by looking at a bus passing a stop. That doesn't tell much of anything. What Metrocard data can't tell you is where people get on and off at unless they transfer, but if they don't transfer, you can only figure out which bus they took and what time. Now the newer buses have ridership counts on them that show where people get on and off, but those counters are not always accurate.

But this is what "advocacy groups" like Riders Alliance are pushing for. Most of their members are fairly young and agile, so their attitude is we want the buses faster and screw those who are have mobility challenges or are elderly or disabled, which is insane. A chunk of the ridership on the buses (local and express) consists of such people and their needs should not be ignored. The people that feel this way are young now, but they too will be old some day. Really not a way to run a public service. There needs to be a balance to cover as many people that depend on the service as possible. The point of these redesigns in theory should be to increase ridership, not force more people out of the system, which they can ill afford to lose now. The cares more about their bottom line and less about their customers. This has been clear in my dealings with them on a number of matters. For example, I went to the media about a bus stop that many customers were complaining about because of garbage issues and while they claimed that they were willing to move the stop elsewhere, they really were steadfast about keeping it where it was. They used every excuse in the book, such as noting that it had been there for years, even though customers wanted something done for years. Ultimately we found a resolution to the garbage issue, but they are not customer centric overall.

By the way, in case you need 80th & Madison, the stop is now back to where it normally is... At the corner. Just changed it a few days ago.