SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[RR503]

Before I respond in more detail to your post, I'd ask that you reread my post. I'm not saying we can go increase service tomorrow, or that these tradeoffs do not exist. I'm merely expressing a vision for an ideal. 

On 9/26/2019 at 4:36 PM, RR503 said:

1) One of the things I've repeatedly objected to through the course of this conversation is NYCT's loading guidelines. They are quite literally myopic. I'd like them to increase service on some lines 'just because' because service increases happens to be one of the best ways of attracting new ridership (though this is contingent on there being ops funding avail for such moves [emphasis added]). So the guideline point is absolutely correct relative to current conditions, but, much like adjacent track flagging, should not be seen as an immutable reality.

But as it so happens, much of what you say in your post is, euh, lacking in nuance. So let's dig in. 

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Loading guidelines (often called loading standards) are actually used by most major transit agencies. It's really the only way to ensure that operating funds are used equitably - without them, a very crowded line could easily end up with less service than a less crowded line, if the riders on the second line complain louder. Every line in the system currently gets as much service because of loads, plain and simple. Even if they are black and white, frequencies are determined by the most crowded points of any line.

First off, not all transit agencies use loading guidelines. The Seattle local bus system, for example, evaluates demographic inputs to ridership (# of residents, jobs, etc), inputs scale factors to reflect equity policies, and then adjusts frequencies upwards if need be to account for existing ridership. This, to me, seems like an eminently wise way of undertaking service planning -- let the conditions dictate your basic service levels, and then adjust per results. 

Your second point about loading guidelines somehow serving as a bulwark against inequality is quite lolzy. The discriminatory impacts of transit are largely felt through GOs (compare, for example, the agency response to the  slowdown in Williamsburg and the response to the frequent -on-a-24-minute-headway GOs undertaken south of Broadway Junction on weekdays) and varying political responses to service cuts (ever noticed how bus service cuts seem to be a bit correlated with underprivileged communities). This is to say that tools are only as good as the people who hold them; there are 1,001 ways to circumvent the outwardly logical structure begat by these guidelines to fulfil nefarious ends. 

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

On top of that, $$$ will cost the agency yearly. There are, of course, some exceptions, such as the . . . , , , and , which are much more crowded and more heavily loaded than the average guideline of 125% seated capacity during weekends at their most crowded points. As we both know, the most crowded points of any line in the system are before the CBDs no matter if it is rush hour, midday, evening, and weekend (overnight service doesn't count btw). For example, during the AM peak, the most crowded point on northbound  trains in Brooklyn is Lafayette Avenue and in Manhattan southbound at 72nd Street. If 480-feet long  trains are carrying more than 115 people per car, as per guidelines, then it should either be increased in terms of headway or train length. If every  train at the line's respective most crowded points is 145 people per car, than start off with full-length trains (R46) first, given that during the rush, the guideline load for 75 foot equipment on 7.5 minute headways and 10 minute headways, respectively, is 145 people per car, or 1,160 people per train. But as we both know,  and  line dispatchers will avoid making the  entirely R46s and the  half R32s at all cost for operational reasons. Why do you think they didn't want the swap to be made permanent year round instead of being exclusively only to the Summers of both 2011 and 2012?

Don't really follow your point here...though I do wish to say that most lines (ie many more than on your list) run over 125% on weekends, in yet another illustration of the relative irrelevance of service guidelines to weekend subway service planning. 

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

In 2013, NYCT conducted a full review of the entire  route, and proved that service levels were within guidelines, particularly during the PM Rush, where trains on the line used to run every 10 minutes. Yet, they still increased service (but only slightly) at 8 minute headways (7.5 tph) instead of 10 minute headways (6 tph) and the only reason was to mesh properly with the 's 4 minute headway (15 tph). Otherwise, they would have not increase service at all. Same with the  and 's current headways, they are still the same as they were before the review for both lines came out, with a few exceptions, such as the  headways on early Sunday mornings being increased from 15-20 minutes to 10-12 minutes. Hardly any improvement came off the review for those two lines conducted in 2015, despite half of the 's fleet being NTTs with a few sets on the and more crews being added to the  on top of the crews already available on said line, as well as the recent construction project on the Rockaway Line shortly after Hurricane Sandy, and the rehab work on every single outdoor  train station inside and out. 

Again, your point is somewhat obscured by your circumlocutive tendency, but the intention of those review was not at all to reframe demand modeling questions. They were more operationally focused, and even at that, they were...trash. Talking about operations problems on the  line while spending exactly one sentence on the impact of timers on the route's reliability and capacity is a pretty big obfuscation. As to whether those lines should get a service increase, I would argue yes contingent on some of the cost and track access factors I describe below. 

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Generally, you can run as much service as you like, but only if loads are above guidelines. Remember, extra service means more crews and you have to pay them yearly, even with existing trains, that is still money being cost annually. That's why I specifically said you can't just run more service on any line in the system just because. That's not how it works. Do you, R5503, understand that now? And no, I don't think you understand completely that there are real world trade offs and constraints preventing service increases, expansions etc on weekends in NYC Subway.

Okay, so here's something I can dig into. I will assume you read all I said about latent demand and building ridership by breaking myopic planning, but do not think such a discussion is grounded in the real world -- which, as a fellow witness to all the insanity that is NYC transit 'planning,' I understand. So now let's add a financial angle to why "see riders, add service" is poor policy.

Let's imagine two bus lines, with the same operational characteristics except for their frequency and ridership. Line 1 run 10 buses per hour, and Line 2 runs 3. Line 1 has 360 people/hour at its peak load point, or 90% guideline capacity for that service level w/ 40' buses, and Line 2 runs 81 people/hour, or 75% guideline capacity at that service level. Let's imagine we can add two trips per hour to either of these routes. We should add service to Line 1, right? That depends on your priorities. If your goal is solely to improve the experience of existing ridership, then yes, by all means add to one. But if your goal is increasing your ridership and minimizing operating costs, then no, you should take a more nuanced approach. 

At the heart of this disconnect are the things called demand elasticities that I mentioned a few posts ago. These are coefficients that estimate the percent change of one variable in response to a percent change in another (here, we're measuring the response of ridership to headway). Thing is, elasticities are not constant across all cases, they vary situationally for obvious reasons relating to the nature of percents. Salient to this is that the elasticity of demand relative to headway is higher at lower frequencies than it is at higher frequencies -- the estimates I'm using here give values of: 

(I'm using weekend values)

So time for some math. Adding two trips to a line with 10bph reduces headway from 6 to 5 minutes, for a 16.67% decrease in headway. Adding two trips to a line with 3bph takes headways from 20 to 12, for a reduction of 40%. All that's left to do is multiply by the elasticities to find the estimated percent change in ridership. -.1667*-.22 = 3.6774% increase; -40*-.46 = 18.4% increase. Converting this into absolute terms, 1.036774*360 = 373 for an increase of 13 riders/hour, while 1.184*81 = 96, for an increase of 15 riders/hour — you achieve a higher RoI and net ridership increase by upping service on the less frequent line. 

Now of course, we don't want to neglect service increases on crowded corridors, but it's equally wrong to say that those corridors necessarily are the highest and best use of MTA's $$$ if we're taking an extremely financial approach to the issue. The general gist of this analysis, by the way, carries over into the subway -- all else equal, adding service to a less frequent line is likely to have a higher RoI than doing the same to a more frequent line. 

But even this fails to capture the complexity of off peak service planning. Because the peaks determine car equipment and crew requirements, the marginal cost of adding off peak service to a transit system is generally low. This is especially true in NYC, some crews are quite literally assigned to do nothing after completing peak-hour trips thanks to NYCT's disparate peak and off-peak service levels. This is to say that, in many cases, adding off peak service may actually be revenue positive given that the trainsets and crews are already there -- it's just a matter of having the institutional creativity to realize that's true. 

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

...or better yet, Forest Hills (to avoid confusion and to be more simplistic)...

A nice jumping off point for a discussion as to why increased off peak service levels are unlikely to happen in the near future. Because, speaking of not understanding real-world trade-offs, this. We do not have track capacity (especially on weekends) to add service on lines that are not the , let alone on Queens Boulevard (f/k/a flagging hell). Absent a (much overdue) rollout of track barriers, the 15-17tph cap on weekend corridor throughputs will be with us for a long time, what with CBTC work ramping up. So, to hell with loading guidelines and their alternatives, let us all bow to the people who really run this system: MOW/CPM. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by RR503

[Jemorie]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Before I respond in more detail to your post, I'd ask that you reread my post. I'm not saying we can go increase service tomorrow, or that these tradeoffs do not exist. I'm merely expressing a vision for an ideal. 

But as it so happens, much of what you say in your post is, euh, lacking in nuance. So let's dig in. 

First off, not all transit agencies use loading guidelines. The Seattle local bus system, for example, evaluates demographic inputs to ridership (# of residents, jobs, etc), inputs scale factors to reflect equity policies, and then adjusts frequencies upwards if need be to account for existing ridership. This, to me, seems like an eminently wise way of undertaking service planning -- let the conditions dictate your basic service levels, and then adjust per results. 

Your second point about loading guidelines somehow serving as a bulwark against inequality is quite lolzy. The discriminatory impacts of transit are largely felt through GOs (compare, for example, the agency response to the  slowdown in Williamsburg and the response to the frequent -on-a-24-minute-headway GOs undertaken south of Broadway Junction on weekdays) and varying political responses to service cuts (ever noticed how bus service cuts seem to be a bit correlated with underprivileged communities). This is to say that tools are only as good as the people who hold them; there are 1,001 ways to circumvent the outwardly logical structure begat by these guidelines to fulfil nefarious ends. 

Don't really follow your point here...though I do wish to say that most lines (ie many more than on your list) run over 125% on weekends, in yet another illustration of the relative irrelevance of service guidelines to weekend subway service planning. 

Again, your point is somewhat obscured by your circumlocutive tendency, but the intention of those review was not at all to reframe demand modeling questions. They were more operationally focused, and even at that, they were...trash. Talking about operations problems on the  line while spending exactly one sentence on the impact of timers on the route's reliability and capacity is a pretty big obfuscation. As to whether those lines should get a service increase, I would argue yes contingent on some of the cost and track access factors I describe below. 

Okay, so here's something I can dig into. I will assume you read all I said about latent demand and building ridership by breaking myopic planning, but do not think such a discussion is grounded in the real world -- which, as a fellow witness to all the insanity that is NYC transit 'planning,' I understand. So now let's add a financial angle to why "see riders, add service" is poor policy.

Let's imagine two bus lines, with the same operational characteristics except for their frequency and ridership. Line 1 run 10 buses per hour, and Line 2 runs 3. Line 1 has 360 people/hour at its peak load point, or 90% guideline capacity for that service level w/ 40' buses, and Line 2 runs 81 people/hour, or 75% guideline capacity at that service level. Let's imagine we can add two trips per hour to either of these routes. We should add service to Line 1, right? That depends on your priorities. If your goal is solely to improve the experience of existing ridership, then yes, by all means add to one. But if your goal is increasing your ridership and minimizing operating costs, then no, you should take a more nuanced approach. 

At the heart of this disconnect are the things called demand elasticities that I mentioned a few posts ago. These are coefficients that estimate the percent change of one variable in response to a percent change in another (here, we're measuring the response of ridership to headway). Thing is, elasticities are not constant across all cases, they vary situationally for obvious reasons relating to the nature of percents. Salient to this is that the elasticity of demand relative to headway is higher at lower frequencies than it is at higher frequencies -- the estimates I'm using here give values of: 

(I'm using weekend values)

So time for some math. Adding two trips to a line with 10bph reduces headway from 6 to 5 minutes, for a 16.67% decrease in headway. Adding two trips to a line with 3bph takes headways from 20 to 12, for a reduction of 40%. All that's left to do is multiply by the elasticities to find the estimated percent change in ridership. -.1667*-.22 = 3.6774% increase; -40*-.46 = 18.4% increase. Converting this into absolute terms, 1.036774*360 = 373 for an increase of 13 riders/hour, while 1.184*81 = 96, for an increase of 15 riders/hour — you achieve a higher RoI and net ridership increase by upping service on the less frequent line. 

Now of course, we don't want to neglect service increases on crowded corridors, but it's equally wrong to say that those corridors necessarily are the highest and best use of MTA's $$$ if we're taking an extremely financial approach to the issue. The general gist of this analysis, by the way, carries over into the subway -- all else equal, adding service to a less frequent line is likely to have a higher RoI than doing the same to a more frequent line. 

But even this fails to capture the complexity of off peak service planning. Because the peaks determine car equipment and crew requirements, the marginal cost of adding off peak service to a transit system is generally low. This is especially true in NYC, some crews are quite literally assigned to do nothing after completing peak-hour trips thanks to NYCT's disparate peak and off-peak service levels. This is to say that, in many cases, adding off peak service may actually be revenue positive given that the trainsets and crews are already there -- it's just a matter of having the institutional creativity to realize that's true. 

A nice jumping off point for a discussion as to why increased off peak service levels are unlikely to happen in the near future. Because, speaking of not understanding real-world trade-offs, this. We do not have track capacity (especially on weekends) to add service on lines that are not the , let alone on Queens Boulevard (f/k/a flagging hell). Absent a (much overdue) rollout of track barriers, the 15-17tph cap on weekend corridor throughputs will be with us for a long time, what with CBTC work ramping up. So, to hell with loading guidelines and their alternatives, let us all bow to the people who really run this system: MOW/CPM. 

Here are some quotes from your previous posts:

"Not that I'm a frequent  user, but the times I've ridden it (mostly across the bridge/on lower 6th) it's been well over 125% seated capacity, which tells us that...wait for it...current  service levels are actually less than what is actually required." and

"I'd love it if we ran all those trains on weekends, but I also understand there are real-world trade-offs and constraints. Even in a world without ATF, you'd be hard pressed to fit more than 20-24 tph onto a single track during some "everyone via local" GO operation, so keeping the number of service variants down (ideally to a maximum of 3 services/corridor, which allows each to run at 6-8tph even under GO) is definitely a worthy goal."

These pretty much indicate to me that you want the  to run more frequent service on every line in the system on weekends, combined with your objections to NYC Transit loading guidelines and your approvals for service increases means more ridership, as proven in all of your responses towards me in this thread.

Also, you're very hypocritical. You express your so-called "visions for ideals" yet, as the convo between you and me went on, you eventually went on to say that there is lack of capacity due to flagging. No duh. I used the subway on weekends too, y'know. You repeated this so many times I cannot even count. Why bother starting an argument with me in the first place anyway? I'm not the only one who objected to running the extended  on weekends outside of the  closure and somehow I'm the only one you came at. Don't single me out for that. How else do you honestly think capacity limitations come from? I said send every track and signal workers to fully closed lines, rather than continuously keep them both under traffic and on fully closed lines at the same time. For example, rather than reroute the  and  via the  in both directions between W 4th and Jay, suspend the  entirely and run the  fully local in two sections: 1) between 207th and Chambers-WTC. 2) between Jay and Lefferts/Far Rock. This way, the 's frequencies are not affected. Another scenario would be to close the entire QB line altogether rather than constantly keep it open while putting riders through endless slowdowns caused by flagging. Have free shuttle buses and the train as alternatives. Do you know, for instance, that shutting down the Queens Boulevard Line every weekend for three straight years and a half is pretty much the same as shutting down it for 15 months? Had that happen, we would have been got the , , , and  on weekends with weekday frequency levels and no disruption instead of the current , , and , while at the same time, plagued by flagging and 12-minute headways on each line. The same exact thing with the 14th Street Tubes. You can do the math on Google and you'll see exactly what I'm saying. Next thing I know, you gonna come back here saying, "CBTC is nOt OnLiNe YeT Soooooo...", "iT AlL tHaNkS tO cUmo" etc. Throughout the course of our convo, you made some pretty viable objections, I'll give you that, and in response, I offered some alternatives and suggestions, and you still disagreed in the end. So I ask you this...what more do you want? This is what's making me personally frustrated with you.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every line in the system is above the 125 percent seated capacity on weekends. How do you know this specifically? Unless you have all the magical free time in the world with no sleep to ride every line in the system full-time on weekends, you're going to have address this further with some actual data. Or...go record some videos and take pictures proving all that....which I already know you won't do anyway so.

As far as everything else in your post, using your logic (speaking of increasing service and attracting more ridership), you might as well run the  every 5 minutes between 207th Street and Rockaway Blvd, and every 10 minutes between Rockaway Blvd and Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway for the sake of attracting "new" ridership then. You might as well run the entire Rockaway Park  shuttle line every 10 minutes too while you're add at it. Will ridership in the narrow areas of the Rockaways increase then?

Edited October 4, 2019 by Jemorie

[Jemorie]

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Do you know, for instance, that shutting down the Queens Boulevard Line every weekend for three straight years and a half is pretty much the same as shutting down it for 15 months?

Whoops. Made a little error. I meant every weekend in approximately up to about 5 years (this could have easily been done immediately following the aftermath of the June 2010 service cuts). So that's 104 + 104 + 104 + 104 + 40.25 = 456.25.

Same with the 14th Street Tubes. The shutdown could have lasted from April of this year until 2024 instead of the half-ass closure we get now.

EDIT: Just realized another error as I re-read my post a second time. Rather than suspend the  entirely, only the Brooklyn portion should be suspended, and run the Manhattan portion normal until W 4th, then via the  to 2nd Ave. The Manhattan  stays express (except nights when it is local in the 's absence).

Edited October 4, 2019 by Jemorie

[Cabanamaner]

Geez, looks like my initial post about the weekend M train started a civil war here. No need for these long paragraphs fellas, let’s keep things amicable. 

[RR503]

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

These pretty much indicate to me that you want the  to run more frequent service on every line in the system on weekends, combined with your objections to NYC Transit loading guidelines and your approvals for service increases means more ridership, as proven in all of your responses towards me in this thread.

My first post in response to you (not that "we need increased service levels" and "we cannot have increased service levels" are at all inconsistent positions):

Quote

Chicken and egg much? Ridership is down because service sucks. The way to change that certainly is not to reduce service more -- though I do agree that in a world where other lines could handle increased weekend frequency, the  is not the highest and best use of crew time. But this isn't that world, sooooo.

Those aren't the guidelines, btw. Minimum frequency on Saturdays is supposed to be a train every 10 minutes, but flagging throws that out the window. I'd love it if every line could run on 6-8 min headways all weekend, but the chance of that happening within my lifetime is, well, quite close to zero. 

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Why bother starting an argument with me in the first place anyway? I'm not the only one who objected to running the extended  on weekends outside of the  closure and somehow I'm the only one you came at.

I responded to you initially because you brought up loading guidelines, a subject in which I have a genuine interest. 

Generally speaking -- and I know this is a bit of a big brain take for a forum -- responding to someone isn't actually an attack on them. It's a signal that someone cares about what you're saying enough to take the time to engage with you on the subject. 

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Had that happen, we would have been got the , , , and  on weekends with weekday frequency levels and no disruption instead of the current , , and , while at the same time, plagued by flagging and 12-minute headways on each line.

Once again, it isn't this simple. Terminal capacity issues when running strange short turn configurations are quite real, and there are moreover more efficient ways of achieving higher frequencies under GO (hello, track barriers). I'd love to see some full shutdowns, but they're no more a panacea than are our current system of piecemeal GOs. Everything has operational nuance and comes with its own contextual trade-offs -- this was my point when discussing the shutdown issue.

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Throughout the course of our convo, you made some pretty viable objections, I'll give you that, and in response, I offered some alternatives and suggestions, and you still disagreed in the end. So I ask you this...what more do you want? This is what's making me personally frustrated with you.

To be blunt, you providing a response for my concerns will not necessarily eliminate them. Throughout this conversation I've tried hard to explain in detail (hence these long paras, sorry @Cabanamaner) my concerns with/objections to your lines of reasoning, and continue to feel like I disagree. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree here, but I do not feel convinced of your position. 

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every line in the system is above the 125 percent seated capacity on weekends. How do you know this specifically? Unless you have all the magical free time in the world with no sleep to ride every line in the system full-time on weekends, you're going to have address this further with some actual data. Or...go record some videos and take pictures proving all that....which I already know you won't do anyway so.

One of the many benefits of having non-railfan friends is that they'll complain about some train being crowded or some train taking forever to come. From their reports, as well as those seen on social media, it's pretty easy to piece together a picture of weekend ridership levels, and, well, it isn't pretty. I'd love to give you actual data, but the fact of the matter is that, aside from one or two passing mentions of weekend service being above guideline in board books, the data by and large does not exist in the public realm. I also wish I could get videos etc, but I'm in Boston for a few months... 

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

As far as everything else in your post, using your logic (speaking of increasing service and attracting more ridership), you might as well run the  every 5 minutes between 207th Street and Rockaway Blvd, and every 10 minutes between Rockaway Blvd and Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway for the sake of attracting "new" ridership then. You might as well run the entire Rockaway Park  shuttle line every 10 minutes too while you're add at it. Will ridership in the narrow areas of the Rockaways increase then?

Again, would love to run a hypothetical cost analysis on doing this, because it's exactly the sort of thing we should be studying. Alas, for operational reasons, it's likely never gonna happen.

Edited October 4, 2019 by RR503

[Jemorie]

57 minutes ago, Cabanamaner said:

Geez, looks like my initial post about the weekend M train started a civil war here. No need for these long paragraphs fellas, let’s keep things amicable. 

Oh please, dude. This is a public forum and discussions are encouraged, even if they may be a bit heated at times. You brought it up, so you had this coming. Sorry. You’re making it seem like me and RR503 were calling one another names and using profanity or whatnot. So I’m not sure what “civil war” you’re implying here.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Jemorie

[biGC323232]

51 minutes ago, Cabanamaner said:

Geez, looks like my initial post about the weekend M train started a civil war here. No need for these long paragraphs fellas, let’s keep things amicable. 

Word up.......It went from wkend  to    etcs...What point yall trying to make here...

[Jemorie]

2 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Word up.......It went from wkend  to    etcs...What point yall trying to make here...

The point of this convo between me and RR503 is overall better weekend service, not just the damn . Read.

[biGC323232]

1 minute ago, Jemorie said:

The point of this convo between me and RR503 is overall better weekend service, not just the damn . Read.

I dont have the time to read extremely long paragraphs like this ok......And cursing is not getting your point thru.. 

[Jemorie]

10 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I dont have the time to read extremely long paragraphs like this ok......And cursing is not getting your point thru.. 

So don’t then. Complaining and being snide about it won’t change it either. It’s a public forum. On top of that, the title of this thread should tell you to change the topic whenever you feel like it.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Jemorie

[biGC323232]

5 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

So don’t then. Complaining about it won’t change it either. It’s a public forum.

You need to relax yourself.....Not that serious my guy

[NewFlyer 230]

That merge between the  going northbound is annoying. Every time I take the  and  northbound during the AM rush there is alway a delay between 47-50th streets and 59th street. Today had to be the worst because there were 3’s  trains and 2  trains that were schedule to show up one after the next and the  was delayed because it was stuck behind the  trains that were bunched.  That’s why if I’m going to work I prefer to take a train from Queens to Lexington Ave, then take the  to 77th and transfer to the M79 and take that across Central Park, because that merging situation at 59th street is annoying.

[paulrivera]

22 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

That merge between the  going northbound is annoying. Every time I take the  and  northbound during the AM rush there is alway a delay between 47-50th streets and 59th street. Today had to be the worst because there were 3’s  trains and 2  trains that were schedule to show up one after the next and the  was delayed because it was stuck behind the  trains that were bunched.  That’s why if I’m going to work I prefer to take a train from Queens to Lexington Ave, then take the  to 77th and transfer to the M79 and take that across Central Park, because that merging situation at 59th street is annoying.

Sometimes they’ll put the  on the local track at 59th for this very reason. It *kinda* helps out with the congestion in between stops, but yea it doesn’t really save time because the  still needs to be routed to the express track, and 9/10 times the  leaves first which means the  is sitting, albeit in the station and not in the tunnel.

Now if you see a  pull in on the express track also... that would mean the congestion is on a whole other level.

[Around the Horn]

8 hours ago, Jemorie said:

As far as everything else in your post, using your logic (speaking of increasing service and attracting more ridership), you might as well run the  every 5 minutes between 207th Street and Rockaway Blvd, and every 10 minutes between Rockaway Blvd and Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway for the sake of attracting "new" ridership then. You might as well run the entire Rockaway Park  shuttle line every 10 minutes too while you're add at it. Will ridership in the narrow areas of the Rockaways increase then?

You're oh so close to getting the point...

Obviously the Rockaways isn't the best example but there are plenty of sections of the subway system where this should be done...

Take a look at how frequent the core portions of the tube in London are off peak and weekends and then by comparison running trains up the West Side and across Midtown every 12 minutes (I'm looking at you train) borders on insanity.

(And yes I understand the reasoning behind the cut in service but I still find it ridiculous)

[RR503]

3 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

I dont have the time to read extremely long paragraphs like this ok......And cursing is not getting your point thru.. 

It’s a shame that a nuanced and civil discussion on the inputs to off peak service planning is seen among members of a transit forum as forum clutter. Many would rank it as among the most pressing issues in the system. 

[B35 via Church]

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

...You’re making it seem like me and RR503 were calling one another names and using profanity or whatnot.

I wouldn't give a shit if y'all were.... Last person I am is the moral police.

What's long been annoying is that it is the automatic narrative whenever there is some ongoing discussion between two people on some web forum.... e/g. You had people on here that got tired of the VG8 & CheckmateChamp back & forths over the years; personally I found them funny & weren't annoyed by them at all....

Point to be made here is that, it's always the person that wants you to chill, but is never the person to chill whenever they're in the heat of the moment....

[Union Tpke]

I think it is relevant to include information on the start of loading guidelines:

IMG_1747 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1748 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1749 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1750 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1751 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1752 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1753 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1754 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1755 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1756 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1757 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1758 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1759 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1760 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1761 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1762 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1763 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1764 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1765 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1766 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1767 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1768 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1769 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1770 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1771 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1772 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1773 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1774 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1775 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1776 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1777 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

IMG_1778 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

 

[trainfan22]

Is it me or there has been a lot less SMEE's on the  lately? Couple days ago all I saw was 160s and today only one 68 set, I wonder what's up. When the  first came back it had 4 sets of SMEE's assigned to it, recent days you'd hard pressed to find an non NTT on the  &  lines...

[NewFlyer 230]

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

Is it me or there has been a lot less SMEE's on the  lately? Couple days ago all I saw was 160s and today only one 68 set, I wonder what's up. When the  first came back it had 4 sets of SMEE's assigned to it, recent days you'd hard pressed to find an non NTT on the  &  lines...

I don’t frequent those lines that much but I did see a R68 on the  the other day. 

[Calvin]

7 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

Is it me or there has been a lot less SMEE's on the  lately? Couple days ago all I saw was 160s and today only one 68 set, I wonder what's up. When the  first came back it had 4 sets of SMEE's assigned to it, recent days you'd hard pressed to find an non NTT on the  &  lines...

I believe they want to balance the  and  to be mostly 160s (meaning not want the R68s to be back to back to avoid rollsign confusion). Last week, I saw the  with 2 R68s and the  with an R68A heading to Stillwell with one going over the bridge to queens. Those R68s are between the R160s. 

--

R62As 1908, and 1910 are at 207 St Yard. 

Edited October 5, 2019 by Calvin

[VIP]

22 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

Is it me or there has been a lot less SMEE's on the  lately? Couple days ago all I saw was 160s and today only one 68 set, I wonder what's up. When the  first came back it had 4 sets of SMEE's assigned to it, recent days you'd hard pressed to find an non NTT on the  &  lines...

There’s 1-2 on the  typically. Apparently  there’s 1 R68A assigned to the  now and there’s usually 1-2 sets of R68A’s on the  

Edited October 5, 2019 by VIP

[Calvin]

The 42 St Shuttle is currently doing a SIR method (former Nassau/Atlantic stations) on track 3. 4 cars on that track, however, 1 out of the 4 does not open. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Calvin

[Around the Horn]

Spent the afternoon fanning the  via 6th Avenue GO. I figured I'd put my thoughts on it here:

-Incorrect signage

Of all the trains I saw today, only six trains were properly signed up as via 6th Avenue (and two of them were R160s). Of the four R46s, all of them were uptown and none of them were correctly signed up downtown.

This should be something basic and easy to manage.

-Lack of signage at stations explaining that the  stops there all weekend

There were many, many confused faces, especially at Grand Street and 47th-50th in particular, when an  would arrive and few people would get on even though the  train would take them where they were going but they were unsure of its routing. There was pretty much no signage at all on platforms explaining that yes  trains are stopping there and here's where their going and there were no platform conductors or "wayfinders" to provide assistance. Only Herald Square on the uptown side had any signage at all about the  and it was very vague. The only signs explaining what the detour was were on the regular parts of the  from 95th Street to DeKalb Av and Queens Plaza to Forest Hills. The electronic strip maps at ESI stations still showed the via Broadway route which I really thought was ridiculous. 

I think that as part of this G.O. they should have put up posters at stations along the rerouted  with "Queens bound R trains stop here" or "Brooklyn bound R trains stop here" and a basic strip map showing what stops it's making. The wall of text approach they're using for what few signs there were isn't really that effective.

-Lack of signage/maps on  trains explaining where they go

Not only were most trains completely signed up wrong, there were very few announcements being made by crews and no signage at all on the trains explaining where  trains were going, which also contributed to people letting  trains go and continuing to wait for the  or  even if the  would have gotten them to their destinations too.

I figured this would be a perfect opportunity to print up special strip maps to stick in the windows like they did for the  to Metropolitan Av but I guess the MTA didn't feel it was necessary and frankly that was a mistake.

-Overall operations

There were some merge delays at Broadway-Lafayette northbound and 47th-50th southbound but overall trains seemed to be moving smoothly. There was one large 18 minute gap in the mid afternoon but otherwise they were every 7-12 minutes regularly. My train home back to Bay Ridge took only 38 minutes from Lex-53rd even though we were held twice, while the comparable trip from Lex-59th normally would be about an hour.

I personally feel like the  performs better during this GO than it normally does on weekends to be honest with you.

 

[NewFlyer 230]

15 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Spent the afternoon fanning the  via 6th Avenue GO. I figured I'd put my thoughts on it here:

-Incorrect signage

Of all the trains I saw today, only six trains were properly signed up as via 6th Avenue (and two of them were R160s). Of the four R46s, all of them were uptown and none of them were correctly signed up downtown.

This should be something basic and easy to manage.

-Lack of signage at stations explaining that the  stops there all weekend

There were many, many confused faces, especially at Grand Street and 47th-50th in particular, when an  would arrive and few people would get on even though the  train would take them where they were going but they were unsure of its routing. There was pretty much no signage at all on platforms explaining that yes  trains are stopping there and here's where their going and there were no platform conductors or "wayfinders" to provide assistance. Only Herald Square on the uptown side had any signage at all about the  and it was very vague. The only signs explaining what the detour was were on the regular parts of the  from 95th Street to DeKalb Av and Queens Plaza to Forest Hills. The electronic strip maps at ESI stations still showed the via Broadway route which I really thought was ridiculous. 

I think that as part of this G.O. they should have put up posters at stations along the rerouted  with "Queens bound R trains stop here" or "Brooklyn bound R trains stop here" and a basic strip map showing what stops it's making. The wall of text approach they're using for what few signs there were isn't really that effective.

-Lack of signage/maps on  trains explaining where they go

Not only were most trains completely signed up wrong, there were very few announcements being made by crews and no signage at all on the trains explaining where  trains were going, which also contributed to people letting  trains go and continuing to wait for the  or  even if the  would have gotten them to their destinations too.

I figured this would be a perfect opportunity to print up special strip maps to stick in the windows like they did for the  to Metropolitan Av but I guess the MTA didn't feel it was necessary and frankly that was a mistake.

-Overall operations

There were some merge delays at Broadway-Lafayette northbound and 47th-50th southbound but overall trains seemed to be moving smoothly. There was one large 18 minute gap in the mid afternoon but otherwise they were every 7-12 minutes regularly. My train home back to Bay Ridge took only 38 minutes from Lex-53rd even though we were held twice, while the comparable trip from Lex-59th normally would be about an hour.

I personally feel like the  performs better during this GO than it normally does on weekends to be honest with you.

 

I fanned the  via 6th Ave as well and I did not see any R46’s with correct signage. Most of the trains had the wrong destination meaning a Bay Ridge bound  would have Forest Hills signage and the Forest Hills trains would have Bay Ridge signage. I saw a couple of trains with blank LCD’s which isn’t uncommon for the R46’s, I saw one that said “Last Stop” and there was one that had the correct destination but it said via Broadway local. Today I saw an R46  with correct signage.  
 

What I’ve noticed is usually when the  is rerouted or has a G.O that causes it to skip stops there would be tons of R160s on the line. The R46’s are horrible when it comes to hearing announcements and having working destinations. 

[MTA Rail Fan]

3 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I fanned the  via 6th Ave as well and I did not see any R46’s with correct signage. Most of the trains had the wrong destination meaning a Bay Ridge bound  would have Forest Hills signage and the Forest Hills trains would have Bay Ridge signage. I saw a couple of trains with blank LCD’s which isn’t uncommon for the R46’s, I saw one that said “Last Stop” and there was one that had the correct destination but it said via Broadway local. Today I saw an R46  with correct signage.  
 

What I’ve noticed is usually when the  is rerouted or has a G.O that causes it to skip stops there would be tons of R160s on the line. The R46’s are horrible when it comes to hearing announcements and having working destinations. 

That's not the case with ALL R46's. Some have been given the enhancements in 2017 which improved speakers for announcements, but it can also be due to how close or how far the conductor is to the speaker. It's not mainly the R46's to be known as a problem or blamed upon. Some conductors either forget or don't place it up thinking people will know. There's not much to blame except that the G.O wasn't explained properly.