Bill de Blasio considers raising funds for MTA through East River bridge tolls under congestion pric

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah yeah, my examples are all terrible in the post that you quoted and the post after TTC. Yet, the only reason you want more subway service is to get people off the roads, hence your word "FORCED" in the first page. And then, you wanna complain how crowded and delayed all lines (yes all lines) in your words are and that they should run more frequently. That's an example I find terrible. You're not going to add even more fuel to the fire just so you can a better commute to Manhattan are you?

I want more subway service in general, regardless of congestion pricing, because it's needed either way.  Naturally when congestion pricing is passed (it will be at some point, it's just a matter of when, as the issue keeps coming up) there will be even more of a need for an increase in service.

[RollOver]

Ridership in the subway will grow in the coming years. Sure, nobody likes slow commutes and slow traffic, and that more people should stick to mass transit, but let's say every line in the system were to run well over capacity 24/7, then what? It's possible to run 30 trains an hour on each line in the subway, at least, on paper. But this would just create congestion just like the roads are now. The subway is too complex, but if you prefer waiting 5 minutes or less for a train at all times of the day/night, well...though. But like I said before, there are people in the subway also sticking to other lines too. The and aren't the only ones.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Ridership in the subway will grow in the coming years. Sure, nobody likes slow commutes and slow traffic, and that more people should stick to mass transit, but let's say every line in the system were to run well over capacity 24/7, then what? It's possible to run 30 trains an hour on each line in the subway, at least, on paper. But this would just create congestion just like the roads are now.

I've never stated that maxing out subway capacity was THE ANSWER, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but service would need to be increased along with a host of other measures.  That should be obvious.

[RollOver]

What do you mean by you're not sure? Haven't you noticed that CBTC allows more trains per hour? Even the CURRENT signaling system can handle more trains per hour.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What do you mean by you're not sure? Haven't you noticed that CBTC allows more trains per hour? Even the CURRENT signaling system can handle more trains per hour.

What I meant was that I'm not sure where you got the idea that maximizing subway service was what I was interested in.  Increasing it... Yes, but there are other services that would also need to be created or expanded.

[RollOver]

there are other services that would also need to be created or expanded.

And this is what I prefer to make commuting to Manhattan less of a pain. Hence new subway corridors like SAS. They should also bring back that Rockaway ferry so riders don't have to just take the nor drive there to Downtown Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan and vice-versa. But you and damn near everybody in this site claim that the subway (every non-isolated line) is too crowded no matter where ya go and no matter what time, so you say more service is also needed on the non-isolated lines too.

[ttcsubwayfan]

The SAS is not going to help with commuting into Manhattan. It may relieve the Lexington Avenue line, but as it stands it's going to be, what - 3, 4 stations? And all of them will be under Manhattan. Whether an extension to the Bronx or Brooklyn will be beneficial is not a question we'll never know the answer to, because by the time phase 4 gets built, which is in the far off future, subways will be the least efficient, most out of date form of transport that exists.

 

Also, there's a reason everyone says the subway is busy a lot of the time - because it is. Offpeak ridership is growing. Or are we all collectively delusional?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And this is what I prefer to make commuting to Manhattan less of a pain. Hence new subway corridors like SAS. But you and damn near everybody in this site claim that the subway is crowded no matter where ya go and no matter what time, so you say more service is also needed on the non-isolated lines too.

Even the admits that ridership is booming (ridership figures confirm this too), so there's no question that service should be increased.

[Union Tpke]

The first step is to increase service in rush hours to the max it can be without additional equipment or with interfering with other lines.

The next step is to increase service during off peak hours on lines such as the C on weekend.

[Wallyhorse]

The first step is to increase service in rush hours to the max it can be without additional equipment or with interfering with other lines.

The next step is to increase service during off peak hours on lines such as the C on weekend.

This is why I like the idea of having the be extended to Brooklyn via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel if Phase 4 of the SAS ever gets built.  If you can move the Transit Museum to another location, you can actually do a relatively inexpensive build of a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel between Hanover Square and the existing Transit Museum (Court Street on the old Fulton local) station, with such a line initially going possibly as far north as Seaport with MetroCard transfers to the at South Ferry, and at Bowling Green and at Whitehall from Hanover Square and the between Seaport and Fulton until such can be connected to the rest of Phase 4 if that does ever get built.  This would allow the to become the Fulton Street local to Euclid (extended late nights to Lefferts) while the (when running) can be the full-time Lefferts line (express in Brooklyn) and the becomes full-time Fulton express to The Rockaways.  

 

Not perfect, but it would solve a lot of problems with the and by doing this.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

One thing I notice is that the has a much larger catchment than the and the has a larger catchment than the . Yet in each pair both lines run at the same headways during the rush hours and midday. This is why you'll see packed trains in Harlem and empty trains. What's wrong with running the line with higher ridership more often? The way I would rationalize this is running 16 TPH on the during the peak and 8 TPH on the instead of the even 12 TPH they run on now. With the I would run 20 TPH on the during peak hours and 10 TPH on the in the process eliminating trips going to/from Nereid Av. Each pair gets the same level of service within their core segment while allocating more of it to the line with greater catchment in the outer region. This would serve to have trains come into the busiest parts of the route less crowded then they are now and make the system seem less Manhattan centric. I would post this in the Random thoughts topic but since service increases are being bought up I thought I would share this. 

[RollOver]

One thing I notice is that the has a much larger catchment than the and the has a larger catchment than the . Yet in each pair both lines run at the same headways during the rush hours and midday. This is why you'll see packed trains in Harlem and empty trains. What's wrong with running the line with higher ridership more often? The way I would rationalize this is running 16 TPH on the during the peak and 8 TPH on the instead of the even 12 TPH they run on now. With the I would run 20 TPH on the during peak hours and 10 TPH on the in the process eliminating trips going to/from Nereid Av. Each pair gets the same level of service within their core segment while allocating more of it to the line with greater catchment in the outer region. This would serve to have trains come into the busiest parts of the route less crowded then they are now and make the system seem less Manhattan centric. I would post this in the Random thoughts topic but since service increases are being bought up I thought I would share this.

 

Rolling my eyes, not everybody wants to go to Jerome and upper WPR respectively, especially when you also have people traveling within between 135 St and Franklin Av on the 2/3 and 138 St and Franklin Av on the 4/5 too, as well as people traveling to Dyre and New Lots branches respectively....

[Trainmaster5]

It looks like there is one word linking most of these posts. That word is "congestion". Whether we're talking about slow bus service, local or express, or crowded subways entering Manhattan that word seems to underlie each argument, pro or con. Although I may have worded my prior post poorly I wasn't being facetious when I asked how those new riders who abandoned their cars were to be transported to Manhattan. I'm glad to see that some posters realize that there are quite a few people who commute to places other than the Manhattan CBDs. The business pages and those that track employment data suggest in the future there will be less reason to travel in that direction even with the population increase in the region. Has anyone noticed that many businesses have a Manhattan address but the bulk of their work is done in plants and back offices far from the old locations. I think that is the future of business and employment in the region. Perhaps congestion pricing would need to be implemented now and the immediate future but would it really be needed 10-15 years down the road? I don't know the answer to that question. For my subway enthusiasts I'm going to ask you to stop and think real hard. I think Snowblock, and SubwayGuy, among others can see where I'm going with this. ATS (IRT), and CBTC are going to speed up your commutes or so you've been told. When I was told about the ATS program years ago I told some proponents that it was "pie in the sky" thinking because the IRT was at capacity in Manhattan and it would be physically impossible to run more service through the lower Lex corridor unless the entire signal system from 125th St to Bowling Green was ripped out and re-configured. Put simply you can't squeeze 16 ozs of Pepsi into a 12 oz can no matter what anyone says. The laws of physics at work. My new CBTC advocates seem to overlook another obvious impediment to substantial increases in service. Terminal capacity is a big part of how many trains can run on a given subway line. For example if I can run 12-15 TPH on a line today and CBTC lets me add another  4-5 TPH how do I handle them when they get to Brighton Beach or Flatbush/Nostrand or 95th St-4th Avenue at the end of the rush hour? We're not talking about the monorail at Disneyworld here or the loop at Brooklyn Bridge. In other words now that these extra trains are out there where do you put them when the rush is over and do you have enough personnel to get them out of the way ? It's my personal opinion that congestion pricing, the role of SBS, light rail, CBTC, the destruction of streets in the outer boroughs ( Woodhaven) are all pieces of a plan but I have yet to see a coherent, realistic, regional plan that incorporates all of the pluses and minuses. Where is the honest master plan or doesn't it exist yet? Carry on.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It looks like there is one word linking most of these posts. That word is "congestion". Whether we're talking about slow bus service, local or express, or crowded subways entering Manhattan that word seems to underlie each argument, pro or con. Although I may have worded my prior post poorly I wasn't being facetious when I asked how those new riders who abandoned their cars were to be transported to Manhattan. I'm glad to see that some posters realize that there are quite a few people who commute to places other than the Manhattan CBDs. The business pages and those that track employment data suggest in the future there will be less reason to travel in that direction even with the population increase in the region. Has anyone noticed that many businesses have a Manhattan address but the bulk of their work is done in plants and back offices far from the old locations. I think that is the future of business and employment in the region. Perhaps congestion pricing would need to be implemented now and the immediate future but would it really be needed 10-15 years down the road? I don't know the answer to that question. For my subway enthusiasts I'm going to ask you to stop and think real hard.

Yeah I've heard this as well and while there's some truth in it, Manhattan still holds quite a bit of weight.  Not that long ago this year a head hunter contacted me about a senior management position.  The offer seemed good (benefits package totaled around $80 - 85k a year to start when benefits and bonus added up), but the deal breaker was that they were adamant in wanting someone to travel to their NJ office and I made it clear that I was only interested in their Midtown location since I live in Riverdale.  In the end things didn't work out primarily for that reason.  While things looked great on the surface, there was no way in hell I was traveling 2+ hours each way to and from NJ.

 

For what it's worth, a colleague of mine left our company to take a job that was much closer to his home in Montclair.  Not only was his salary higher, but he also was given a company car to travel to and from home.  In the end he HATED it and asked to come back to our office and work in NYC despite the tedious commute, so Manhattan still holds a lot of weight.  For starters, most of the high end paying jobs are here either in Midtown or Downtown and there's tons of great things that you can do and get here that you can't get elsewhere.  For example, lunches are ALWAYS great here, albeit expensive.  Couldn't see me having such good lunches elsewhere.

[bobtehpanda]

It looks like there is one word linking most of these posts. That word is "congestion". Whether we're talking about slow bus service, local or express, or crowded subways entering Manhattan that word seems to underlie each argument, pro or con. Although I may have worded my prior post poorly I wasn't being facetious when I asked how those new riders who abandoned their cars were to be transported to Manhattan. I'm glad to see that some posters realize that there are quite a few people who commute to places other than the Manhattan CBDs. The business pages and those that track employment data suggest in the future there will be less reason to travel in that direction even with the population increase in the region. Has anyone noticed that many businesses have a Manhattan address but the bulk of their work is done in plants and back offices far from the old locations. I think that is the future of business and employment in the region. Perhaps congestion pricing would need to be implemented now and the immediate future but would it really be needed 10-15 years down the road? I don't know the answer to that question. For my subway enthusiasts I'm going to ask you to stop and think real hard. I think Snowblock, and SubwayGuy, among others can see where I'm going with this. ATS (IRT), and CBTC are going to speed up your commutes or so you've been told. When I was told about the ATS program years ago I told some proponents that it was "pie in the sky" thinking because the IRT was at capacity in Manhattan and it would be physically impossible to run more service through the lower Lex corridor unless the entire signal system from 125th St to Bowling Green was ripped out and re-configured. Put simply you can't squeeze 16 ozs of Pepsi into a 12 oz can no matter what anyone says. The laws of physics at work. My new CBTC advocates seem to overlook another obvious impediment to substantial increases in service. Terminal capacity is a big part of how many trains can run on a given subway line. For example if I can run 12-15 TPH on a line today and CBTC lets me add another  4-5 TPH how do I handle them when they get to Brighton Beach or Flatbush/Nostrand or 95th St-4th Avenue at the end of the rush hour? We're not talking about the monorail at Disneyworld here or the loop at Brooklyn Bridge. In other words now that these extra trains are out there where do you put them when the rush is over and do you have enough personnel to get them out of the way ? It's my personal opinion that congestion pricing, the role of SBS, light rail, CBTC, the destruction of streets in the outer boroughs ( Woodhaven) are all pieces of a plan but I have yet to see a coherent, realistic, regional plan that incorporates all of the pluses and minuses. Where is the honest master plan or doesn't it exist yet? Carry on.

 

The City has not had that conversation yet, because the powers that be largely do not want that conversation to happen. Sure, occasionally you'll get election-year pledges to reduce congestion, keep fares frozen (and make the finance situation worse), or occasionally some pie in the sky subway extension that makes sense but isn't budgeted for at all (like this year's to Fordham and Utica Av proposals), but no one wants to have the hard conversations about the subway. The politicians don't ride the subway, and to them a flashy new toy train from LaGuardia to Willets Point makes way more political sense than serious expansion into the core.

 

The core may not be growing as fast as the outer borough employment centers or the suburban ones, but even if we were to have zero new jobs in Manhattan over the next ten years, that doesn't change the fact that there are a million jobs on that small, tiny island concentrated in one or two square miles. You'd still need to build core capacity even if the core becomes less important.

 

The train CBTC is supposed to have boosted capacity at the terminals from 19 to 26 TPH, but currently that is not possible due to the fact that the traction power system was not designed to handle such high amounts of capacity. It's included in the next capital plan, though.

One thing I notice is that the has a much larger catchment than the and the has a larger catchment than the . Yet in each pair both lines run at the same headways during the rush hours and midday. This is why you'll see packed trains in Harlem and empty trains. What's wrong with running the line with higher ridership more often? The way I would rationalize this is running 16 TPH on the during the peak and 8 TPH on the instead of the even 12 TPH they run on now. With the I would run 20 TPH on the during peak hours and 10 TPH on the in the process eliminating trips going to/from Nereid Av. Each pair gets the same level of service within their core segment while allocating more of it to the line with greater catchment in the outer region. This would serve to have trains come into the busiest parts of the route less crowded then they are now and make the system seem less Manhattan centric. I would post this in the Random thoughts topic but since service increases are being bought up I thought I would share this. 

 

The issue is evenly scheduling that. At least in theory running the same amount of trains lets you just alternate which train comes next.

The first step is to increase service in rush hours to the max it can be without additional equipment or with interfering with other lines.

The next step is to increase service during off peak hours on lines such as the C on weekend.

 

Until we finish working on the issues caused by 30 years of deferred maintenance, increasing weekend or night service isn't feasible, because there's no way to reliably guarantee a higher level of service.

 

Be glad for the way we do it though; I'm in Berlin, and they've shut down one of the cross-city lines for the entire length of summer.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Be glad for the way we do it though; I'm in Berlin, and they've shut down one of the cross-city lines for the entire length of summer.

Listen things are much more efficient overall in Europe, especially in Germany.  One of the best rail systems around after the Swiss one.  Even in Italy the rail system is quite good, so long as you're traveling in Northern Italy.  lol My trips to Southern Italy haven't been as efficient via rail, aside from Rome to Palermo.

[bobtehpanda]

Listen things are much more efficient overall in Europe, especially in Germany.  One of the best rail systems around after the Swiss one.  Even in Italy the rail system is quite good, so long as you're traveling in Northern Italy.  lol My trips to Southern Italy haven't been as efficient via rail, aside from Rome to Palermo.

 

Things are super efficient here, and I'm not denying that, but imagine the MTA said "We're going to close the Lexington Avenue Line between 125th St and Atlantic between June 26 and Labor Day." That's basically what's happening here, and most of the roads have roadwork as well, but there's surprisingly little traffic.

 

They also have a history of sustained maintenance of their systems; in fact, I don't think any place outside America ever deferred maintenance to the point New York did.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Things are super efficient here, and I'm not denying that, but imagine the MTA said "We're going to close the Lexington Avenue Line between 125th St and Atlantic between June 26 and Labor Day." That's basically what's happening here, and most of the roads have roadwork as well, but there's surprisingly little traffic.

 

They also have a history of sustained maintenance of their systems; in fact, I don't think any place outside America ever deferred maintenance to the point New York did.

Understand that it's the summer time and most Europeans take vacation around this time which is why so much construction is going on now allowing for minimal inconvenience.  Europeans not only invest more in infrastructure, but they also build QUALITY products that are built to last.  We don't do that anymore.  What we built lasts, but as long as it used to.

[46Dover]

I get the idea that they're trying to turn NYC into a transit-centric town. Think about it: would you even think about driving your car to the Barclays Center (example)? Or how about to a Game at Yankee Stadium. I think this whole thing is like the Super Bowl at Met Life Stadium on a grand level

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I get the idea that they're trying to turn NYC into a transit-centric town. Think about it: would you even think about driving your car to the Barclays Center (example)? Or how about to a Game at Yankee Stadium. I think this whole thing is like the Super Bowl at Met Life Stadium on a grand level

You mean in the future or now?  Any time I go to games, it's always via car... Mets' games, Yankees' games, etc., but then again that was when my buddy would invite me and he always drives.  The times that I've been alone however, I take public transportation (express bus or whatever).

[Daniel The Cool]

It looks like there is one word linking most of these posts. That word is "congestion". Whether we're talking about slow bus service, local or express, or crowded subways entering Manhattan that word seems to underlie each argument, pro or con. Although I may have worded my prior post poorly I wasn't being facetious when I asked how those new riders who abandoned their cars were to be transported to Manhattan. I'm glad to see that some posters realize that there are quite a few people who commute to places other than the Manhattan CBDs. The business pages and those that track employment data suggest in the future there will be less reason to travel in that direction even with the population increase in the region. Has anyone noticed that many businesses have a Manhattan address but the bulk of their work is done in plants and back offices far from the old locations. I think that is the future of business and employment in the region. Perhaps congestion pricing would need to be implemented now and the immediate future but would it really be needed 10-15 years down the road? I don't know the answer to that question. For my subway enthusiasts I'm going to ask you to stop and think real hard. I think Snowblock, and SubwayGuy, among others can see where I'm going with this. ATS (IRT), and CBTC are going to speed up your commutes or so you've been told. When I was told about the ATS program years ago I told some proponents that it was "pie in the sky" thinking because the IRT was at capacity in Manhattan and it would be physically impossible to run more service through the lower Lex corridor unless the entire signal system from 125th St to Bowling Green was ripped out and re-configured. Put simply you can't squeeze 16 ozs of Pepsi into a 12 oz can no matter what anyone says. The laws of physics at work. My new CBTC advocates seem to overlook another obvious impediment to substantial increases in service. Terminal capacity is a big part of how many trains can run on a given subway line. For example if I can run 12-15 TPH on a line today and CBTC lets me add another 4-5 TPH how do I handle them when they get to Brighton Beach or Flatbush/Nostrand or 95th St-4th Avenue at the end of the rush hour? We're not talking about the monorail at Disneyworld here or the loop at Brooklyn Bridge. In other words now that these extra trains are out there where do you put them when the rush is over and do you have enough personnel to get them out of the way ? It's my personal opinion that congestion pricing, the role of SBS, light rail, CBTC, the destruction of streets in the outer boroughs ( Woodhaven) are all pieces of a plan but I have yet to see a coherent, realistic, regional plan that incorporates all of the pluses and minuses. Where is the honest master plan or doesn't it exist yet? Carry on.

This ^

[bobtehpanda]

I get the idea that they're trying to turn NYC into a transit-centric town. Think about it: would you even think about driving your car to the Barclays Center (example)? Or how about to a Game at Yankee Stadium. I think this whole thing is like the Super Bowl at Met Life Stadium on a grand level

 

Since when has New York not been a transit-centric town? New York is notoriously awful for driving; awful drivers, awful roads, awful traffic, and awful parking.

[NY1635]

I get the idea that they're trying to turn NYC into a transit-centric town. Think about it: would you even think about driving your car to the Barclays Center (example)? Or how about to a Game at Yankee Stadium. I think this whole thing is like the Super Bowl at Met Life Stadium on a grand level

I would think about driving my car to Barclays since its direct and convenient for me. Most people, however, would only take the commuter rail or subway to those places because that's what the MTA pushes in advertisements.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Since when has New York not been a transit-centric town? New York is notoriously awful for driving; awful drivers, awful roads, awful traffic, and awful parking.

Since you're in Berlin now (Du bist ein Berliner? ), you should create a thread and tell us about differences that you've noticed.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

 

 

 

The issue is evenly scheduling that. At least in theory running the same amount of trains lets you just alternate which train comes next.

 

 

Until we finish working on the issues caused by 30 years of deferred maintenance, increasing weekend or night service isn't feasible, because there's no way to reliably guarantee a higher level of service.

 

Be glad for the way we do it though; I'm in Berlin, and they've shut down one of the cross-city lines for the entire length of summer.

Bolded the part that addresses my post

 

I don't see where scheduling becomes an issue with what I recommended. You could have with in a given hour trains arriving at 8:00,03,06,09,12,15,18,21,24,27,30.33,36,39,42,45,48,51,54,57 with trains arriving at the same stop in said hour at 8:01,07,13,19,25,31,37,43,49,53,59. If you do the math that's 20 trains for the and 10 for the with no conflicts at this particular stop which could very well be where they merge at Franklin or Grand Concourse. If we look at the , pairing we could have trains coming in at 8:00,04,08,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,58 and trains at 8:01,09,15,22,29,37,45,53.