Terminal & Line Segment Limitations Inquiry

[NewFlyer 230]

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

Nope. No one takes the local from Manhattan/LIC/anywhere west of Roosevelt to FHills. Similarly, no one will take the local from anywhere beyond Kew Gardens to 179. Put differently, I’ve never seen a local arrive at Fhills with more than a few people inside. 

As for the availability of tracks at 179, I agree that helps. But, if you extend both services to 179 (which you’d need to do lest you end up with a much-worse Church Ave.), you end up with something on the order of 36tph (15 , 11 , 10 ) terminating at 179. Spread across two tracks, that’s 18 tph/track — or nearly what FHills does today. What’s more, if you have trains taking the “incorrect” inbound track at 179, there’s no way they can switch to the “correct” track when reentering, leading to confusion about where one’s train will arrive. And of course, this is to say nothing of the delays that come with willy-nilly merging at 169. 

So yes, a 179 extension would be nice as the  could lose some stops, and stop having to make that awful merge at 75, but I think to claim that the terminal situation would be any better than that of 71 is misleading. 

That’s where you are wrong. As someone who takes the Queens Blvd Lines all the time there are plenty of people who travel from the local stations to Manhattan and vise versa. Also some people who have a couple of minutes to spare will ride the local trains just because there is a greater chance that you’ll get a seat. While a majority of the people will transfer and pack themselves into the crowded expresses there are a few who will stay on the local especially in the AM rush. Now if the  for example was extended to 179 I could totally see that people from Manhattan wouldn’t ride it especially if the  continued express to 179. 

[RR503]

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

That’s where you are wrong. As someone who takes the Queens Blvd Lines all the time there are plenty of people who travel from the local stations to Manhattan and vise versa. Also some people who have a couple of minutes to spare will ride the local trains just because there is a greater chance that you’ll get a seat. While a majority of the people will transfer and pack themselves into the crowded expresses there are a few who will stay on the local especially in the AM rush. Now if the  for example was extended to 179 I could totally see that people from Manhattan wouldn’t ride it especially if the  continued express to 179. 

You missed my point. I'm not saying no one does; I'm saying that from Forest Hills, very few people do, and that consequently, getting them off the train isn't the big time factor in causing the terminal delays, the due diligence of checking the entire train for stragglers is. 

Once again, I'm not saying 179 for locals is necessarily a bad idea, I'm just saying that if you extend trains there, your gonna have the same problems as you do at Forest Hills. 

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

You missed my point. I'm not saying no one does; I'm saying that from Forest Hills, very few people do, and that consequently, getting them off the train isn't the big time factor in causing the terminal delays, the due diligence of checking the entire train for stragglers is. 

Once again, I'm not saying 179 for locals is necessarily a bad idea, I'm just saying that if you extend trains there, your gonna have the same problems as you do at Forest Hills. 

Even though the capacity for turning trains is greater for either pair of tracks—there are 4 storage tracks east that are directly accessible to the local tracks—the choke point is fumigation. We could also rewrite the laws and policies to remove the problem:

• If you stay on the train past revenue trackage, you lose the right to file a lawsuit against the city/state/MTA for problems directly stemming from your decision to stay on the train. (This will still not permit people to stay on trains that are being taken out of service, only the ones that are turning back.)
• A deputized employee or police officer accompanies any crew member that must walk the length of the train to switch ends.
• At busy terminals, the next train operator must be situated at the other end of the train before the train enters any relay tracks.

Any other concerns I’m missing?

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Even though the capacity for turning trains is greater for either pair of tracks—there are 4 storage tracks east that are directly accessible to the local tracks—the choke point is fumigation. We could also rewrite the laws and policies to remove the problem:

• If you stay on the train past revenue trackage, you lose the right to file a lawsuit against the city/state/MTA for problems directly stemming from your decision to stay on the train. (This will still not permit people to stay on trains that are being taken out of service, only the ones that are turning back.)
• A deputized employee or police officer accompanies any crew member that must walk the length of the train to switch ends.
• At busy terminals, the next train operator must be situated at the other end of the train before the train enters any relay tracks.

Any other concerns I’m missing?

• MTA personnel are permitted to remove people from the train with force (mainly talking about drunks here), and if you refuse to leave despite warnings, you lose the right to a lawsuit if you have to carried off by staff or the NYPD.

[kosciusko]

39 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

• MTA personnel are permitted to remove people from the train with force (mainly talking about drunks here), and if you refuse to leave despite warnings, you lose the right to a lawsuit if you have to carried off by staff or the NYPD.

Absolutely not, aside from the inevitable PR disaster, Train crews should never be permitted to ever use force, they are here to drive trains and only to drive trains. Here's why;

• Train crews are not trained in martial arts, and this could lead to a MTA crewmember being severely injured, or inadvertently causing severe injury to someone
• When everyone has the ability to record video whenever and wherever, it would be a nightmare for the agency's PR and public image (which it can barely maintain)

As @Trainmaster5 said, you can't go around beating people up nowadays (don't get me wrong, it wasn't anymore okay then). 

[Jsunflyguy]

3 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Absolutely not, aside from the inevitable PR disaster, Train crews should never be permitted to ever use force, they are here to drive trains and only to drive trains. Here's why;

• Train crews are not trained in martial arts, and this could lead to a MTA crewmember being severely injured, or inadvertently causing severe injury to someone
• When everyone has the ability to record video whenever and wherever, it would be a nightmare for the agency's PR and public image (which it can barely maintain)

As @Trainmaster5 said, you can't go around beating people up nowadays (don't get me wrong, it wasn't anymore okay then). 

Exactly, and not everyone is willing to go around beating the crap out of people as a regular part of work.

[CenSin]

3 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Absolutely not, aside from the inevitable PR disaster, Train crews should never be permitted to ever use force, they are here to drive trains and only to drive trains. Here's why;

• Train crews are not trained in martial arts, and this could lead to a MTA crewmember being severely injured, or inadvertently causing severe injury to someone
• When everyone has the ability to record video whenever and wherever, it would be a nightmare for the agency's PR and public image (which it can barely maintain)

As @Trainmaster5 said, you can't go around beating people up nowadays (don't get me wrong, it wasn't anymore okay then). 

Any problem with the NYPD doing the same? I mean, this is taking human rights a bit extreme. The MTA does reserve the right to eject anyone from the system for any reason. It’s a carte blanche for situations like this.

[R68OnBroadway]

3 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Exactly, and not everyone is willing to go around beating the crap out of people as a regular part of work.

By this, I don't mean "beat the crap out of someone". I'm referring here to picking someone up, not dragging them off or roughing them up.

[Jsunflyguy]

3 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

By this, I don't mean "beat the crap out of someone". I'm referring here to picking someone up, not dragging them off or roughing them up.

Because no one resists?  Its a very big risk to dump on Transit employees who will have no protection most of the time.

[R68OnBroadway]

1 minute ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Because no one resists?  Its a very big risk to dump on Transit employees who will have no protection most of the time.

If you don't want that then have NYPD stationed at major terminals. Trains shouldn't have to be backed up because some drunk or hardhead refuses to get off.

[kosciusko]

4 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

By this, I don't mean "beat the crap out of someone". I'm referring here to picking someone up, not dragging them off or roughing them up.

I don't think the average NYer is going to take kindly to being dragged off of a Subway car, especially the ones stubborn enough to stay on after asked kindly to leave. Situations involving physical contact can escalate very fast. Also from an operating standpoint, If a homeless drunk throws punches at a T/O or C/R and injures them, preventing them from doing their job, it's going to cause some serious delays.

11 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Any problem with the NYPD doing the same? I mean, this is taking human rights a bit extreme. The MTA does reserve the right to eject anyone from the system for any reason. It’s a carte blanche for situations like this.

I'm sensing a fundamental disagreement here, but I think human rights should absolutely be taken to the extreme. The NYPD, being the police, are the only people who should be permitted to use force. I get that from an operating standpoint people need to be removed from trains, but I think allowing train crews to use force is giving too much power to the average government employee and is an unnecessary infringement of our civil liberties.

 

something something don't tread on me etc 

[RR503]

We’re getting caught in the weeds here. Except during late nights (when trains run less frequently anyway) getting drunks/sleepers off trains really isn’t the big delay cause. It’s the time that it takes for the C/R to walk up and down the train checking to make sure no one is still onboard before going to relay. Having manpower waiting on the platform to assist with said task would be much more of an expedient manner in which this issue could be resolved (though I think some of those policy changes would be good to have as well). 

As for how said drunks should be removed, I’d concur with R68. Having NYPD personnel stationed at relay terminals would do the trick, as they have forcible enforcement powers without any complex policy/legal changes 

[Jchambers2120]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

We’re getting caught in the weeds here. Except during late nights (when trains run less frequently anyway) getting drunks/sleepers off trains really isn’t the big delay cause. It’s the time that it takes for the C/R to walk up and down the train checking to make sure no one is still onboard before going to relay. Having manpower waiting on the platform to assist with said task would be much more of an expedient manner in which this issue could be resolved (though I think some of those policy changes would be good to have as well). 

As for how said drunks should be removed, I’d concur with R68. Having NYPD personnel stationed at relay terminals would do the trick, as they have forcible enforcement powers without any complex policy/legal changes 

I agree with the first sentiment about having more workers to help fumigate the trains. At Utica avenue in the A division those platform conductors really do make a difference. They can clear out multiple terminating 4 trains before a single 3 arrives. Sometimes they'll even close the train down themselves so the conductor who just finished their run doesn't have to key themselves off.

In regards to the NYPD being placed at certain stations something like that would probably have to be brought up to thr mayor and the police department. I doubt they'd justify that use of manpower and resources though.

Veering off a little i have a question. I saw it was mentioned that extending the M & R past Continental wouldn't work because riders don't want locals and it would just bring the conga further east. Would extending select trains during rush hours like is done in the IRT be a viaboe option to help ease the congestion into Contentinetal? And then perhaps those trains could go to the yard or return back in service to Manhattan? Pardon my ignorance I'm not familiar wih the track layout in that area.

[RR503]

33 minutes ago, Jchambers2120 said:

Veering off a little i have a question. I saw it was mentioned that extending the M & R past Continental wouldn't work because riders don't want locals and it would just bring the conga further east. Would extending select trains during rush hours like is done in the IRT be a viaboe option to help ease the congestion into Contentinetal? And then perhaps those trains could go to the yard or return back in service to Manhattan? Pardon my ignorance I'm not familiar wih the track layout in that area.

You could do that. I’d just extend all of one of those services. 

If I could play god, I’d either reconfigure the yard leads under 75th, and build a normal turnback terminal where the relay tracks are today, or build a turnback terminal in Jamaica Yard for  and  trains. Would probably have to be built on the north side of the yard, as trains from FHills enter from the west leads, and you wouldn’t want them crossing over, and would therefore probably involve the taking of a sliver of parkland, but still would be a useful asset. It’d also bring transit service to a relatively unserved area, which’d be kinda nice. 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

Any problem with the NYPD doing the same? I mean, this is taking human rights a bit extreme. The MTA does reserve the right to eject anyone from the system for any reason. It’s a carte blanche for situations like this.

Eh, technically the MTA is a public facility, and as such we have very strict rules on the rights of citizens in public spaces. But don't ask me, ask the NYCLU.