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.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

MTA says they know subways are running late

Recommended Posts

"Metropolitan Transit Authority officials said Monday that delays have gotten worse on nearly all subways in the past year.

 

The numbered lines were hit hardest. Late trains were up more than 10 percent in March compared to the same time last year.

 

MTA officials said track and signal work are the primary contributors to the increase. Some board members called the figures unacceptable.

 

'That service continues to be pretty bad,' said Charles Moerdler, an MTA board member. 'It ain’t getting any better.'

 

'We're still bound by the principle that evenness of service is by far the most important thing rather than just late, although we'd like to do both,' said Tom Prendergast, president of MTA NYC Transit. 'But evenness of service is more important because that way you're having less impact on customers.'

 

Prendergast pointed out that the numbers don't say how late trains are. For example, a train that's five seconds late was counted the same as one that's five minutes late. He said the numbers need to be weighted to put them in perspective."

 

 

Read more:

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/139629/number-of-delayed-subway-trains-higher-than-last-year

 

Read more:

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/mta-we-know-subways-are-running-late-1.2894667

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this. Yeah, it seems they are trying to squeeze so much work in the middays, with several gangs in different places on one line, plus the other problems. It can even spill into rush hour, when the trains and crews end up all out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what was meant by "We're still bound by the principle that evenness of service is by far the most important thing rather than just late, although we'd like to do both,' said Tom Prendergast, president of MTA NYC Transit. 'But evenness of service is more important because that way you're having less impact on customers."

 

What does he mean by "evenness" in service?? There have been times when just about every line in the system has been knocked out somewhere along the line, so what sort of evenness does that create?? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means when there is a gap in service, and the hold the person ahead of the gap, so that he is jst as far from his follower (who is the one delayed) as his leader (who's on time).

Never fully understood this either. Probably makes it look like less of a delay to have several smaller gaps instead of one big one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That means when there is a gap in service, and the hold the person ahead of the gap, so that he is jst as far from his follower (who is the one delayed) as his leader (who's on time).

Never fully understood this either. Probably makes it look like less of a delay to have several smaller gaps instead of one big one.

 

I see... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That means when there is a gap in service, and the hold the person ahead of the gap, so that he is jst as far from his follower (who is the one delayed) as his leader (who's on time).

Never fully understood this either. Probably makes it look like less of a delay to have several smaller gaps instead of one big one.

 

So delay a train thats on time to satisfy the fact that itll take forever for the delayed train to start moving again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prendergast pointed out that the numbers don't say how late trains are. For example, a train that's five seconds late was counted the same as one that's five minutes late. He said the numbers need to be weighted to put them in perspective."

 

 

The typical rider's perspective is easy to decipher...

 

EARLY = "The train left without holding for me (because I'm much more important than the 1,000 people already on board)."

 

ON TIME = "The train arrived just as I got to the platform, or it held for me, and then it departed right after I boarded."

 

LATE = "I had to wait (any amount of time) for the train."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does he mean by "evenness" in service?? There have been times when just about every line in the system has been knocked out somewhere along the line, so what sort of evenness does that create?? :confused:

 

Basically, if every train is exactly 20 minutes late, service would still be "even" despite zero on-time performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During rush hour yesterday I had to wait 20 minutes for a Brooklyn bound (D) train to arrive at Grand Street. Some people waited much longer, and I wasn't, and I still am not exaggerating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During rush hour yesterday I had to wait 20 minutes for a Brooklyn bound (D) train to arrive at Grand Street. Some people waited much longer, and I wasn't, and I still am not exaggerating.

 

Ugh... IMO the (D) and the (:D are two of the slowest trains in the system in terms of waiting between trains. The (G) is by far the worst though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh... IMO the (D) and the (:D are two of the slowest trains in the system in terms of waiting between trains. The (G) is by far the worst though.

 

to me, the (D) and the (Q) are the slowest in the system. the (B) runs more frequent than the (D)(Q). im not so sure about the (G) though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to me, the (D) and the (Q) are the slowest in the system. the (:D runs more frequent than the (D)(Q). im not so sure about the (G) though.

 

the (2) is also another slow train. the (3) runs more frequent than the (2).

 

That's interesting... I thought the (Q) had improved, but I haven't used it in sometime since I use the express bus whenever I go back to Sheepshead Bay. They had it running about every 10 minutes or so when I used to live in Sheepshead Bay & Midwood. Before then it sucked royally and the (B) while not bad always ran less frequently since it was express. I agree about the (2) does suck royally. Very poor frequencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh... IMO the D and the B are two of the slowest trains in the system in terms of waiting between trains. The G is by far the worst though.

 

I don't wait for the G... if it's not there when I'm at a station, I don't take it... It has always been a tertiary/quadriary option to me....

 

anyway, yes the MTA knows subways are running late... just like they know bus usage is plummeting (despite their attempts at playing dumb)...

 

what a recipe for success !!

 

 

the 3 runs more frequent than the 2.

tell me about it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't wait for the G... if it's not there when I'm at a station, I don't take it... It has always been a tertiary/quadriary option to me....

 

anyway, yes the MTA knows subways are running late... just like they know bus usage is plummeting (despite their attempts at playing dumb)...

 

what a recipe for success !!

 

 

 

tell me about it....

 

Yeah, I know... The thing is a friend of mine called and asked me to lend his ex-girlfriend (the mother of his daughter) a hand and since I know her and the little one and her boyfriend (my friend Joseph, his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend I all knew back in college) I schlepped over to Greenpoint on what turned out to be one f*cking hot day and the only option to get there was the f*cking (G) train. Took damn there 25 minutes for one train to come!! :mad: That train was packed too, so I don't know why the frequencies are so bad.

 

Anywho, where did you come up with the idea that usage/ridership on buses is plummeting??? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (2) should really be more frequent than the (3). But it's not.

Same with most IRT lines.

The only fairly quick IRT lines are the (6) and the (7) for the most part,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (2) should really be more frequent than the (3). But it's not.

Same with most IRT lines.

The only fairly quick IRT lines are the (6) and the (7) for the most part,

 

Yea, the <7> Express are quick, but when you are waiting for either a (7)<7>, it takes a long time to come...in the mornings, while waiting for a Times Sq bound <7> at Junction, you see at least 5 Flushing bound (7) trains arrive and leave before a train to Manhattan even comes. It's the same, but in reverse, in the afternoon. It drives people nuts.:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (2) should really be more frequent than the (3). But it's not.

Same with most IRT lines.

The only fairly quick IRT lines are the (6) and the (7) for the most part,

Which is something the MTA needs to fix right away. The (2) serves more people than the (3), therefore it should be running more frequently. As a former regular (2) rider, it totally mystifies me why the MTA sees fit to run the (3) more frequently than the (2).

 

As for the (7), yes it's fast...as long as it's running. Pray the signals or switches at Vernon-Jackson don't go down or you're looking at a long time getting home if you need to take the (7). Not to mention (7)<7> trains constantly getting backed up outside Main Street-Flushing. Between the constant slow-running and stopping between Willets Point and Main, it'll really make you crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder what could be done about all these delays? Any ideas anyone?

Better funding, maintenance, upkeep, and modernization of the system could be done to improve on these delays. But the key here is funding. Without proper funding from the pols, you can't do any of the rest to improve the system. Without those four, the subways will continue to run late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Better funding, maintenance, upkeep, and modernization of the system could be done to improve on these delays. But the key here is funding. Without proper funding from the pols, you can't do any of the rest to improve the system. Without those four, the subways will continue to run late.

 

Speaking of signal problems, the (MTA) still hasn't said how it dealt with or if it has dealt with the signal falsifications that were being done. If you notice, most of the delays are signal related. All of the funding in the world can't fix that. Not only does it cause trains to be late, but it is a serious safety issue, which the (MTA) claims isn't a problem because they have backups in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point you make Via Garibaldi, but to maintain and repair those signals, wouldn't you agree that funding is needed to repair or replace those aging signals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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