Service Changes: NYC Transit Committee Notification: A-Division Subway Schedule Changes Spring 2017

[LTA1992]

I don't doubt it. I just recall them being flush with cash and wondering what to do with the extra money... 

A surplus of how much? A few million? Ten million? Both are very small amounts when it comes to transit improvements. Hell, a single ten car train costs about that much these days.

[R10 2952]

Nevertheless, a surplus is still a surplus (just ask Bill Clinton).  And you've failed to factor inflation into the equation- a 10-car train back then would have cost about 25% less than it would today.  So if we're on the subject of MTA cash in the 1990s, a few extra million dollars lying around is actually a big deal.  Compared to today, the  was practically loaded...

[RailRunRob]

It's not like the MTA was resting on their laurels in the 1990s... they were working on projects. Some examples being building the connection between the 63rd St Line and the the Queens Blvd Line used by the train, and beginning studies to restart work on the Second Avenue Subway.

 

 

Won't work. Due to the way Nostrand Junction is set up, whatever service(s) you have going to Flatbush Av and whatever service(s) you have running local between Franklin and Utica will always always always have to merge at-grade. Let's say hypothetically we decided to have the go to Flatbush Av and the run to New Lots Av, running local between Franklin Av and New Lots Av...   and trains to Flatbush and trains to New Lots would merge together. There's really no way to alleviate this bottleneck without doing some construction. The IRT unfortunately has multiple poorly-built junctions. Knowing that, the current service pattern is making the best of a bad situation, since it allows Nostrand Av line stations and Utica Av station to have both East Side and West Side service. If you swapped the and the , passengers would have less options and you would still have the same amount of delays.

 

 

One wacky idea I had was to extend the platforms at Nostrand Av and Kingston Av to reach the express tracks, covering the local tracks and taking them out of service in the process. That way and trains could stay on the express tracks and still serve those 2 stations, and  trains could run to Flatbush and all merging would be eliminated. I figure that might be simpler than rebuilding Nostrand Junction. But it's just that, a wacky idea.

 

Yep, I see the issue. Honestly, this could be solved with a bit of  infrastructure construction 12-18 months. On the question, Id have to start with why did they create this hump was because of some other obstacle buildings, sewage, utility? If this isn't the case you can shave a 100-200 of the wall back to create a continual path. This way a Lexington ave train going into Nostrand wouldn't be blocked by a or to Flatbush. This could be an option and a less disruptive reconfiguration of the junction. As opposed to a fly under which is the best case but less likely to happen. Minor upgrade and service change you may be able to get 20-25 more years.

 

Frankly, the IRT has to be one of the worst designed subway systems in the world...

They did best they could with they knew at the time. The IRT is very robust to still be working almost 120 years later with no major upgrades. I'm sure the engineers of the time couldn't foresee the lack of investment made in transportation by later generations.

[RailRunRob]

The IRT unfortunately has multiple poorly-built junctions. Knowing that, the current service pattern is making the best of a bad situation, since it allows Nostrand Av line stations and Utica Av station to have both East Side and West Side service. If you swapped the and the , passengers would have less options and you would still have the same amount of delays.

 

 

Don't know if giving the most options would be the most important factor moving forward in planning service. The top factor for me would be the increase in ridership and time. You can't continue to give the same service to more people with the same resources something, has to give just basic math and some physics and dynamics. Switch optimization may have to happen oneway or another. Especially when every second counts. Now we could make the argument of switch time versus dwell time with transfers. I would make the case that switching and adding a train or two would win out. We can run the data.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Nevertheless, a surplus is still a surplus (just ask Bill Clinton).  And you've failed to factor inflation into the equation- a 10-car train back then would have cost about 25% less than it would today.  So if we're on the subject of MTA cash in the 1990s, a few extra million dollars lying around is actually a big deal.  Compared to today, the  was practically loaded...

Yeah in fact I recall them trying to think of ways to give free rides to passengers... lol

[bobtehpanda]

A surplus of how much? A few million? Ten million? Both are very small amounts when it comes to transit improvements. Hell, a single ten car train costs about that much these days.

 

 

Nevertheless, a surplus is still a surplus (just ask Bill Clinton).  And you've failed to factor inflation into the equation- a 10-car train back then would have cost about 25% less than it would today.  So if we're on the subject of MTA cash in the 1990s, a few extra million dollars lying around is actually a big deal.  Compared to today, the  was practically loaded...

 

The surplus was roughly $1B, to the point where they gave out free rides on Christmas.

 

However, this was eaten up over the years because of debt service building up as Cuomo Sr, Pataki, Spitzer, Peterson, and Cuomo Jr. didn't want to cough up the state's share of the Capital Plan (and for that matter neither did Bloomberg or Giuliani), and because of pensions; people now live longer than they did were pension obligations were written, so you have to pay to more people over time. This is why most rich countries either have pension systems that look more like SS and very little in the way of employer-provided pensions.

[MHV9218]

I don't doubt it. I just recall them being flush with cash and wondering what to do with the extra money... 

 

 

Nevertheless, a surplus is still a surplus (just ask Bill Clinton).  And you've failed to factor inflation into the equation- a 10-car train back then would have cost about 25% less than it would today.  So if we're on the subject of MTA cash in the 1990s, a few extra million dollars lying around is actually a big deal.  Compared to today, the  was practically loaded...

 

Fundamentally, it seems like nobody really understands how the MTA budget works. Which is fine, because it's immensely complicated and difficult to parse. But yelling into the ether about how ineffective budgeting practices are is bad form when you don't really read through the information--and it's exactly what the politicians who would happily see the MTA privatized entirely do all the time.

 

The MTA surplus of the late 1990s was a net operating balance in the positives. It came from steady ridership (a decrease was anticipated), increased tax revenues, and a decline in operating costs. However, analysts knew that the late 1990s surpluses (in the $50mil range for a given year) were likely to be followed by a deficit in the early 2000s, as the economy countrywide slowed down and tax and service revenues decreased. Not to mention, debt service costs (a huge portion of the MTA's expenditures) were set to increase, demanding further investment. Even in 1998, in a minor surplus year, analysts knew that a deficit could be expected at least through 2003. 

 

More pressingly, a positive operating balance means a surplus in the operating budget. The MTA's investment in new rolling stock, new stations, and new construction comes out of the Capital budget, which is financed in larger blocks and was never anticipated to maintain a continued surplus. In the IBO's report from that period, they state the following: "It is therefore unrealistic to assume that transfers from New York City Transit’s operating budget will be sufficient to fund new subway construction."

 

They then add: "Although current levels of capital spending are gradually bringing the system to a state of good repair, they are insufficient to substantially expand the system. System expansion would require increased funding from some combination of direct subsidies, dedicated taxes, and/or increased fares."

 

There was never, by any measure, enough of a surplus in the 1990s to invest in the system, and the notion that the MTA would buy a single set of subway cars when there had been no other orders that decade is insane. If the short-lived R34s or R110Bs didn't make that clear enough, it is not sustainable to maintain a fleet in small numbers. There's a certain economy of scale in rolling stock, so there's no way that the MTA could have thrown $10mil at a tiny order on the underground portion. On the surface level, the Capital budget already allocated for that, and the MTA ordered an incredible number of new vehicles between 1996-1999. But shifting an operating balance into Capital investment is not the way budgets work, and even in the midst of the minor surplus, the MTA knew that a deficit was soon to come. At no point was the MTA "flush with cash" or "practically loaded" in any meaningful sense of those words.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Fundamentally, it seems like nobody really understands how the MTA budget works. Which is fine, because it's immensely complicated and difficult to parse. But yelling into the ether about how ineffective budgeting practices are is bad form when you don't really read through the information--and it's exactly what the politicians who would happily see the MTA privatized entirely do all the time.

 

The MTA surplus of the late 1990s was a net operating balance in the positives. It came from steady ridership (a decrease was anticipated), increased tax revenues, and a decline in operating costs. However, analysts knew that the late 1990s surpluses (in the $50mil range for a given year) were likely to be followed by a deficit in the early 2000s, as the economy countrywide slowed down and tax and service revenues decreased. Not to mention, debt service costs (a huge portion of the MTA's expenditures) were set to increase, demanding further investment. Even in 1998, in a minor surplus year, analysts knew that a deficit could be expected at least through 2003. 

 

More pressingly, a positive operating balance means a surplus in the operating budget. The MTA's investment in new rolling stock, new stations, and new construction comes out of the Capital budget, which is financed in larger blocks and was never anticipated to maintain a continued surplus. In the IBO's report from that period, they state the following: "It is therefore unrealistic to assume that transfers from New York City Transit’s operating budget will be sufficient to fund new subway construction."

 

They then add: "Although current levels of capital spending are gradually bringing the system to a state of good repair, they are insufficient to substantially expand the system. System expansion would require increased funding from some combination of direct subsidies, dedicated taxes, and/or increased fares."

 

There was never, by any measure, enough of a surplus in the 1990s to invest in the system, and the notion that the MTA would buy a single set of subway cars when there had been no other orders that decade is insane. If the short-lived R34s or R110Bs didn't make that clear enough, it is not sustainable to maintain a fleet in small numbers. There's a certain economy of scale in rolling stock, so there's no way that the MTA could have thrown $10mil at a tiny order on the underground portion. On the surface level, the Capital budget already allocated for that, and the MTA ordered an incredible number of new vehicles between 1996-1999. But shifting an operating balance into Capital investment is not the way budgets work, and even in the midst of the minor surplus, the MTA knew that a deficit was soon to come. At no point was the MTA "flush with cash" or "practically loaded" in any meaningful sense of those words.

Well they gave the impression that they were by trying to offer free rides.  I mean what agency does that if they know that they will likely be facing a deficit in the near future?  Just an example of the ineptitude that existed at the time. I remember it well because I was a teenager at the time and thought about how funny the whole thing was.  For the record, I happen to agree with the idea of them being privatized... The current is too bloated and too inefficient.  

[MHV9218]

Well they gave the impression that they were by trying to offer free rides.  I mean what agency does that if they know that they will likely be facing a deficit in the near future?  Just an example of the ineptitude that existed at the time. I remember it well because I was a teenager at the time and thought about how funny the whole thing was.  For the record, I happen to agree with the idea of them being privatized... The current is too bloated and too inefficient.  

 

Free rides cost incredibly little to the system for a single day of less-than-Sunday service, and they act as a public service in keeping drunk drivers off the roads. It's a public good, and a cheap one at that.

 

If you think privatization is a good model, I invite you to consider the catastrophe that is NICE Bus.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Free rides cost incredibly little to the system for a single day of less-than-Sunday service, and they act as a public service in keeping drunk drivers off the roads. It's a public good, and a cheap one at that.

 

If you think privatization is a good model, I invite you to consider the catastrophe that is NICE Bus.

Giving free rides only to raise the fare later... lol... Great analogy...

 

NICE isn't a good example and you know it.  Privatization doesn't have to be all doom and gloom.  We already have it in the system to some degree as it is.  Look at the numerous properties in Manhattan where you have new subway entrances being maintained privately.  

[R10 2952]

British Rail was privatized in 1994 and that turned out to be a complete disaster...

[danielhg121]

It all depends with privatization. Look at Japan's fantastic subway system. I'll have to admit tho it is way more expensive as it calculates where u get off and on but they run quite an efficient system. Also, transferring between train lines cost money as well but they made it efficient by using the pasmo card.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Cait Sith]

Giving free rides only to raise the fare later... lol... Great analogy...

 

NICE isn't a good example and you know it.  Privatization doesn't have to be all doom and gloom.  We already have it in the system to some degree as it is.  Look at the numerous properties in Manhattan where you have new subway entrances being maintained privately.  

 

Those properties aren't running the system, though. And the TA maintains most of those in Manhattan. Most of those entrances aren't even used 24/7 either.....

 

NICE is a prime example of how privatization can be either better, or worse for people, but all of that can be blamed on Nassau County execs not wanting to pay for the system. They thought leaving the MTA would help, all it did was make situations for people a lot worse by slashing service.

 

The idea of them providing better service was a convincing one....for about a month, when they introduced inter-county express service and limited service that failed miserably, which also caused a huge spike in ridership decrease. Then, not long after, they announced service cuts because they apparently didn't have enough money to run the system efficiently, slashing service by almost half across the board.

 

The subsidy that the county originally agreed on, has decreased over the years, and service is getting even more and more abysmal.

[MHV9218]

NICE isn't a good example and you know it.  Privatization doesn't have to be all doom and gloom.  We already have it in the system to some degree as it is.  Look at the numerous properties in Manhattan where you have new subway entrances being maintained privately.  

 

NICE is a phenomenal example and it was even formerly MTA-run, just to demonstrate the sheer strength of the contrast! Those entrances are a terrible example that represent a tiny fraction of the system and the majority of which aren't even 24 hours.

 

British Rail was privatized in 1994 and that turned out to be a complete disaster...

 

One which they're still trying to fix in the years since, too...

 

It all depends with privatization. Look at Japan's fantastic subway system. I'll have to admit tho it is way more expensive as it calculates where u get off and on but they run quite an efficient system. Also, transferring between train lines cost money as well but they made it efficient by using the pasmo card.

 

Which are you thinking of? Tokyo is a private system owned by the government, something like the IND system. That's not a private system. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Those properties aren't running the system, though. And the TA maintains most of those in Manhattan. Most of those entrances aren't even used 24/7 either.....

 

NICE is a prime example of how privatization can be either better, or worse for people, but all of that can be blamed on Nassau County execs not wanting to pay for the system. They thought leaving the MTA would help, all it did was make situations for people a lot worse by slashing service.

 

The idea of them providing better service was a convincing one....for about a month, when they introduced inter-county express service and limited service that failed miserably, which also caused a huge spike in ridership decrease. Then, not long after, they announced service cuts because they apparently didn't have enough money to run the system efficiently, slashing service by almost half across the board.

 

The subsidy that the county originally agreed on, has decreased over the years, and service is getting even more and more abysmal.

But that's why you can't really look at NICE as an example.  The whole thing was done as a way to cut costs, and that was the focus from then on, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it failed.  I do agree however with Mangano that giving the money to the isn't necessarily the answer either.

 

NICE is a phenomenal example and it was even formerly MTA-run, just to demonstrate the sheer strength of the contrast! Those entrances are a terrible example that represent a tiny fraction of the system and the majority of which aren't even 24 hours.

While that is true, some of those private entrances are quite nice and well maintained.  

[Cait Sith]

But that's why you can't really look at NICE as an example.  The whole thing was done as a way to cut costs, and that was the focus from then on, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it failed.  I do agree however with Mangano that giving the money to the isn't necessarily the answer either.

 

While that is true, some of those private entrances are quite nice and well maintained.  

 

The idea of privatizing a transit system is to cut costs and save money altogether....that's the thing. And that's how it generally works, and has worked with many, many agencies. It has worked well for some, and turned out to be much worse for others. NICE Bus is the prime example of how it turned out to be much, much worse. The operating and maintenance budget has been slashed significantly since the takeover, and service reliability has tanked.

[bobtehpanda]

Free rides cost incredibly little to the system for a single day of less-than-Sunday service, and they act as a public service in keeping drunk drivers off the roads. It's a public good, and a cheap one at that.

 

If you think privatization is a good model, I invite you to consider the catastrophe that is NICE Bus.

 

There are different kinds of privatization. BR was privatized wholesale, but London Buses only contracts out service hours to private companies instead of running buses themselves.

 

NICE Bus's issues aren't an issue of privatization itself, but the underlying issue that Nassau doesn't want to pay for anything.  Giving peanuts to a private company is going to achieve the exact same thing as giving peanuts to a public agency, which is what Nassau tried to do first.

[Deucey]

Contrary to popular belief, the maximum capacity of the line is NOT dictated by the 7th Avenue segment.

 

That "honor" goes to the Rogers junction.. in BROOKLYN. There's this one part of Rogers that requires the AND to merge onto one track for a brief time in each direction.

 

This is also why there's some trains that run in and out of Utica and a couple of trains run to/from New Lots.

Why not change the service pattern to run the to New Lots, to Utica and the to Flatbush full-time?

[LTA1992]

Nevertheless, a surplus is still a surplus (just ask Bill Clinton).  And you've failed to factor inflation into the equation- a 10-car train back then would have cost about 25% less than it would today.  So if we're on the subject of MTA cash in the 1990s, a few extra million dollars lying around is actually a big deal.  Compared to today, the  was practically loaded...

A ten car train back then still cost around 10 million back then. I was just throwing around numbers, but thank you for taking it seriously.

 

The surplus was roughly $1B, to the point where they gave out free rides on Christmas.

 

However, this was eaten up over the years because of debt service building up as Cuomo Sr, Pataki, Spitzer, Peterson, and Cuomo Jr. didn't want to cough up the state's share of the Capital Plan (and for that matter neither did Bloomberg or Giuliani), and because of pensions; people now live longer than they did were pension obligations were written, so you have to pay to more people over time. This is why most rich countries either have pension systems that look more like SS and very little in the way of employer-provided pensions.

Thank you for providing a number. Now while to some that may be a large number, even in the 90s, when you factor in what actually needed to be done, and that the system still runs at a loss, it isn't much. A Billion now is what a million was 50 years ago.

[Around the Horn]

A ten car train back then still cost around 10 million back then. I was just throwing around numbers, but thank you for taking it seriously.

Not trying to be nitpicky here but a ten car train of R142s would have actually cost $15.78 million, IIRC from the datasheets...

 

Still not enough surplus to actually buy one.

[bobtehpanda]

A ten car train back then still cost around 10 million back then. I was just throwing around numbers, but thank you for taking it seriously.

 

Thank you for providing a number. Now while to some that may be a large number, even in the 90s, when you factor in what actually needed to be done, and that the system still runs at a loss, it isn't much. A Billion now is what a million was 50 years ago.

 

This is beyond asinine. In a country with normal construction costs, $1B would've paid for Phases II and III on its own, and the money we shoveled at Phase I could've finished the whole thing.

[LTA1992]

This is beyond asinine. In a country with normal construction costs, $1B would've paid for Phases II and III on its own, and the money we shoveled at Phase I could've finished the whole thing.

Except we aren't. We are in a country where capitalism rules and people will do their damnedest to get as much money as possible as someone. We are in a country that inflated ITS OWN costs because we feel that wasting Billions on war is a good thing. And on that note, pumping so much money into the system that it's devalued itself.

 

We LIVE in a city where the amount of crap above and below the streets needs to be shored and/or relocated so something can be built underground which can also inflate costs. We LIVE in a city where our politicians could give two shits about the mismanagement of their own agency causing some of these inflated costs, and then has the audacity to complain about it. The riding public ain't any better on that issue either.

 

What is considered to be "Normal Costs" is dictated by the actions of a City, State, and country's government. Normal is subjective.

 

I mean, I would totally be up for the creation of a North American Union and the creation of an Amero currency if it meant raising the value of our paper monies and thus bring down construction costs. BUT, with world events being what they are, not much would change. 

 

So. Panda-san. What do you suggest?

[Caelestor]

Why not change the service pattern to run the to New Lots, to Utica and the to Flatbush full-time?

 

 

The Nostrand Avenue tracks merge only with the Eastern Parkway local tracks. The Eastern Parkway express tracks continue onto Utica Avenue. The ideal setup, as you stated, is for the to Nostrand Ave, the local to New Lots Ave, and the express to Utica Ave.

 

However, the connection from the express to the local tracks lies before the Nostrand Ave split. This means that any train leaving the express tracks would block the already busy trains. This is the #1 bottleneck of the entire capacity of the IRT system.

 

To implement the ideal service plan, there needs to be a connection between the Eastern Parkway express and local tracks after Rogers Junction so that Nostrand Ave service isn't blocked. I believe that the "easiest" reconstruction of the area would be to close down Nostrand Avenue IRT (President St is available nearby) and build crossovers in the area. There have been some other proposals as well involving flying junctions.

[Wallyhorse]

What about possibly moving the Nostrand and if necessary Kingston Avenue Stations east (railroad south) by 100-200 feet each?  That would allow for switches at what currently is the north end of the station at Nostrand.  

[RailRunRob]

 

The Nostrand Avenue tracks merge only with the Eastern Parkway local tracks. The Eastern Parkway express tracks continue onto Utica Avenue. The ideal setup, as you stated, is for the to Nostrand Ave, the local to New Lots Ave, and the express to Utica Ave.

 

However, the connection from the express to the local tracks lies before the Nostrand Ave split. This means that any train leaving the express tracks would block the already busy trains. This is the #1 bottleneck of the entire capacity of the IRT system.

 

To implement the ideal service plan, there needs to be a connection between the Eastern Parkway express and local tracks after Rogers Junction so that Nostrand Ave service isn't blocked. I believe that the "easiest" reconstruction of the area would be to close down Nostrand Avenue IRT (President St is available nearby) and build crossovers in the area. There have been some other proposals as well involving flying junctions.

 

Said this before just shave the wall back doesn't seem to hard engineering wise.