Subway Service is Slipping, Causing Concern Among Transit Advocates and even MTA Board Members

[Around the Horn]

Why should advocates be "alarmed"?  Poor service keeps them in business. (That's why Straphangers Campaign opposed the first Capital Program back in 1982.)

Bingo!

[SubwayGuy]

The thing is you're not even getting people to maximize what does exist. That's my point. It isn't just the buses either. The doesn't have the capacity on numerous lines to handle the growing ridership yet they continue to push people towards the subways with the overpricing of other alternatives. 

 

I predict that the delays will only worsen this year despite their concern based on what I continue to see during the short rides that I take. What exactly will they do to mitigate the ongoing signal problems that seem to occur almost daily on some lines? What's scary to me is we've had a mild winter. Just imagine if we had the winter of a few years ago... When you need to make upgrades to an aging system, pushing more people towards it makes no sense.

 

What other alternatives does the MTA offer? It's buses, subways, bridge & tunnel, walk, or take a non MTA service.

 

Buses are less cost efficient to run than subways.

 

Bridge & tunnel creates congestion on the roads, just like buses do, and also creates issues with parking.

 

Walking is unfeasible in a city where residents endure some of the longest commute times in the developed world (compared to other cities only).

 

Take a non MTA service hurts their revenue. Hell, the city has been pushing these damn bikes for years with no regard to the fact that person for person, 4 people biking somewhere takes up more lane space than 4 people carpooled...and that if everyone biked everywhere, the city would be just as bad of a clusterf**k as now, but the air would be a little better to breathe.

 

Proper system expansion of subways and (god forbid) elevateds gives you grade separated transportation that takes people off the streets which greases the wheels.

 

I predict delays will get worse too. Because "concern" does nothing. It would take politicians and community advocates several years of "assessments" "studies" and "thinktanks" to realize they had hemherroids.

 

Signal problems have always been a thing that can occur. A lot of signal problems are caused by leaks in tunnels, as well as by expansion and contraction in the rails in extreme heat and cold, and wear due to the fact that many lines have to run over capacity just to run service. Alleviating congestion and having the redundancy that vital repairs can be done on major corridors will correct some of this.

 

Redundancy and new corridors also improve the system as a whole...when new lines are built to newer specs -- such as SAS and 34th / Flushing having ADA compatible bench walls which makes it easier for maintainers and track gangs to clear up when working there, and also gives someone in a wheelchair the ability to evacuate in an extreme emergency.

 

Not to mention, if the subway was expanded to the point it provided sufficient capacity, and this was coupled with changes in real estate policy and zoning that were designed to keep costs down without promoting overdensity and urban sprawl, it actually could mean cuts to bus service (in terms of frequency) on bus lines that mirror subways, which could be offset financially by 24 hour bus service on routes that serve non-subway neighborhoods that don't currently have 24 hour service. This would tremendously benefit those neighborhoods. This would reduce traffic during the most crowded hours on the streets and roads, and add service during the least crowded which also eliminates the need for so many cabs and taxi services if people in non 24 hour service neighborhoods have a public transit option overnight, and allows the MTA to bring in additional revenue in hours and locations where it currently brings in none.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What other alternatives does the MTA offer? It's buses, subways, bridge & tunnel, walk, or take a non MTA service.

 

Buses are less cost efficient to run than subways.

 

Bridge & tunnel creates congestion on the roads, just like buses do, and also creates issues with parking.

 

Walking is unfeasible in a city where residents endure some of the longest commute times in the developed world (compared to other cities only).

 

Take a non MTA service hurts their revenue. Hell, the city has been pushing these damn bikes for years with no regard to the fact that person for person, 4 people biking somewhere takes up more lane space than 4 people carpooled...and that if everyone biked everywhere, the city would be just as bad of a clusterf**k as now, but the air would be a little better to breathe.

 

Proper system expansion of subways and (god forbid) elevateds gives you grade separated transportation that takes people off the streets which greases the wheels.

 

I predict delays will get worse too. Because "concern" does nothing. It would take politicians and community advocates several years of "assessments" "studies" and "thinktanks" to realize they had hemherroids.

 

Signal problems have always been a thing that can occur. A lot of signal problems are caused by leaks in tunnels, as well as by expansion and contraction in the rails in extreme heat and cold, and wear due to the fact that many lines have to run over capacity just to run service. Alleviating congestion and having the redundancy that vital repairs can be done on major corridors will correct some of this.

 

Redundancy and new corridors also improve the system as a whole...when new lines are built to newer specs -- such as SAS and 34th / Flushing having ADA compatible bench walls which makes it easier for maintainers and track gangs to clear up when working there, and also gives someone in a wheelchair the ability to evacuate in an extreme emergency.

 

Not to mention, if the subway was expanded to the point it provided sufficient capacity, and this was coupled with changes in real estate policy and zoning that were designed to keep costs down without promoting overdensity and urban sprawl, it actually could mean cuts to bus service (in terms of frequency) on bus lines that mirror subways, which could be offset financially by 24 hour bus service on routes that serve non-subway neighborhoods that don't currently have 24 hour service. This would tremendously benefit those neighborhoods. This would reduce traffic during the most crowded hours on the streets and roads, and add service during the least crowded which also eliminates the need for so many cabs and taxi services if people in non 24 hour service neighborhoods have a public transit option overnight, and allows the MTA to bring in additional revenue in hours and locations where it currently brings in none.

Buses and commuter rails for starters. In areas served by commuter rails, they've jacked up prices to push those people onto subways. If they were really concerned about capacity, they would look at making those stations more attractive. They certainly aggressively marketed Metro-North in my neighborhood. Started in 2012. They then expanded service to us using existing service. As for buses, you keep yelling that they cost more to run and I'm saying they are losing riders from their existing service. That's a problem. We also overall need to be encouraging folks to use more bikes where possible or walk. I walk a lot, but if Citibike improves and becomes more accessible I have considered such a service. Still too many cars coming into the city... The new ferry routes should also help. When you act as if the subway is THE ONLY option, that's what people will run to.

[CenSin]

Redundancy and new corridors also improve the system as a whole...when new lines are built to newer specs -- such as SAS and 34th / Flushing having ADA compatible bench walls which makes it easier for maintainers and track gangs to clear up when working there, and also gives someone in a wheelchair the ability to evacuate in an extreme emergency.

Work in one tunnel decomes independent of the other, making slowdowns in both directions unnecessary. A redundant tunnel would have made it easier to run trains full speed in both direction during single-tunnel work though.

[SubwayGuy]

Buses and commuter rails for starters. In areas served by commuter rails, they've jacked up prices to push those people onto subways. If they were really concerned about capacity, they would look at making those stations more attractive. They certainly aggressively marketed Metro-North in my neighborhood. Started in 2012. They then expanded service to us using existing service. As for buses, you keep yelling that they cost more to run and I'm saying they are losing riders from their existing service. That's a problem. We also overall need to be encouraging folks to use more bikes where possible or walk. I walk a lot, but if Citibike improves and becomes more accessible I have considered such a service. Still too many cars coming into the city... The new ferry routes should also help. When you act as if the subway is THE ONLY option, that's what people will run to.

 

Again, buses have a higher operating cost per passenger. More buses = bigger budget deficit. Remember: Public transit is intentionally run at an "on paper" loss because it is an enabler for the regional economy. It is not intended to make money, it is intended to provide cheap, available mobility that allows business in the area to flourish. Buses are losing ridership largely because of congestion. When walking is faster than taking a bus, people walk. Likewise, much of lost bus ridership is overnight. Provide service every 20 minutes instead of 40 or 60, and you will probably get some of that back. Which is only possible when you've provided adequate capacity through subways during the day, that you can afford to "borrow" bus service from peak times to add to offpeak times to grow the ridership. Bus routes that parallel subway lines should not need to be running buses every 6 minutes during the day. If they are, it speaks to a capacity problem with the parallel subway lines. Running buses every 6 minutes slowly and in rush hour traffic is a miserable way to get around, adds tremendously to congestion and wait times at bus stops when bus bunching occurs, and is extremely cost ineffective.

 

As for commuter rails, they only work because they can maintain longer headways. There are some things that can be done, but they are very minor and generally neighborhood specific...things like stopping Stamford trains in Woodlawn to double the service frequency there (one of the most heavily used stops in the Bronx), for example, or have all NH trains stop at even minor stations like Green's Farms. Increasing demand for commuter rail services by lowering fares within city limits should not be done outside of intentionally providing additional capacity through cross honoring, say, in response to a service change on the subway. Metro North's ticket policy is OK as is, but LIRR's needs to be revised so that riding to Bayside does not cost more than riding to Willet's Point. Fares within city limits should be higher than subway, but still be uniform. These are minor things that can maintain the existing policy and keep commuter rail service "premium" while providing better service, more alternatives, and not unjustly penalizing someone in a non-subway NYC neighborhood with a higher fare than someone who has a subway alternative.

 

Bikes are a complete non starter. Bike lanes are incredibly underused relative to car lanes, and it bottlenecks traffic horrendously. It also makes for unsafer streets. Bikes often speed, routinely bike out of the bike lanes on streets that have them (or, worse, on the sidewalk), and other than delivery bikers, have no ID or license plating that can identify them if they hurt a pedestrian. They also routinely ignore traffic signals. And per person, they take up as much lane space as the average automobile passenger, maybe even more...which means if everyone biked you'd still have gridlock, there'd just be a lot more red light running and danger to pedestrians. It's a complete non starter, and I believe the only reason bike lanes have been pushed the way they have is to grease the wheels for Seamless / Grubhub type services and restaurant deliveries in an effort to grow the economy through pushing ordering in services to benefit the restaurant industry.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Again, buses have a higher operating cost per passenger. More buses = bigger budget deficit. Remember: Public transit is intentionally run at an "on paper" loss because it is an enabler for the regional economy. It is not intended to make money, it is intended to provide cheap, available mobility that allows business in the area to flourish. Buses are losing ridership largely because of congestion. When walking is faster than taking a bus, people walk. Likewise, much of lost bus ridership is overnight. Provide service every 20 minutes instead of 40 or 60, and you will probably get some of that back. Which is only possible when you've provided adequate capacity through subways during the day, that you can afford to "borrow" bus service from peak times to add to offpeak times to grow the ridership. Bus routes that parallel subway lines should not need to be running buses every 6 minutes during the day. If they are, it speaks to a capacity problem with the parallel subway lines. Running buses every 6 minutes slowly and in rush hour traffic is a miserable way to get around, adds tremendously to congestion and wait times at bus stops when bus bunching occurs, and is extremely cost ineffective.

 

As for commuter rails, they only work because they can maintain longer headways. There are some things that can be done, but they are very minor and generally neighborhood specific...things like stopping Stamford trains in Woodlawn to double the service frequency there (one of the most heavily used stops in the Bronx), for example, or have all NH trains stop at even minor stations like Green's Farms. Increasing demand for commuter rail services by lowering fares within city limits should not be done outside of intentionally providing additional capacity through cross honoring, say, in response to a service change on the subway. Metro North's ticket policy is OK as is, but LIRR's needs to be revised so that riding to Bayside does not cost more than riding to Willet's Point. Fares within city limits should be higher than subway, but still be uniform. These are minor things that can maintain the existing policy and keep commuter rail service "premium" while providing better service, more alternatives, and not unjustly penalizing someone in a non-subway NYC neighborhood with a higher fare than someone who has a subway alternative.

 

Bikes are a complete non starter. Bike lanes are incredibly underused relative to car lanes, and it bottlenecks traffic horrendously. It also makes for unsafer streets. Bikes often speed, routinely bike out of the bike lanes on streets that have them (or, worse, on the sidewalk), and other than delivery bikers, have no ID or license plating that can identify them if they hurt a pedestrian. They also routinely ignore traffic signals. And per person, they take up as much lane space as the average automobile passenger, maybe even more...which means if everyone biked you'd still have gridlock, there'd just be a lot more red light running and danger to pedestrians. It's a complete non starter, and I believe the only reason bike lanes have been pushed the way they have is to grease the wheels for Seamless / Grubhub type services and restaurant deliveries in an effort to grow the economy through pushing ordering in services to benefit the restaurant industry.

So then if we're not utilizing what we have already, that means we just go back to the point I made earlier, which is that we don't have the capacity to accommodate the people flocking to the subways from other services.  You're a subway guy so I don't expect you to even admit that buses should be complimenting our system, but that's how I see it and currently they aren't.  Saying that they are slow and inefficient is just stating the obvious, which doesn't address the big elephant in the room.  We need to be coming up with constructive ways to lessen the load on the subways, not slamming the alternatives, which is essentially what you're doing.  

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

I'm becoming increasingly concerned with breakdowns on the line. Today and last Friday during rush hour I was on trains that discharged in the Bronx due to mechanical issues and at least 15 minutes was added to my commute each time having to ride in a lumbering sardine can. Today it was a 40 minute delay as I was on the 6:54 departure out of PBP and made it to 51st Street at 8:14. Said trip usually takes 40-45 minutes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm becoming increasingly concerned with breakdowns on the line. Today and last Friday during rush hour I was on trains that discharged in the Bronx due to mechanical issues and at least 15 minutes was added to my commute each time having to ride in a lumbering sardine can. Today it was a 40 minute delay as I was on the 6:54 departure out of PBP and made it to 51st Street at 8:14. Said trip usually takes 40-45 minutes.

08:14 from 06:54... That's insane... Tonight while checking which track my Metro-North was on, I saw the Lex and 7th Av lines lit up with delays. I didn't even bother to see why, but supposedly the was alleviating crowding on the . Apparently not... I wonder if they're going to try to reduce service on the Lex line?

[SubwayGuy]

So then if we're not utilizing what we have already, that means we just go back to the point I made earlier, which is that we don't have the capacity to accommodate the people flocking to the subways from other services.  You're a subway guy so I don't expect you to even admit that buses should be complimenting our system, but that's how I see it and currently they aren't.  Saying that they are slow and inefficient is just stating the obvious, which doesn't address the big elephant in the room.  We need to be coming up with constructive ways to lessen the load on the subways, not slamming the alternatives, which is essentially what you're doing.  

 

Buses are feeders for subways. They are designed to provide service through areas where ridership doesn't justify a full subway line, or to provide parallel service to subways for riders going shorter distances.

 

What you are advocating is what is done now. Take a ride on the M101, M102, or M103 during rush hour and tell me if it's in any way comparable to the Lexington Avenue subway for any length of distance at all. Likewise with the M104 vs. the 1 train. Even when the trains are backed up like crazy, they still beat the bus, and it's not even close.

 

These services should be for riders going shorter distances, but instead are often congested, crowded, slow, and delayed, with run times far greater than nearby subway routes. All of them are operating at capacity, so the solution is not "more buses" which adds to congestion.

 

The solution is parallel subway routes for redundancy (like full length 2nd Avenue), which provide a massive increase in capacity that serves as relief to get crowding levels back within guidelines.

 

But this must also be coupled with responsible city zoning policy that doesn't immediately put up 15 new skyscrapers every 5 years at luxury rent prices, and bring all that congestion right back. There is a happy medium with zoning and the city hasn't found it, and now the overpopulation density is spreading to the outer boroughs which don't nearly have the infrastructure Manhattan does to handle it.

 

Certain neighborhoods can and should remain primarily bussed, but looking at an area like Flatbush/Nostrand where the majority of subway riders immediately get off and board a dollar van or bus...extending the line would eliminate a lot of the worst congestion going out towards Kings Plaza and eliminate the need for so many of those bus routes (or allow them to be terminated elsewhere) which reduces congestion and speeds up the movement of the buses that remain in that corridor...providing better service, by the way, for the passengers who remain who still prefer to take the bus (or can't take the subway) for whatever reason.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Buses are feeders for subways. They are designed to provide service through areas where ridership doesn't justify a full subway line, or to provide parallel service to subways for riders going shorter distances.

 

What you are advocating is what is done now. Take a ride on the M101, M102, or M103 during rush hour and tell me if it's in any way comparable to the Lexington Avenue subway for any length of distance at all. Likewise with the M104 vs. the 1 train. Even when the trains are backed up like crazy, they still beat the bus, and it's not even close.

 

These services should be for riders going shorter distances, but instead are often congested, crowded, slow, and delayed, with run times far greater than nearby subway routes. All of them are operating at capacity, so the solution is not "more buses" which adds to congestion.

 

The solution is parallel subway routes for redundancy (like full length 2nd Avenue), which provide a massive increase in capacity that serves as relief to get crowding levels back within guidelines.

 

But this must also be coupled with responsible city zoning policy that doesn't immediately put up 15 new skyscrapers every 5 years at luxury rent prices, and bring all that congestion right back. There is a happy medium with zoning and the city hasn't found it, and now the overpopulation density is spreading to the outer boroughs which don't nearly have the infrastructure Manhattan does to handle it.

 

Certain neighborhoods can and should remain primarily bussed, but looking at an area like Flatbush/Nostrand where the majority of subway riders immediately get off and board a dollar van or bus...extending the line would eliminate a lot of the worst congestion going out towards Kings Plaza and eliminate the need for so many of those bus routes (or allow them to be terminated elsewhere) which reduces congestion and speeds up the movement of the buses that remain in that corridor...providing better service, by the way, for the passengers who remain who still prefer to take the bus (or can't take the subway) for whatever reason.

Both rides are horrendous. Buses seem to be nowhere in sight during the rush, so I wind up walking 15-20 minutes for such commutes. Taking the subway would be just as long when you factor in walking to the subway and waiting. As for the buses, they are either empty or packed. There is no in between and on lines where there is ridership, the buses are so packed that if anyone has an alternative (i.e. walking) they are using that. I am home today and decided to use the Bx7 for a short ride. The bus was packed, so packed there wasn't enough room to fit folks, just due to a lack of capacity, so we have an issue with our subways and our buses.

 

When looking at the Lex line, I don't see improvements, even with fewer people riding. Reliability appears to be worsening. These are the sorts of things that must be addressed. Instead, the sits back and praises their cost-cutting measures, which are nothing but service cuts.

[LTA1992]

I'm becoming increasingly concerned with breakdowns on the line. Today and last Friday during rush hour I was on trains that discharged in the Bronx due to mechanical issues and at least 15 minutes was added to my commute each time having to ride in a lumbering sardine can. Today it was a 40 minute delay as I was on the 6:54 departure out of PBP and made it to 51st Street at 8:14. Said trip usually takes 40-45 minutes.

Remember that those cars (R62A) are approaching retirement age.  They are going to break down more regardless of how much maintenance is done.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Remember that those cars (R62A) are approaching retirement age.  They are going to break down more regardless of how much maintenance is done.

Which is why they should be on one of the busiest lines in the city...

[SubwayGuy]

Both rides are horrendous. Buses seem to be nowhere in sight during the rush, so I wind up walking 15-20 minutes for such commutes. Taking the subway would be just as long when you factor in walking to the subway and waiting. As for the buses, they are either empty or packed. There is no in between and on lines where there is ridership, the buses are so packed that if anyone has an alternative (i.e. walking) they are using that. I am home today and decided to use the Bx7 for a short ride. The bus was packed, so packed there wasn't enough room to fit folks, just due to a lack of capacity, so we have an issue with our subways and our buses.

 

When looking at the Lex line, I don't see improvements, even with fewer people riding. Reliability appears to be worsening. These are the sorts of things that must be addressed. Instead, the sits back and praises their cost-cutting measures, which are nothing but service cuts.

 

The MTA has been adding service over the past few years. The last cuts were under Jay Walder who was an incompetent prick.

 

The MTA praises its various "initiatives" but that is because it is not given the authority to enact the kind of changes that will make a difference. I've said this over and over on this forum. It will not change without politicians. The MTA cannot submit a capital budget with a proposed line without approval or initiation from a politician.

 

Seriously, look it up. The most recent iteration of the Second Avenue Subway was initiated by Cuomo...MARIO Cuomo. That's how long it took to do an initial study, various environmental impact studies, design engineering, actually break ground, complete construction, necessary safety tests, and open the line.

 

In this political climate, it's impossible, but it's exactly what needs to be done. I'm not wishlisting when I make these "everything is royally f**ked up" posts, I'm simply stating facts, and the truth.

 

The trouble is, too many around here live in fantasymapbuffland where they think the MTA just does what it wants and convinces government to give them the money for it. Notsomuch.

 

The MTA is run by the politicians. The politicians serve the rich, who don't really give a shit about transit. Hence, we have overcrowding everywhere in a just-good-enough-to-get-you-to-work-so-you-can-obediently-help-the-boss-make-money system.

[bobtehpanda]

The problem has always been that New York is rotten to the core. Even before you account for corruption, the state is fundamentally broken; five boroughs and the suburbs make 66% of GDP in this State, and the other half of the state just wants to f**k downstate over for 'stealing their water', so they don't give the city much home rule power, which forces the city to throw its weight around and make state-level rules that only really work for the city, which fuels further anti-city sentiment and then perpetuates the cycle.

 

With corruption, the major issue is that most of the City democrats are career limousine liberals coasting for better opportunities, especially at the State level. The Republican brand has managed to become so toxic to most communities of color in NYC that they are not really capable of fielding a large opposition, even if said communities align with Republicans socially. Because there is no opposition, it's not hard to get elected as a Democrat, so the problem just festers.

[RailRunRob]

The MTA has been adding service over the past few years. The last cuts were under Jay Walder who was an incompetent prick.

 

The MTA praises its various "initiatives" but that is because it is not given the authority to enact the kind of changes that will make a difference. I've said this over and over on this forum. It will not change without politicians. The MTA cannot submit a capital budget with a proposed line without approval or initiation from a politician.

 

Seriously, look it up. The most recent iteration of the Second Avenue Subway was initiated by Cuomo...MARIO Cuomo. That's how long it took to do an initial study, various environmental impact studies, design engineering, actually break ground, complete construction, necessary safety tests, and open the line.

 

In this political climate, it's impossible, but it's exactly what needs to be done. I'm not wishlisting when I make these "everything is royally f**ked up" posts, I'm simply stating facts, and the truth.

 

The trouble is, too many around here live in fantasymapbuffland where they think the MTA just does what it wants and convinces government to give them the money for it. Notsomuch.

 

The MTA is run by the politicians. The politicians serve the rich, who don't really give a shit about transit. Hence, we have overcrowding everywhere in a just-good-enough-to-get-you-to-work-so-you-can-obediently-help-the-boss-make-money system.

Amen!

[LTA1992]

Which is why they should be on one of the busiest lines in the city...

All of the A division lines are extremely busy. You could not have placed them on the or because the two share fleets. The is just as crowded. The is the only service that has a diamond variation as well as a similar fleet size to the . There was no place else for them to go. That point was stressed even before the swap even began.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

All of the A division lines are extremely busy. You could not have placed them on the or because the two share fleets. The is just as crowded. The is the only service that has a diamond variation as well as a similar fleet size to the . There was no place else for them to go. That point was stressed even before the swap even began.

I know all of that, hence why they should've stayed on the .

[Mtatransit]

I know all of that, hence why they should've stayed on the .

It is expensive to upgrade the R62A to CBTC when they are gonna be retired soon anyways

[LTA1992]

I know all of that, hence why they should've stayed on the .

Yes. Because apparently, CBTC can be utilized on the cars it used to have.

 

Thinking hard is not komplicated.

[Around the Horn]

I know all of that, hence why they should've stayed on the .

 

Not if the  is getting CBTC. Its pretty much impossible to install the necessary equipment on the R62A.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes. Because apparently, CBTC can be utilized on the cars it used to have.

 

Thinking hard is not komplicated.

That's besides the point.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's the point.  So the supposedly improves and the along with the rest of the Lex line goes to the dogs.  Great strategy.  From what I've seen, the Lex has worsened, and the hasn't been much better, so all of this money being spent and nothing is changing.

 

Just checked the board at random, and what surprise... The is delayed.... Because of signal problems... 

 

It is expensive to upgrade the R62A to CBTC when they are gonna be retired soon anyways

Well let's hope they are. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[Mtatransit]

That's besides the point.  You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's the point.  So the supposedly improves and the along with the rest of the Lex line goes to the dogs.  Great strategy.  From what I've seen, the Lex has worsened, and the hasn't been much better, so all of this money being spent and nothing is changing.

 

Just checked the board at random, and what surprise... The is delayed.... Because of signal problems... 

 

 

Well let's hope they are. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Even with the 142s the still won't be much better.The biggest problem is that the system is at capacity. Fighting with each other regarding which lines should get which cars is unnecessary, because that's not the main problem.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Even with the 142s the still won't be much better.The biggest problem is that the system is at capacity. Fighting with each other regarding which lines should get which cars is unnecessary, because that's not the main problem.

Isn't the point of CTBC to allow for more trains to run on a line efficiently?  If that's the case then there should be some improvement on the . Given that the R62's are older and more likely to breakdown, it's a reasonable conclusion to make when the serves as part of a line that carries the most riders in the entire country, so while the system may be at capacity, breakdowns can have a huge impact on service as well and it should not be dismissed as being minor.  

[RailRunRob]

Isn't the point of CTBC to allow for more trains to run on a line efficiently?  If that's the case then there should be some improvement on the . Given that the R62's are older and more likely to breakdown, it's a reasonable conclusion to make when the serves as part of a line that carries the most riders in the entire country, so while the system may be at capacity, breakdowns can have a huge impact on service as well and it should not be dismissed as being minor.  

What's the math behind that? You only have but so many cars that can go around the takes the newer cars because technology dictates that. It's not ideal but what options do you have?  The is also supplemented by the and newer fleets that also carry load. That's a data point to take into consideration. The is a solo rider. Whats MDBF on the R62's maybe 75k-90k less than NTT cars?  It shouldn't be dismissed we know this but would you do to solve the issue? Not a zero sum game.

[Around the Horn]

Isn't the point of CTBC to allow for more trains to run on a line efficiently?  If that's the case then there should be some improvement on the . Given that the R62's are older and more likely to breakdown, it's a reasonable conclusion to make when the serves as part of a line that carries the most riders in the entire country, so while the system may be at capacity, breakdowns can have a huge impact on service as well and it should not be dismissed as being minor.  

 

I'd just like to note that CBTC hasn't been activated yet (it will be activated in sections starting this spring) so its normal when two things that aren't designed to interface with each other have issues. We won't have an accurate view of the effect on the  until this point next year at the earliest.

What's the math behind that? You only have but so many cars that can go around the takes the newer cars because technology dictates that. It's not ideal but what options do you have?  The is also supplemented by the and newer fleets that also carry load. That's a data point to take into consideration. The is a solo rider. Whats MDBF on the R62's maybe 75k-90k less than NTT cars?  It shouldn't be dismissed we know this but would you do to solve the issue? Not a zero sum game.

Well frankly IMO, the  should have received a completely new fleet of R188s with the R62A's moved to the and  and the R62's retired, and the R142As still on the  .