news More Service Coming to the L and M Lines

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

So after providing for you almost 20 links to sources to prove my points as factual, you now shift focus just for the sake of argument by saying out of the blue that are acknowledge that that train riders in the Bronx needs more service yet they dont deserve it because as you stated:

 

 

Entitled to an opinion then? More like an assumption that poorer riders don't need more service thats what you are basically really saying.

 

I'm done!

 

Wow... yes lets move forward now with the discussion. I agree.

Let's not twist things here. I didn't say anything about riders not being entitled to more service improvements.  I said riders are getting shafted and gave my reasons as to why.  Aside from that, while they may deserve more service, unless there are severe delays, most of the time riders can get on the train, which is what is important.  Sometimes if conditions are bad I have to let some trains pass, but that's due to delays from trains not arriving, not overcrowding.  The train in particular suffers from severe crowding at various times of the day.  I've been on trains at 02:00 in the morning coming from gatherings and such in Williamsburg or near that area, and even then the trains have pretty decent crowds going to the city.

[RtrainBlues]

Due to incessant Queens Blvd construction where E, F and R trains must merge along some portion of the route, they have been issuing "stealth" supplement schedules on the R line each weekend for the past couple of months, where you have to wait at least 12 minutes for the R train instead of its normal 10 minute headway.  (Causes longer waits and missed connections for Brooklyn customers).  If the Queens Blvd line has to cut the R schedule when there are only 3 trains running on weekends, there's no way they can accommodate 4 trains (with the addition of the M) on weekends.

[realizm]

So where were we before the derailment due a tantrum attack stalling the train? Yes, anyway as I was saying, I agree with you both Lance and Bob.

Good point on the comparison to the Dekalb St interlocking dilemma, due to a lack of foresight in Dual Contract design we currently are still having problems with dispatching 6th Ave and Broadway trains into the proper South Brooklyn BMT lines, with delays and train bunching. Unfortunately we are locked in. I feel this is going to be the same scenerio of the future on the L on the BMT Eastern Division. They are making the service increases but it will only go so far because it it not that busy middays, the problem is rush hour much like the South Brooklyn BMY.

So just to mention once more my thoughts on the topic going back on track now: The BMT Canarsie Line is indeed experiencing the largest percentage increase in the entire system (5.3% or more than 6,000 riders per weekday), and it continues to be a growing trend. As we all know ridership increased at I believe almost every station from Rockaway Parkway to 8th Avenue,noting a 8.1% increase at the Bedford Av station. In the last 6 years or so Bedford Ave ridership increased by 50%.

So in theory yes I agree, makes sense to me, the 6th Ave M on weekends will help offset the madness at Bedford Avenue.

Again taking a glance at the timetables for fact checking, (correct me if I am a bit off on this) the L runs every 3-4 minutes on rush hours or 17 TPH. Which leaves for very little room for headways even with CBTC. Any less reduction in spacing to up TPH could become a safety concern. So were pretty locked in on service increase other than to increase service off peak which stands at around 8 TPH. The thing is however is that doesn't solve the problems at rush hour which is the problem on the Canarsie line. 

 

33 round trips on rush hours is really putting CBTC to the absolute or really beyond its limit. It was originally designed to handle 26 TPH upon its conception or every 2 minutes. This can leave room for problems as bugs will have to be worked out, this is no easy feat. If CBTC shuts down due to a computer glitch the entire line shuts down unlike a standard block signaling system where the T/D has more play to mitigate delay. When CBTC shuts down everything stops as it goes into a failsafe state. Thats another concern.

The Moscow subway can run in its ATO technology at 1 minute headways (Video can be found 

) but its a more modern system in comparison to our system. So I think this is as far as NYC Transit can go on L train improvements.
 

We'll see how they pull this one off.

 

Due to incessant Queens Blvd construction where E, F and R trains must merge along some portion of the route, they have been issuing "stealth" supplement schedules on the R line each weekend for the past couple of months, where you have to wait at least 12 minutes for the R train instead of its normal 10 minute headway.  (Causes longer waits and missed connections for Brooklyn customers).  If the Queens Blvd line has to cut the R schedule when there are only 3 trains running on weekends, there's no way they can accommodate 4 trains (with the addition of the M) on weekends.

 

Maybe now that you bring it up that may be the reason why they are not extending the M to Queens, good point, should have thought of that. Not taking the F derailment that occurred recently into consideration, the CCC, as we all are aware of, are initiating a new track replacement program with continuous welded rail in 2015 Also, the Queens Blvd Line CBTC project begins at the end of this year. Currently it is still slated to start in November 2014.

[CenSin]

Let's not twist things here. I didn't say anything about riders not being entitled to more service improvements. I said riders are getting shafted and gave my reasons as to why.

I'm just stating my opinion (which I'm entitled to) on why I feel train riders are being shafted while and riders get more service

It would be best if you didn't voice your opinion of the Bronx and the facts in the same post:

LOL... The serves parts of Chinatown in Brooklyn and Manhattan doesn't it? I am not talking about the B4 or B70, but just the areas that the serves, as is the case here. It's not just about ridership growth, but about money. Growth or not, those areas of the Bronx remain relatively poor, and quite frankly I believe that's part of the issue here as to why Williamsburg is seeing more service improvements. The spillover is starting to happen in Bushwick/parts of East Williamsburg as well. Just the way it is... Money always talks. I would even blame the politicians representing those areas of the Bronx for not pressing more for service improvements and being vocal enough.

 

…

 

LOL.... Yeah, the Concourse has been improved, but not the areas surrounding the Concourse, so you can still walk off of the Concourse and fear for your safety.

 

Entitled to an opinion then? More like an assumption that poorer riders don't need more service thats what you are basically really saying.

I'm 50% with you on this one. Though his lack of concern (and disdain) for certain demographics is apparent, there's nothing quotable on this thread where he actually makes the claim that they don't need service improvements or don't deserve them. It's true what he says about why the Concourse riders are shafted with crappy service.

 

 

lol... The and aren't growing (gentrifying) at the same pace as the is.  In fact the still serves pretty run down parts of the Bronx, and so if anything, you may have population losses in some parts, while the population continues to explode near the and .  The Bronx just isn't trendy compared to Brooklyn, so unless ridership on the suddenly explodes, I wouldn't bank on too much service improvements, though ridership from the Chinatown areas of Brooklyn and Manhattan may force their hand.

LOL... The serves parts of Chinatown in Brooklyn and Manhattan doesn't it? I am not talking about the B4 or B70, but just the areas that the serves, as is the case here. It's not just about ridership growth, but about money. Growth or not, those areas of the Bronx remain relatively poor, and quite frankly I believe that's part of the issue here as to why Williamsburg is seeing more service improvements. The spillover is starting to happen in Bushwick/parts of East Williamsburg as well. Just the way it is... Money always talks. I would even blame the politicians representing those areas of the Bronx for not pressing more for service improvements and being vocal enough.

To put it in better words: it's simply politics at play and politicians are powered by money and outrage. The longer the Bronx stays poor and silent about their problems, the longer they will have to suffer the indignity of being last to get their share of the pie.

 

 

LOL.... Yeah, the Concourse has been improved, but not the areas surrounding the Concourse, so you can still walk off of the Concourse and fear for your safety.

I can't disagree with that not having been there myself, but I will be traveling to parts of the Bronx more often soon, so we'll see.

 

 

I'll go ahead and look at the data myself. Will be back later…

[realizm]

I'm 50% with you on this one. Though his lack of concern (and disdain) for certain demographics is apparent, there's nothing quotable on this thread where he actually makes the claim that they don't need service improvements or don't deserve them.

 

I am trying to get back on track with the topic in cooperation with the moderator despite the vicariously biased statements I have just seen. I dont know about some of the others, not my concern. However I appreciate the fairness in your statement made. Thank you and +1.

[Around the Horn]

It would be best if you didn't voice your opinion of the Bronx and the facts in the same post:

I'm 50% with you on this one. Though his lack of concern (and disdain) for certain demographics is apparent, there's nothing quotable on this thread where he actually makes the claim that they don't need service improvements or don't deserve them. It's true what he says about why the Concourse riders are shafted with crappy service.

 

To put it in better words: it's simply politics at play and politicians are powered by money and outrage. The longer the Bronx stays poor and silent about their problems, the longer they will have to suffer the indignity of being last to get their share of the pie.

 

I can't disagree with that not having been there myself, but I will be traveling to parts of the Bronx more often soon, so we'll see.

 

 

I'll go ahead and look at the data myself. Will be back later…

Thank you good sir....

[RTOMan]

Due to incessant Queens Blvd construction where E, F and R trains must merge along some portion of the route, they have been issuing "stealth" supplement schedules on the R line each weekend for the past couple of months, where you have to wait at least 12 minutes for the R train instead of its normal 10 minute headway.  (Causes longer waits and missed connections for Brooklyn customers).  If the Queens Blvd line has to cut the R schedule when there are only 3 trains running on weekends, there's no way they can accommodate 4 trains (with the addition of the M) on weekends.

 

There is no such thing as a "Stealth supplement" where do you get this stuff from?

 

The funny thing is ten minute head ways aren't cutting it due to the huge amount of flagging that is going on due to workers being on the tracks. Haven't you noticed that or are you so worried about R service in Brooklyn? Yes of course you are....

 

The Echo and Fox have run 12 yes 12 minute head ways at times as well due to the flagging trains gotta slow down that's how it works...

 

When the Romeo goes back to the tubes this will help.. You must forget that since the Romeo had to run across the bridge this also conflicts with the November and Quincy as well..

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[realizm]

There is no such thing as a "Stealth supplement" where do you get this stuff from? The funny thing is ten minute head ways aren't cutting it due to the huge amount of flagging that is going on due to workers being on the tracks. Haven't you noticed that or are you so worried about R service in Brooklyn? Yes of course you are.... The Echo and Fox have run 12 yes 12 minute head ways at times as well due to the flagging trains gotta slow down that's how it works... When the Romeo goes back to the tubes this will help.. You must forget that since the Romeo had to run across the bridge this also conflicts with the November and Quincy as well.. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Now that makes perfect sense. Now that is established with finality in regards to the R, I guess this means then I may be correct after all in saying that it is perfectly reasonable to send the M to Forest Hills then instead of killing it at Essex as planned? Save for the exception of the monster QBL GO weekends where it may have to be cut back to Essex anyway?

 

In other words the M to Forest Hills on weekends... Is it justified? (I say yes) Can it be implemented despite the work planned for next year on the IND Queens Bvld Line? (I need your educated opinion on that one)

[RTOMan]

Now that makes perfect sense. Now that is established with finality in regards to the R, I guess this means then I may be correct after all in saying that it is perfectly reasonable to send the M to Forest Hills then instead of killing it at Essex as planned? Save for the exception of the monster QBL GO weekends where it may have to be cut back to Essex anyway?

 

In other words the M to Forest Hills on weekends... Is it justified? (I say yes) Can it be implemented despite the work planned for next year on the IND Queens Bvld Line? (I need your educated opinion on that one)

If things stay the way it is now.. I kinda doubt it... Only other position I see is making the Echo Local on weekends.. Then again that will change jobs and adding more money to them....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

If things stay the way it is now.. I kinda doubt it... Only other position I see is making the Echo Local on weekends.. Then again that will change jobs and adding more money to them....

They kinda did that on most weekends from June- September 2010 (coincidencially with the discontinuation of the ), while the ran express. I don't know why that was, but was so that riders can get eventually get used to the 10 minute intervals with the for the future (now present). QBL riders kinda got the note a tad late, but I'm assuming it's for that or another reason.

[BreeddekalbL]

mentioned in the board materials, pages 139-141

http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/140519_1030_transit-bus.pdf

[Wallyhorse]

Now that makes perfect sense. Now that is established with finality in regards to the R, I guess this means then I may be correct after all in saying that it is perfectly reasonable to send the M to Forest Hills then instead of killing it at Essex as planned? Save for the exception of the monster QBL GO weekends where it may have to be cut back to Essex anyway?

 

In other words the M to Forest Hills on weekends... Is it justified? (I say yes) Can it be implemented despite the work planned for next year on the IND Queens Bvld Line? (I need your educated opinion on that one)

One other possibility might be if they can't send the to Forest Hills due to construction forcing the and to be locals on weekends but there is demand for 6th Avenue service on the would be for the on weekends to be combined with the northern part of the and run to 145th (and if warranted, even Bedford Park Boulevard) at that time, which would have the side benefit of giving CPW more local service on weekends (plus, it doesn't hurt that the cars used by the and most of the time are interchangable and can be used on either line).  That to me might be a way to do it.

[dkupf]

Bear in mind that the loading guideline for the Base period is a seated load plus 25%.

 

For NYCT to claim that "it is not feasible to schedule more than the proposed 15 trains per hour for maintenance reasons" is a crock of baloney.  They don't want to add the additional service only to save money.

[CenSin]

They don't want to add the additional service only to save money.

Is there something wrong with the MTA saving money that have very little of?

[RTOMan]

Bear in mind that the loading guideline for the Base period is a seated load plus 25%.

 

For NYCT to claim that "it is not feasible to schedule more than the proposed 15 trains per hour for maintenance reasons" is a crock of baloney.  They don't want to add the additional service only to save money.

Somebody needs to take the hit for ABDs... Something else that's part of saving money less trains less chances of ABDs. Yet even with 12 minute head ways with all this flagging... Heh I'm not going any further I'll just fill out my late clear slip

One other possibility might be if they can't send the to Forest Hills due to construction forcing the and to be locals on weekends but there is demand for 6th Avenue service on the would be for the on weekends to be combined with the northern part of the and run to 145th (and if warranted, even Bedford Park Boulevard) at that time, which would have the side benefit of giving CPW more local service on weekends (plus, it doesn't hurt that the cars used by the and most of the time are interchangable and can be used on either line).  That to me might be a way to do it.

Here's yer Answer Wally... NO

[Lance]

<yet another post concerning the M up Central Park West>

 

Honestly Wallyhorse, you're becoming more and more of a pest with this. Nobody's interested in your proposal, so please stop shoehorning it into every conversation that has to do with service changes.

[dkupf]

Is there something wrong with the MTA saving money that have very little of?

NYCT has loading guidelines; they should either follow them, or don't have them at all.

[realizm]

Let me provide the loading guideline for NYC Transit as we are at this point in the discussion. I would like to add that loading guidelines are indeed in place for the sake of the safety of the customers thats why the MTA has them in place as per the NBTS and FTA:
 
Loading guidelines, NYC Transit: http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/supplemental-info.pdf
 
*(MTA Bus Regional Bus Operations guidelines are also included in the provided pdf not listed here)
 
1) A division - IRT - Peak hours :
 
Headway: 2.0
Number of cars: 10
Load Car: 50
Square foot per standee: 3 Sq Ft.
Number of standees: 70
Number seated: 36%
Riders per half hour: 16,500
 
2) B division -BMT/IND - Peak hours:
 
I. 60' Cars -
 
Headway: 2.0
Number of cars: 10
Load car: 145
Square foot per standee: 3 Sq Ft.
Number of standees: 103
Number seated: 29%
Riders per half hour: 21,750
 
II. 75' Cars-
 
Headway: 2.0
Number of cars: 8
Load car: 175
Square foot per standee: 3 Sq Ft.
Number of standees: 103
Number seated: 41%
Riders per half hour: 21,000

Screenshots of pages pertaining to full details of loading guidlines by time of day, AM/PM rush, midday and late nights in more extensive detail - Click on spoiler:

 
As for the discussion on the MTA cutting corners, in regards to this, I am all ears. I know the political pitfalls of the MTA their doubleset of accounting books and the NYS assemblymen and their schemes, but this is an interesting point for discussion.

[Wallyhorse]

Honestly Wallyhorse, you're becoming more and more of a pest with this. Nobody's interested in your proposal, so please stop shoehorning it into every conversation that has to do with service changes.

That's why I said MIGHT.  I only put that in because 145 is the most likely place where such can turn without interference you did send it north and it can't go to 71st-Continental due to the situations with the and .

[Q43LTD]

I can only imagine what your fantasy map looks like...

[CenSin]

That's why I said MIGHT.  I only put that in because 145 is the most likely place where such can turn without interference you did send it north and it can't go to 71st-Continental due to the situations with the and .

"Might" is the wrong word to use because while it's available for turning trains, it certainly isn't likely. From what we've seen from the MTA so far, it will try as hard as possible to not terminate trains from other lines there—just as a mouse will do everything in its power to not be eaten by a cat. Routes are designed so that they either take the path of least resistance—or where more important—the path of most popular demand.

[Around the Horn]

One other possibility might be if they can't send the to Forest Hills due to construction forcing the and to be locals on weekends but there is demand for 6th Avenue service on the would be for the on weekends to be combined with the northern part of the and run to 145th (and if warranted, even Bedford Park Boulevard) at that time, which would have the side benefit of giving CPW more local service on weekends (plus, it doesn't hurt that the cars used by the and most of the time are interchangable and can be used on either line).  That to me might be a way to do it.

Actually I don't see whats wrong with this.You kill two birds with one stone...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Honestly Wallyhorse, you're becoming more and more of a pest with this. Nobody's interested in your proposal, so please stop shoehorning it into every conversation that has to do with service changes.

LMAO... It's quite amusing... He disappears for months until a service change thread appears.... 

[realizm]

One other possibility might be if they can't send the to Forest Hills due to construction forcing the and to be locals on weekends but there is demand for 6th Avenue service on the would be for the on weekends to be combined with the northern part of the and run to 145th (and if warranted, even Bedford Park Boulevard) at that time, which would have the side benefit of giving CPW more local service on weekends (plus, it doesn't hurt that the cars used by the and most of the time are interchangable and can be used on either line).  That to me might be a way to do it.

That's why I said MIGHT.  I only put that in because 145 is the most likely place where such can turn without interference you did send it north and it can't go to 71st-Continental due to the situations with the and .

 

Well allow me to respond as he quoted my post. I will have to disagree with your proposal and I will take my time to explain why:

 

1) The C in terms of passenger demand is not as heavy on weekends as compared to weekdays as far as I know (Dont live on the UWS so I'll let others who do correct me on that if I am a bit off).

 

Anyway: If it is needed if usage jumps all that needs to be done is to increase C service. Which is exactly what operations plans may call for when the R32s retire and replaced by R179's which will in turn increase the size of the fleet allowing for RTO Division to do just so. First test train to arrive this December. The MDBFs causing delays on the C because of the aging R32s to be replaced will be solved with NTTs on the line soon, in high numbers on the 8th Avenue/CPW local via Fulton.

 

2) 145th Street is a major switch junction and therefore a choke point. We have two lines coming in from the Washington Heights line ( the A and C) at off peak hours (6 TPH +6 TPH = 12TPH) plus on lower level on weekends the D at 6 TPH. (6 x 3) = 18 TPH on the IND CPW. Thats pretty heavy for that much traffic to squeeze into 4 tracks at 125th Street. To mitigate delays the lines has to run in solid continuity without delays due to relays of an additional route at 145th. 

 

*But I would like to bring back up the fact that increased D service on weekends will be a major boost to accommodate for skyrocketing rates of ridership at many local stations (Weekends). Another reason as to why the M should not be run there. 

 

3) So for these reasons sending the M to 145th will certainly result in redundant service and also worsen the choke point at that two level station and junction on weekends. At rush hours that point is a mess as it is with the A B C D to be properly dispatched by the T/Ds. But for necessary reasons due to the fact that its rush hour they have no choice but to provide frequent service on the feeder lines that goes into the CPW. Weekends are a different story thats what you need to consider.

 

Yes weekend ridership is high on weekends but that does not justify M service on the IND Central Park West due to operation costs vs passenger demands. The C actually doesn't run that bad even as it is from what I've seen on weekends, not too shabby despite the substandard MDBFs with the R32s on the line. So it isnt needed.

 

5) RTOman already pointed out that sending the M to Forest Hills will end up in higher costs which has to be considered. The MTA could reroute E trains as locals as an option as an alternative to make up for gaps in the R if passenger ridership demands at local stations on the Queens Blvd Line gets any higher. So were pretty locked in. I guess thats why we will not see the M run past Essex and I accept his reasoning from his T/O expertise. 

 

Interesting proposal, but in my respectful opinion it will not work for the above reasons. Those are my thoughts. 

[Lance]

While those are good points realizm, it really has nothing to do with sending the M up to Harlem. You can't have the M running up to Forest Hills during the week and Harlem on weekends is very confusing for riders. That's why we'll likely never see such service patterns like the ones Wallyhorse consistently posts. The idea of keeping things simple for riders must be paramount.