news Crowded A, C subway lines slated for study by MTA

[Lance]

 

Straphangers who take the decrepit “cattle cars” better known as the A and C lines are rejoicing after the MTA agreed to conduct a full line review that will likely solve regular problems like overcrowding and irregular service, The Post has learned.

“NYC Transit staff expects that the upcoming studies will also produce new insights and suggestions for improving the subway system,” MTA president Thomas Prendergast wrote in a letter addressed to state senator Daniel Squadron’s office.

 

Read more: Source

[Lance]

First off, I figured I'd post this as a separate topic so it doesn't get buried in the random thoughts or R32 threads.

 

Secondly, on the topic itself, while there is a multitude of things the MTA can do to improve service on the A and C-lines, I don't foresee 10-car C trains as part of those improvements, at least not in the near future. With the R179 order well underway, any changes would delay the construction and delivery process significantly. Even ordering more b-cars to make 10-car trains would require a new bid process not unlike the one used for the R188s. No, improvements would have to be done through increased service and not longer trains. That will have to be the case until the R211s are ordered.

[RollOver]

Perhaps the latter of the two identical variants will see a slight increase in service during rush hours by at least 8 minutes coming from Brooklyn in the morning. Aside from the AM peak, I hardly see it crowded except for the end cars being crowded somewhat at times. I think it's mainly the that's the issue, due to its longest route and bunch trains. During the off-peak, it seems to be on 7.5 minute headway, except weekday evenings and Sundays of course.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

Why did they slow the train down though? It moves like 20 mph between stops instead of the normal 45-50 mph that express trains do. It's not like the line has crazy curves, it's a straight shot that should be moving. With the beating the sometimes, that doesn't make sense, and maybe the should receive 60ft cars for more door entrances at stations. It's 2014, the should really have some R160s, (no foam intended, I don't ride the anyway), because that can decrease dwell times as well. And if there's still problems with the Rockaways, do like they do with the R68s, put them Lefferts Blvd bound.

 

With the , I agree the 10 car issue shouldn't be the problem, but to add more frequent service.

[AndrewJC]

First off, I figured I'd post this as a separate topic so it doesn't get buried in the random thoughts or R32 threads.

 

Secondly, on the topic itself, while there is a multitude of things the MTA can do to improve service on the A and C-lines, I don't foresee 10-car C trains as part of those improvements, at least not in the near future. With the R179 order well underway, any changes would delay the construction and delivery process significantly. Even ordering more b-cars to make 10-car trains would require a new bid process not unlike the one used for the R188s. No, improvements would have to be done through increased service and not longer trains. That will have to be the case until the R211s are ordered.

 

And I don't think there's room for more trains through the Cranberry tube into Manhattan in the AM rush or back out to Brooklyn in the PM rush. There is room for more service in the opposite direction and outside of the peak hour, and of course the slots through Cranberry can be apportioned differently than they are today (Lefferts A vs. Far Rock A vs. Rock Park A vs. and C).

 

But I gather that, like the G study last year, this will be looking at a lot more than loading. I'm not sure there's a loading problem in the first place, although as the Fulton corridor continues to rapidly develop, there may be one in the future.

[RollOver]

Some of the timers on the are there for a pretty good reason.

[RollOver]

And I don't think there's room for more trains through the Cranberry tube into Manhattan in the AM rush or back out to Brooklyn in the PM rush. There is room for more service in the opposite direction and outside of the peak hour, and of course the slots through Cranberry can be apportioned differently than they are today (Lefferts A vs. Far Rock A vs. Rock Park A vs. and C).

 

But I gather that, like the G study last year, this will be looking at a lot more than loading. I'm not sure there's a loading problem in the first place, although as the Fulton corridor continues to rapidly develop, there may be one in the future.

The Cranberry Tube sees 24 tph coming from Brooklyn in the 8 a.m. hour and 21 tph coming from Manhattan in the 5 p.m. hour., according to the Hub Data you showed me months ago. And what do you mean by Fulton ridership is growing? The local stations have very low ridership, aside from maybe Franklin, due to the transfer to the shuttle.

[AndrewJC]

The Cranberry Tube sees 24 tph coming from Brooklyn in the 8 a.m. hour and 21 tph coming from Manhattan in the 5 p.m. hour., according to the Hub Data you showed me months ago. And what do you mean by Fulton ridership is growing? The local stations have very low ridership, aside from maybe Franklin, due to the transfer to the shuttle.

 

The Hub Bound data shows what actually operated on the day(s) in question, not what's scheduled, and there may have been a delay that day. To find what's actually scheduled, play with the Trip Planner "Subway and Bus Schedules" function. It shows 26 trains arriving at Fulton northbound between 8:00 and 8:58.

 

The Brooklyn local stops aren't as low-ridership anymore as you might think. Lafayette is up 3.6% from 2012 to 2013, Clinton-Washington 11.7%, Franklin 3.5% (including the shuttle), Kingston-Throop 7.9%, Ralph 5.9%, Rockaway 2.6%, Liberty 1.7%, Van Siclen 4.8%, and Shepherd 4.7%. All but two of these stations beat the overall systemwide increase of 3.2%.

[RTOMan]

The Cranberry Tube sees 24 tph coming from Brooklyn in the 8 a.m. hour and 21 tph coming from Manhattan in the 5 p.m. hour., according to the Hub Data you showed me months ago. And what do you mean by Fulton ridership is growing? The local stations have very low ridership, aside from maybe Franklin, due to the transfer to the shuttle.

.

 

Nah bro those ridership levels are growing... Been growin ever since 2009...

 

Seen it myself first hand the funny thing is if this is ten years ago this study isn't happening .

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think it's hilarious that they need to conduct a study to figure out what is wrong with the lines.... Let's see... Overcrowding.... Bunching on the ... Decrepit cars of both the and , save the warm months when the borrows newer cars... Lack of service on the ... What exactly is the study supposed to tell them that they shouldn't already know and what could they do to address the issues that can't be done now aside from the new cars that are coming??

[RollOver]

The Hub Bound data shows what actually operated on the day(s) in question, not what's scheduled, and there may have been a delay that day. To find what's actually scheduled, play with the Trip Planner "Subway and Bus Schedules" function. It shows 26 trains arriving at Fulton northbound between 8:00 and 8:58.

 

The Brooklyn local stops aren't as low-ridership anymore as you might think. Lafayette is up 3.6% from 2012 to 2013, Clinton-Washington 11.7%, Franklin 3.5% (including the shuttle), Kingston-Throop 7.9%, Ralph 5.9%, Rockaway 2.6%, Liberty 1.7%, Van Siclen 4.8%, and Shepherd 4.7%. All but two of these stations beat the overall systemwide increase of 3.2%.

Thanks. I just checked the schedule on both the and , finally realizing that the Hub Data wasn't actually showing what's scheduled. So the really does run 8 tph after all. The only issue is that it's headway has to somehow mesh with that of the and including the , but would be too difficult to do anyway. As for the ridership, then perhaps the isn't as lightly used as I always made it out to be.

 

 

.

Nah bro those ridership levels are growing... Been growin ever since 2009...

Seen it myself first hand the funny thing is if this is ten years ago this study isn't happening .

Okay.

[bobtehpanda]

I think it's hilarious that they need to conduct a study to figure out what is wrong with the lines.... Let's see... Overcrowding.... Bunching on the ... Decrepit cars of both the and , save the warm months when the borrows newer cars... Lack of service on the ... What exactly is the study supposed to tell them that they shouldn't already know and what could they do to address the issues that can't be done now aside from the new cars that are coming??

 

Well, it tells them how much they should add in terms of service... it's not as if the MTA can just all of a sudden drop 5TPH in and call it a day.

 

The car issue is mostly due to the faster-than-planned retirement of the other old car series; out of all of them, the R32 was supposedly holding up the best (which isn't saying much, but still.). With the R179 coming online in a few years, that should be resolved within the next five years.

[Eric B]

 I don't foresee 10-car C trains as part of those improvements, at least not in the near future. With the R179 order well underway, any changes would delay the construction and delivery process significantly. Even ordering more b-cars to make 10-car trains would require a new bid process not unlike the one used for the R188s. No, improvements would have to be done through increased service and not longer trains. That will have to be the case until the R211s are ordered.

So they would have to rebid in order to change the number of A or B cars (like to keep the order as the same number, but switch the 4 car and 5 car numbers back the way they were, where the bulk was 5 cars, and the 4 car units are just enough for ENY?)

The reason it was changed in the first place was to save costs, but in order to increase service, they would need more cars anyway; unles the'll end up yet again, getting stuck with old cars they can't get rid of.

 

I hear that the test train will be ready at the end of this year. But they haven't built enough of them yet that they can't change it. 

[QM1to6Ave]

I've started having to take the C or G to Brooklyn for work purposes recently, and I have to say that the C seems to be a little more consistent and less delay prone than the G. Keep in mind, though, I'm taking the C mostly off peak so that is not representative of the whole problem. still, especially with the 160's on it, I prefer the C to the G

 

Like VG8 posted, I feel that instead of waiting for the results of a whole study to come in, they should at least add in another train or two at the next pick to help reduce the problem a little (assuming they aren't at capacity already at peak times).

[Snowblock]

What is with the new boom at Kingston Ave? Whenever I work the I'm always getting a million people asking about how to get that station, and when I work the , that train completely empties out/fills up there. I suspect it won't be long before we start seeing petitions to make Kingston an express station.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, it tells them how much they should add in terms of service... it's not as if the MTA can just all of a sudden drop 5TPH in and call it a day.

 

The car issue is mostly due to the faster-than-planned retirement of the other old car series; out of all of them, the R32 was supposedly holding up the best (which isn't saying much, but still.). With the R179 coming online in a few years, that should be resolved within the next five years.

But they already have ridership numbers and know what sort of capacity those lines are at currently, so I don't see why they need to do a study to figure that out.  I mean it's not as if the line is the busiest corridor in the system. If it were the Lexington line then I could understand, but as far as I'm concerned, waiting instead of just adding more service where possible seems like a waste.  Long term though they will need to address the growth along that line, so they will definitely need to look at new technology to increase capacity and DEFINITELY need new cars on both lines.  

 

I've started having to take the C or G to Brooklyn for work purposes recently, and I have to say that the C seems to be a little more consistent and less delay prone than the G. Keep in mind, though, I'm taking the C mostly off peak so that is not representative of the whole problem. still, especially with the 160's on it, I prefer the C to the G

 

Like VG8 posted, I feel that instead of waiting for the results of a whole study to come in, they should at least add in another train or two at the next pick to help reduce the problem a little (assuming they aren't at capacity already at peak times).

Exactly....

[Lance]

One answer as to why they can't simply add more service to the A and C lines despite the obvious need is quite simple: the great bureaucracy at work. Another reason is due to the cars running on the lines, especially on the C. The spare factor for the 32s have to be significantly higher than what's considered normal because of their age. I'd like to think that when enough 179s are in service, they can add more service there since they won't need so many spare cars floating around.

[realizm]

So they would have to rebid in order to change the number of A or B cars (like to keep the order as the same number, but switch the 4 car and 5 car numbers back the way they were, where the bulk was 5 cars, and the 4 car units are just enough for ENY?)

The reason it was changed in the first place was to save costs, but in order to increase service, they would need more cars anyway; unles the'll end up yet again, getting stuck with old cars they can't get rid of.

 

I hear that the test train will be ready at the end of this year. But they haven't built enough of them yet that they can't change it. 

 

They postponed it. I know, it sucks. Now the test train is scheduled to arrive at the end of January 2015. Speaking of which many mega-projects in general are delayed right now, from the 7 extension up to the SAS. I agree, I can see that Pendergrast sort of gave a hint at a recent hearing that the MTA CCC actually is running out of money for this budget period to finish projects on time. Why? I have no idea.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

One answer as to why they can't simply add more service to the A and C lines despite the obvious need is quite simple: the great bureaucracy at work. Another reason is due to the cars running on the lines, especially on the C. The spare factor for the 32s have to be significantly higher than what's considered normal because of their age. I'd like to think that when enough 179s are in service, they can add more service there since they won't need so many spare cars floating around.

Yeah but surely they already know this, so I'm curious as to what this study is supposed to tell them that they don't already know?  In other words, how is this study supposed to make the commutes of riders better aside from the obvious?  I'm currently not a regular rider, but have been riding the over many years to know what problems exist and use both lines either every week or every other few weeks during rush and off-hours too.  Are they trying to meet the specific demands of these riders and if so what exactly?  The AC issue on the is addressed in the summer (Thank God for that, as I may use the for my tutoring sessions on the Upper West Side/Central Park West area during the next few months here and there), but I can't think of anything other than service levels, connectivity between and the and , and bunching with the .  

 

I know one thing that they should do a study on and that's how soon can they rehab some of those stations.  It's amazing how decrepit some of those stations are along Central Park West, and 96th street is especially disgusting. They should rehab all of those stations with the exception 81st street, and then head further uptown.  The stations in Washington Heights aren't that bad along the , minus 168th street of course.  I've been thinking about commuting to Central Park West for my upcoming sessions in July and August, and will probably just avoid 96th street and use the M10 or M96 to and from the express bus where possible.  That station for some reason reminds me of the Chambers street station.  Not as bad, but it certainly looks run down and nasty.  I just find it amazing some of the most expensive and historic areas of Manhattan have such run down subway stations.

[realizm]

One answer as to why they can't simply add more service to the A and C lines despite the obvious need is quite simple: the great bureaucracy at work. Another reason is due to the cars running on the lines, especially on the C. The spare factor for the 32s have to be significantly higher than what's considered normal because of their age. I'd like to think that when enough 179s are in service, they can add more service there since they won't need so many spare cars floating around.

 

True something to think about (damn cheapskates lol), but another theory I have is the limitations of the Cranberry Tunnel which severely limits capacity on the 8th Ave Line. Keep in mind that the original plan was for the IND to construct the South 4th Street subway to address that problem but it has never happened so now were locked in.

[West End]

I honestly think it's the service issues on the that need a lot of attention.  The two lines can get so delayed that they're becoming the new "Never" and "Rarely", only amplified by the frequency of trains on 8th Ave.  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I honestly think it's the service issues on the that need a lot of attention.  The two lines can get so delayed that they're becoming the new "Never" and "Rarely", only amplified by the frequency of trains on 8th Ave.  

Well you do have a point.  Years ago when I worked on my college break near Penn Station, I was always amazed at the number of trains in comparison to and trains.  The train you would hope to get because if you didn't, it usually meant a long wait and the was an afterthought.  It seems as if service has improved to some degree but still seems to bunch at times.  I don't think much has been done with the though.

[trainfanrod]

 

needs to run at least 7 minutes each terminal i know this is not right knowing the cross at hoyt schemhorn /canal but that way theres a frequent and will decrease the wait time at Rockaway Blvd when one has to transfer n i dislike how sonetimes theres not a flow of rockaway then lefferts sometimes theres 2 lefferts back to back then a rockaway pk then a far rock

[RollOver]

needs to run at least 7 minutes each terminal i know this is not right knowing the cross at hoyt schemhorn /canal but that way theres a frequent and will decrease the wait time at Rockaway Blvd when one has to transfer n i dislike how sonetimes theres not a flow of rockaway then lefferts sometimes theres 2 lefferts back to back then a rockaway pk then a far rock

 

Is the stations along the Rockaway branch overcrowded enough to spend a huge load of money on more trains?

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

They should stop sending trains to Rockaway Park, and have trains that go to Far Rockaway drop passengers off at Broad Channel for the to Rockaway Park.