City Never Sleeps, Yet Number of Trains at Off-Peak Hours Decline

[GojiMet86]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/nyregion/city-never-sleeps-yet-number-of-trains-at-off-peak-hours-decline.html

 

Quote

 

City Never Sleeps, Yet Number of Trains at Off-Peak Hours Decline

By SARAH MASLIN NIRMARCH 23, 2018

 

Carrying a wig in rollers in her purse, Ashley Callahan, who works as a theater wigmaker, stood aboard an N train on Friday, detailing her lopsided commute. During the morning rush, she heads from Upper Manhattan to the theater district with hordes of other commuters. But at night, when she stays past the curtain call to brush up an updo or rethread a toupee, she waits endlessly on a platform, craning her neck for trains that take forever to arrive.

Ms. Callahan is part of a growing army of riders who rely on the subway outside of typical commuting hours and who are poorly served by the system, according to a report by Scott M. Stringer, the New York City comptroller.

The report, released on Friday, found that though ridership in the early morning and late at night — fueled by a surge of tourists and employees working nontraditional hours — has risen significantly, the subway has not kept pace, with the number of trains actually decreasing during some off-peak hours.

“While we are all focused on massive overcrowding and train delays, those traveling early in the morning and late at night are being touched by this crisis in a different way,’’ Mr. Stringer said on Friday, during a news conference at a subway station in Union Square. “They are getting robbed of a huge amount of time, at work and with their families.”

The number of riders between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. increased by 14 percent from 2010 to 2016, but the number of trains running during those hours fell by 3 percent. Between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. during those years, ridership increased by 13 percent, while the number of trains running increased only 3 percent. On an average weekday, 577 trains are in service at 8 a.m., while less than half that number are in service at 5 a.m.

Many more riders are using the subway early and late as new types of jobs have emerged and grown. Nearly 60 percent of job growth in the city over the past decade has come in sectors where commutes are outside the usual 9-to-5 time frame, such as hospitality, retail, health care, food service and entertainment, according to data from the New York State Department of Labor. Today those industries make up about 40 percent of employment in the city’s private sector.

“What does rush hour even mean in our new economy?” Mr. Stringer said. He urged the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the subways, to use money meant for repairs after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo declared a state of emergency on the subway to identify ways to improve service at odd hours.

“If we take advantage of the crisis by rethinking how we run our subways and buses to become part of the 21st century economy, then we can move the ball forward,” Mr. Stringer said.

Andy Byford, president of New York City Transit, acknowledged that the subway has failed to keep pace with how people move. “We should be ahead of the curve in terms of providing public transit,” he said in an interview. “You shouldn’t be playing catch-up.”

Mr. Byford is conducting a route-by-route review of the city’s bus service with the aim of revamping routes. A similar analysis may have to take place to better deploy subway trains he said.

The caliber of subway service outside the main commuting period is also a matter of social equity, Mr. Stringer said. Workers who ride trains earlier tend to be less well off than those who commute later in the day, according to the comptroller’s report. Those who commute between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. earn about $7,000 less annually than people who head to work between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. according to the comptroller’s analysis of census data. They are also more likely to be minorities, immigrants and those without a college degree.

“New York City is filled with people who work nine to fives, but it is also filled with people who work in film, in television, in fashion,” Ms. Callahan said, shouldering her wig bag. “You shouldn’t be sitting on a platform waiting 30 or 40 minutes just trying to get home.”

Increasing the number of trains earlier or later is not only expensive but would also pose other challenges. Maintenance and repair work is conducted during off-peak hours, Mr. Byford said. With the subway repair plan calling for major work to tracks, signals and tunnels, those hours are when subway crews will be working for the foreseeable future.

“Off-peak customers are as important to me as my peak customers,” Mr. Byford said. “But there comes a point where you do have to make some use of time to undertake essential maintenance.”

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Mr. Byford has talked a good game so far, but there's been little from him in terms of action.  What we should be looking at here are long-term shutdowns instead of this piece meal crap.  The subways off-peak and weekends are abysmal, and I don't think the current setup is working that well.  It's just patchwork.  Peak periods are just as bad, so the idea of the "prioritizing" any riders is a farce.  Everyone is getting the bad end of the deal here.

[N6 Limited]

Not only do you wait a while for the train, once you get on it crawls due to speed restrictions and gets held at, and inbetween stations.

[kosciusko]

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

it crawls due to speed restrictions and gets held at, and inbetween stations.

It depends on whether or not work is being done on that line honestly. If there is no work being done I find that on average the trains run far better during off hours.

[CenSin]

16 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

It depends on whether or not work is being done on that line honestly. If there is no work being done I find that on average the trains run far better during off hours.

• Rush hour’s problem is the crawl due to congestion. There are more trains than the MTA can competently run.
• Off-peak’s problem is the crawl due to maintenance work, low frequency, and the resulting necessity of holding trains for a long time for connections.

[kosciusko]

34 minutes ago, CenSin said:

• Rush hour’s problem is the crawl due to congestion. There are more trains than the MTA can competently run.
• Off-peak’s problem is the crawl due to maintenance work, low frequency, and the resulting necessity of holding trains for a long time for connections.

Screwed either way I guess lol.

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Mr. Byford has talked a good game so far, but there's been little from him in terms of action.  What we should be looking at here are long-term shutdowns instead of this piece meal crap.  The subways off-peak and weekends are abysmal, and I don't think the current setup is working that well.  It's just patchwork.  Peak periods are just as bad, so the idea of the "prioritizing" any riders is a farce.  Everyone is getting the bad end of the deal here.

While I agree with your point, they did just announce that the Hammels Wye work is becoming a two phase full time shutdown this summer to get it done faster. It's a start...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

19 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

While I agree with your point, they did just announce that the Hammels Wye work is becoming a two phase full time shutdown this summer to get it done faster. It's a start...

And it also helps to know that the situation doesn't change each week. Shut it down for whatever the time is. Work is done faster and you get more done. I honestly don't know how they get anything done doing station "upgrades" every other week. By the time the work is done the station looks like crap all over again.

[N6 Limited]

15 hours ago, CenSin said:

• Rush hour’s problem is the crawl due to congestion. There are more trains than the MTA can competently run.
• Off-peak’s problem is the crawl due to maintenance work, low frequency, and the resulting necessity of holding trains for a long time for connections.

 

14 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Screwed either way I guess lol.

Can the conductors/towers use the countdown clocks to be more considerate/logical for these things?  For example, On Saturday, I was on an uptown  train pulling into 7th Ave / 53rd Street while an uptown  train was leaving. They couldn't hold the  train for an additional 15-30 seconds for connections when the next  train was almost 15 mins away? 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

52 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

 

Can the conductors/towers use the countdown clocks to be more considerate/logical for these things?  For example, On Saturday, I was on an uptown  train pulling into 7th Ave / 53rd Street while an uptown  train was leaving. They couldn't hold the  train for an additional 15-30 seconds for connections when the next  train was almost 15 mins away? 

Sometimes they hold the trains when there's back-to-back arrivals. In other cases, if the train is already behind schedule or is on time, holding that train will likely means that it leaves late.  15-30 seconds is much longer with people running and knocking other people over to get the train as if another one will never come.  The waits are long I agree, but I don't always agree with holding trains.  

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The waits are long I agree, but I don't always agree with holding trains.  

If the train is already platformed and the conductor is opening up, there’s no reason for the other train to leave unless it’s already extremely late (and probably has no standing room).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, CenSin said:

If the train is already platformed and the conductor is opening up, there’s no reason for the other train to leave unless it’s already extremely late (and probably has no standing room).

I think if the line has high frequencies it's ok.  On the  I've seen some trains wait and others pull in unload/load and get the hell out before the express train can open its doors, and quite frankly in those instances I get it.  So many people transferring and before you know it the train is slammed.  On lines with poor frequencies like the  it's tough.  The  is generally always crowded, so waiting may not necessarily be a good thing if the train is already packed to the rafters. It's rare that I get a  that isn't unless they come back-to-back or you have the  trains actually running properly to take off the load (the is always hit or miss).  This would be less of an issue if certain lines had more frequent service.  

[Coney Island Av]

I normally take the , and the waits are generally short. Frequencies are normally 4-6 minutes apart. 

When I take the , I only transfer at 59 St for the  only if either arrive at the same time. But yeah, I've had instances where I'd miss a couple of trains. 

The , on the other hand, while it does run at 12 TPH rush hrs, its frequencies are abysmal off-peak. One countdown clock even stated that one  train was 20 minutes away, and this was midday-rush hr.  

[N6 Limited]

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Sometimes they hold the trains when there's back-to-back arrivals. In other cases, if the train is already behind schedule or is on time, holding that train will likely means that it leaves late.  15-30 seconds is much longer with people running and knocking other people over to get the train as if another one will never come.  The waits are long I agree, but I don't always agree with holding trains.  

 

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

If the train is already platformed and the conductor is opening up, there’s no reason for the other train to leave unless it’s already extremely late (and probably has no standing room).

 

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think if the line has high frequencies it's ok.  On the  I've seen some trains wait and others pull in unload/load and get the hell out before the express train can open its doors, and quite frankly in those instances I get it.  So many people transferring and before you know it the train is slammed.  On lines with poor frequencies like the  it's tough.  The  is generally always crowded, so waiting may not necessarily be a good thing if the train is already packed to the rafters. It's rare that I get a  that isn't unless they come back-to-back or you have the  trains actually running properly to take off the load (the is always hit or miss).  This would be less of an issue if certain lines had more frequent service.  

In this particular case the  that was leaving was pretty light (empty seats, etc), but the next one that came was SRO (of course it was, after a 15 min gap).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

 

 

In this particular case the  that was leaving was pretty light (empty seats, etc), but the next one that came was SRO (of course it was, after a 15 min gap).

The runs very eractic. The real issue in my mind is trains arriving late at all hours. Then they scramble to try to get the train on-time. 

[Deucey]

I just wish they still had late night expresses in Manhattan.  and  really don't count unless you're going to Harlem on the West Side.

[biGC323232]

20 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I just wish they still had late night expresses in Manhattan.  and  really don't count unless you're going to Harlem on the West Side.

I say leave the  express and have the  run local to south ferry or have the  every tens mins late night to meet demands with the up rise in midtown ridership...Thats just me 

[Deucey]

3 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I say leave the  express and have the  run local to south ferry or have the  every tens mins late night to meet demands with the up rise in midtown ridership...Thats just me 

I'm of the mind to have  run express to Bowling Green. I also think an  express between Schermerhorn and Euclid wouldn't be a bad thing - since folks really wanting uptown express can grab  at West 4th or 59th - and since always ran local overnight. But I'd forgo late night expresses if the headways were better than 16-20 minutes  overnight.

[CenSin]

54 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I just wish they still had late night expresses in Manhattan.  and  really don't count unless you're going to Harlem on the West Side.

Express service in the central business district is only practical when the frequency of local service isn’t cut drastically by it. The was switched to local late nights because it made sense. As someone who used to move around the city at night, it was pretty annoying to have to wait 20 minutes for another if I just missed one just to see a nearly-empty train fly by on the express track. That service pattern essentially cut service by 50%. It might make more sense outside the central business district, however, to have express service to avoid burdening the people who live at the extreme limits of the city.

• Central Park West ( remains express for the Bronx riders)
• Lexington Avenue ( becomes express between 125 Street and Grand Central–42 Street also for the Bronx riders)
• Broadway ( remains local since it’s more useful to have a connection at 59 Street–Columbus Circle than to run express between Times Square–42 Street and 96 Street)
• Queens Boulevard ( remains express between 21 Street–Queens and Forest Hills–71 Avenue for the Jamaica riders)
• Eastern Parkway ( becomes express between Borough Hall and Franklin Avenue)

Other outer-borough expresses introduce complications to operations or station accessibility:

• The should be 4 Avenue express, because it would have to merge with the anyway—once at DeKalb Avenue and again at 36 Street to provide additional local service at 45 Street and 53 Street.
• The cannot be 4 Avenue express, because it would have to skip DeKalb Avenue, cutting off late-night 6 Avenue service to the station.
• The cannot be express because that would entail running the at night which has nowhere to terminate railroad north but 145 Street—nearly its entire daytime run.

[biGC323232]

17 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Express service in the central business district is only practical when the frequency of local service isn’t cut drastically by it. The was switched to local late nights because it made sense. As someone who used to move around the city at night, it was pretty annoying to have to wait 20 minutes for another if I just missed one just to see a nearly-empty train fly by on the express track. That service pattern essentially cut service by 50%. It might make more sense outside the central business district, however, to have express service to avoid burdening the people who live at the extreme limits of the city.

• Central Park West ( remains express for the Bronx riders)
• Lexington Avenue ( becomes express between 125 Street and Grand Central–42 Street also for the Bronx riders)
• Broadway ( remains local since it’s more useful to have a connection at 59 Street–Columbus Circle than to run express between Times Square–42 Street and 96 Street)
• Queens Boulevard ( remains express between 21 Street–Queens and Forest Hills–71 Avenue for the Jamaica riders)

Other outer-borough expresses introduce complications to operations or station accessibility:

• The should be 4 Avenue express, because it would have to merge with the anyway—once at DeKalb Avenue and again at 36 Street to provide additional local service at 45 Street and 53 Street.
• The cannot be 4 Avenue express, because it would have to skip DeKalb Avenue, cutting off late-night 6 Avenue service to the station.
• The cannot be express because that would entail running the at night which has nowhere to terminate railroad north but 145 Street—nearly its entire daytime run.
• The cannot be 4 Avenue express

Why cant the  stay 4 av exp...You do have the   there...And can the  switch over at atlantic to serve dekalb??

[CenSin]

13 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Why cant the  stay 4 av exp...You do have the   there...And can the  switch over at atlantic to serve dekalb??

Then it would merge with the and anyway. At that point, there is no reason to run it express. Conversely, you would merge an express with the , , and just to serve DeKalb Avenue?

[biGC323232]

7 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Then it would merge with the and anyway. At that point, there is no reason to run it express. Conversely, you would merge an express with the , , and just to serve DeKalb Avenue?

It does all that anyway....What i was saying was have it express the way it is now just merge with the   after atlantic....4av between 36 and atlantic really needs 3 services...

[Lance]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

I just wish they still had late night expresses in Manhattan.  and  really don't count unless you're going to Harlem on the West Side.

To add on to @CenSin's earlier posts, riders wanted more local service during the late nights. Prior to 1999 when the  ran express and the terminated at 125 Street, service along both IRT branches were scheduled at 20 minute intervals overall with only the and  locals.  Riders would rather have local-only service over long waits for the one local while express service flies by, which is why the was the latest conversion a couple of years ago. The only way you'll justify the restoration of late night express service along the Manhattan branches (6th Avenue notwithstanding) is by adding more service to the lines. Sticking with the numbered lines, that would mean extending the  and  from their present terminals, which I cannot see as a justifiable expense.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I find Byford's response to add more late night service troubling. It's expensive. Well if more people need the service, frequencies should be increased. This whole forcing riders into cars or cabs started when they curtailed various services. In 2010, it was excusable due to financial constraints. With the City doing extremely well financially and people working at odd hours, it's not okay to keep running the same service from years ago with a train added here and there. Not only that, but our population has grown by over 500,000 people. 

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Express service in the central business district is only practical when the frequency of local service isn’t cut drastically by it. The was switched to local late nights because it made sense. As someone who used to move around the city at night, it was pretty annoying to have to wait 20 minutes for another if I just missed one just to see a nearly-empty train fly by on the express track. That service pattern essentially cut service by 50%. It might make more sense outside the central business district, however, to have express service to avoid burdening the people who live at the extreme limits of the city.

• Central Park West ( remains express for the Bronx riders)
• Lexington Avenue ( becomes express between 125 Street and Grand Central–42 Street also for the Bronx riders)
• Broadway ( remains local since it’s more useful to have a connection at 59 Street–Columbus Circle than to run express between Times Square–42 Street and 96 Street)
• Queens Boulevard ( remains express between 21 Street–Queens and Forest Hills–71 Avenue for the Jamaica riders)
• Eastern Parkway ( becomes express between Borough Hall and Franklin Avenue)

Other outer-borough expresses introduce complications to operations or station accessibility:

• The should be 4 Avenue express, because it would have to merge with the anyway—once at DeKalb Avenue and again at 36 Street to provide additional local service at 45 Street and 53 Street.
• The cannot be 4 Avenue express, because it would have to skip DeKalb Avenue, cutting off late-night 6 Avenue service to the station.
• The cannot be express because that would entail running the at night which has nowhere to terminate railroad north but 145 Street—nearly its entire daytime run.

Having done more than my share of drinking on East 4th whilst living on Staten Island, the problem is still the same when it comes to  - unless you JUST missed the , you're still waiting close to 20 minutes for the train because for some reason - scheduling, delays or morale issues - shows up immediately after , or immediately after . 

Maybe the logic behind that is if trains are likely to be SRO, run another train for piggyback relief, but I still question if that's a reasonable policy versus scheduling and forcing trains to show up every 10 minutes during interlining when individual services are scheduled for 20 minute intervals...