Jump to content

NYCDOT: What if we saved the subway by getting folks to use the other trains we have here???


Deucey

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'd be more than happy to.  A lot of those peak trains are SRO.  I've said it several times and so has kosciuszko.  Why don't you guys understand that people have to go to work and many of them use MNRR to do so from the suburbs?

You asked me for specificity; I'm going to ask you for the same. Admittedly, I'm not a Hudson line expert, so tell me: which ones of those peak hour trains are too crowded to stop in the city? And for those that are, could that be fixed by adding cars to that train, or through minor schedule adjustments? For example - one of those peak-hour stops only at Croton and Ossining before going non-stop to GCT. Does this really need to be preserved?

All I propose is that the Hudson line run only two distinct service patterns, which could be easily emulated on other commuter rail lines:

  • Poughkeepsie - Grand Central express, making all stops to Croton, then Tarrytown, Yonkers, 125th, and Grand Central.
  • Croton-Harmon (Greystone) local making all stops to Grand Central. 

The net effect here is that all Hudson line stations would see an increase in frequency. For stops such as Greystone and Riverdale, that is about double the current frequency; for inner-city stops, the factor is even higher. Yes, average commute times for some stations would be a few minutes slower. I'd posit that the increase in frequency would make up for that, and, that the added stops wouldn't be a huge deal. The M7s have pretty good acceleration and braking, and for most of the line, the top speeds are quite high. Service patterns would be much more easily decipherable and predictable for all riders. Crowding would be more balanced, since all trains will serve all stations. I would think that this is a fair trade off for both suburban, outer-city, and inner-city riders.

7 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They should be better because of the high fares, but realistically the railroads need infrastructure improvements as well.  There is no reason why when I get off of MNRR in Grand Central, I should be dodging leaks with garbage pails everywhere because of deferred maintenance, but this is the situation at Grand Central.

I'm not disagreeing with you - but surely the situation could be mitigated by increasing MNRR's revenue by attracting riders within the city?

7 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The only different between MNRR and the subway is MNRR doesn't have any homeless people, there are quiet cars, and if you pick a particular train, you may have a seat to yourself.  For $9.25 versus $2.75, that isn't that big of a deal.  LIRR constantly has delays, and I know of some people that drive to the subway to avoid it, so if anything, packing people on the railroads to "relieve" the subways isn't exactly the answer. 

The presence of a seat and the lack of homeless people are the main concerns here? Provided the trains are frequent enough (and they can be), they shouldn't be too overcrowded - and GCT has decent passenger flow and platforms (especially compared to Penn), making it simple for longer-distance riders to go to the front, while city and inner-suburban riders go to the back.

And to the point about homeless people, I don't think that rationalizing fares on the railroads will cause an influx of homeless people, but, if anything, making commuter rail service more attractive can actually alleviate the housing problem within the city. It will become more plausible for people to live in more areas of the city, as more areas of the city will be connected to affordable transit. The supply of desirable housing, therefore, will be increased and more evenly distributed than it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

1. You asked me for specificity; I'm going to ask you for the same. Admittedly, I'm not a Hudson line expert, so tell me: which ones of those peak hour trains are too crowded to stop in the city? And for those that are, could that be fixed by adding cars to that train, or through minor schedule adjustments? For example - one of those peak-hour stops only at Croton and Ossining before going non-stop to GCT. Does this really need to be preserved?

All I propose is that the Hudson line run only two distinct service patterns, which could be easily emulated on other commuter rail lines:

  • Poughkeepsie - Grand Central express, making all stops to Croton, then Tarrytown, Yonkers, 125th, and Grand Central.
  • Croton-Harmon (Greystone) local making all stops to Grand Central. 

The net effect here is that all Hudson line stations would see an increase in frequency. For stops such as Greystone and Riverdale, that is about double the current frequency; for inner-city stops, the factor is even higher. Yes, average commute times for some stations would be a few minutes slower. I'd posit that the increase in frequency would make up for that, and, that the added stops wouldn't be a huge deal. The M7s have pretty good acceleration and braking, and for most of the line, the top speeds are quite high. Service patterns would be much more easily decipherable and predictable for all riders. Crowding would be more balanced, since all trains will serve all stations. I would think that this is a fair trade off for both suburban, outer-city, and inner-city riders.

I'm not disagreeing with you - but surely the situation could be mitigated by increasing MNRR's revenue by attracting riders within the city?

The presence of a seat and the lack of homeless people are the main concerns here? Provided the trains are frequent enough (and they can be), they shouldn't be too overcrowded - and GCT has decent passenger flow and platforms (especially compared to Penn), making it simple for longer-distance riders to go to the front, while city and inner-suburban riders go to the back.

And to the point about homeless people, I don't think that rationalizing fares on the railroads will cause an influx of homeless people, but, if anything, making commuter rail service more attractive can actually alleviate the housing problem within the city. It will become more plausible for people to live in more areas of the city, as more areas of the city will be connected to affordable transit. The supply of desirable housing, therefore, will be increased and more evenly distributed than it is today.

1.  Most of them are. People that get on at Poughkeepsie have long commutes as it is with some coming from further north to get those trains.  Those trains should not be serving the City just because.  Croton-Harmon is a major transit hub for the Hudson Line and sees good usage. Ossining serves a jail upstate so there are always people coming and going... Workers, people visiting loved ones etc. The whole point of commuter rail service is to be FAST.  You're asking these commuters who pay the most in fares to continue to do so and increase their commutes.  You have people commuting over two hours in some cases one way. I think you need to ride the line and use it to understand otherwise it's rather pointless having this discussion.  You're focusing on services for City residents when the main ridership comes from the suburbs, the Riverdale stops (particularly Spuyten Duyvil since it serves the densest parts of Riverdale) and Marble Hill. That's just the facts.  Now University Heights and Morris Heights see their riders, but not enough for any real major increase in service, and Marble Hill is a hub since the (1) train is right there. The Yankee Stadium stop sees some riders too, but mainly reverse peak and of course for Yankee games.

I don't agree with the set up you propose at all.  The express trains are there for a reason and they are used and crowded already.  You're proposing pissing off the main ridership to appease City riders who generally have more commuting options. When the Hudson Line goes down in the City, those in the City have the subway or express buses in some cases.  Those in the suburbs don't.

2. The presence of a seat and the homeless are not a concern.  Stop reading what you want to and read everything that I wrote. If you rode MNRR you'd understand, but you don't.  Your proposals are just as bad as people that look at maps without having ever been to a place before and then make all of these crazy suggestions.  

Your proposals are based on simply looking at a schedule and saying oh I see LOTS of express trains, and those trains MUST be empty so we can use those and have them make City stops.  How about you look at ridership stats for each station and ride the line?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

People that get on at Poughkeepsie have long commutes as it is with some coming from further north to get those trains.  Those trains should not be serving the City just because.  Croton-Harmon is a major transit hub for the Hudson Line and sees good usage. Ossining serves a jail upstate so there are always people coming and going... Workers, people visiting loved ones etc.

Again, I did not propose that Poughkeepsie trains serve the city. It's a more-than-long-enough ride already, and the diesel rolling stock isn't well suited to making close station stops anyway. If Ossining has high-enough ridership, the expresses can stop there as well. 

28 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The whole point of commuter rail service is to be FAST.

Making electric trains consistently local does not change the relative speed of commuter rail. The multiple units handle more akin to a subway train than a push-pull diesel, and are more than capable of fast service. And if express trains use the inner tracks of the Hudson line, you'd have a (possibly timed) cross-platform transfer from local to express at Ossining and Yonkers. Would greatly increased frequency and reliability (see below) not be worth a couple extra minutes of travel time?

28 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You're focusing on services for City residents when the main ridership comes from the suburbs Riverdale and Marble Hill. That's just the facts.  Now University Heights and Morris Heights see their riders but not enough for any real major increase in service, and Marble Hill is a hub since the (1) train is right there.

I'm not. Simplifying service into two patterns will increase the potential frequency for suburban stations which express trains pass by today, and will make service more reliable, as trains of different speeds will no longer have to share the same tracks north of Spuyten Duyvil. Penn Station Access could make this even simpler, if expresses were sent to Penn and locals to GCT. My point as it pertains to city stops, though, is that they should have higher ridership - ridership from people who would otherwise be packing into the subway. And the (1) and MNRR are apples and oranges; the whole point of this proposal is to give people in such areas an alternative form of rapid transit.

28 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The presence of a seat and the homeless are not a concern.

Then why'd you write it, and what did you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add on to what @officiallyliam said, if you're really worried about people from Croton having to make more than a few stops, there is a massive and very abandoned yard at Tarrytown that could be used for staging short turns, along with place at Greystone and Yonkers for creating pocket tracks to turn trains.

The entire Hudson line is a capacity playground. Why not have fun with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you axed skip-stops to increase frequencies on Bronx stations you would be doing it at the expense of the suburbanites who currently rely on the railroad on a day-to-day basis. It's about squeezing the max amount of people on a train, or whether or not these trains are empty. Metro North exists to provide commuter rail service for people living outside of NYC. That's what the schedules are designed for, that's what the stations are designed for, and that's what the equipment is designed for. Like I said, I'm all for lowering the in-city fare, but I think re-arranging the schedules and stopping patterns to serve what will always be a minority of the railroad's users is a poor decision which could have some real consequences (increased car traffic, more crowds on xpress busses, etc).

I can't speak for the Hudson line, but on the Harlem line, the Bronx stations (with the exception of Fordham, which is an express stop) are way too far and few between to be of any real benefit to people who live there. Tremont, Melrose, and Botanical are within walking distance to the (B)(D)(4), and Wakefield and Woodlawn are even closer to the (2)(5) stops. Additionally, the aforementioned stations can only hold 4 cars, and some can only hold two. They wouldn't be able to handle the crowds of a rapid transit service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, good luck getting this influx of people to stand in the aisles on the LIRR/MNRR.... The masses would end up hovering around the doors moreso than what's currently taking place on the subway.... Looking at it from another vantage point, you don't want to be the person that's seated somewhere in the middle of the train, needing to get off at the next station (that isn't Jamaica, Penn, or a terminal station in general) having to wait for a line of people standing in the aisle to clear out before you can leave whatever row of seating you occupied..... While I'm not going to tell anyone what to do w/ their money, I can't sit here & advocate any significant amt. of commuters shifting from the subway to the RR either.....

I don't care if they got Nowakowski or Eng in there as president - You think OTP is bad on the LIRR now.... LMFAO!

Have new trains. Eliminate the middle seats that no one uses anyway and add some poles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

If you axed skip-stops to increase frequencies on Bronx stations you would be doing it at the expense of the suburbanites who currently rely on the railroad on a day-to-day basis. It's about squeezing the max amount of people on a train, or whether or not these trains are empty. Metro North exists to provide commuter rail service for people living outside of NYC. That's what the schedules are designed for, that's what the stations are designed for, and that's what the equipment is designed for. Like I said, I'm all for lowering the in-city fare, but I think re-arranging the schedules and stopping patterns to serve what will always be a minority of the railroad's users is a poor decision which could have some real consequences (increased car traffic, more crowds on xpress busses, etc).

I can't speak for the Hudson line, but on the Harlem line, the Bronx stations (with the exception of Fordham, which is an express stop) are way too far and few between to be of any real benefit to people who live there. Tremont, Melrose, and Botanical are within walking distance to the (B)(D)(4), and Wakefield and Woodlawn are even closer to the (2)(5) stops. Additionally, the aforementioned stations can only hold 4 cars, and some can only hold two. They wouldn't be able to handle the crowds of a rapid transit service.

But that's the point: It's not just extra stops in the city but in the suburbs as well, which benefits not only suburb->city riders but also intra-suburban riders (For example, somebody going from Peekskill to Yonkers, or a prison guard working an odd shift at Sing Sing in Ossining). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kosciusko said:

I can't speak for the Hudson line, but on the Harlem line, the Bronx stations (with the exception of Fordham, which is an express stop) are way too far and few between to be of any real benefit to people who live there. Tremont, Melrose, and Botanical are within walking distance to the (B)(D)(4), and Wakefield and Woodlawn are even closer to the (2)(5) stops. Additionally, the aforementioned stations can only hold 4 cars, and some can only hold two. They wouldn't be able to handle the crowds of a rapid transit service.

How so? The closest parallel bus routes to the railroad, the Third Avenue Bx15 and Webster Avenue Bx41, are some of the busiest in the city. Melrose, Tremont, and Fordham are all in very dense areas; Botanical Garden, Williamsbridge, Woodlawn, and Wakefield less so, but the nearest subway rides to Manhattan are slow. And if people who live east of the railroad in the South Bronx and currently walk or take a bus to the subway could use the railroad instead, more room would be left on subway trains for people who live closer to those corridors (in the case of the Harlem line, Concourse and Jerome). Those in the North Bronx would no longer be stuck with the slow (2) or (5).

As for the station lengthening, that's why I said this:

On 4/12/2018 at 6:45 PM, officiallyliam said:

Consider station platform lengthening, infill stops, and added frequencies as a second phase of commuter rail improvements. The thing that makes railroad improvement an attractive way to ease pressure on the subway and increase transport options within the city is the fact that the first phase would cost next to nothing.

The first phase could solely consist of reorganizing stopping patterns so that commuter rail services actually stop in the city. I understand keeping the longer-distance services from Poughkeepsie, Wassaic, or Speonk as expresses, but the local electric trains (originating at, for example, North White Plains, Croton-Harmon, or Huntington) should make all the inner-city stops. Melrose and Tremont should no longer get 1 tph off-peak; the reason for this poor service isn't that there aren't more than 1 tph through that area, it's simply that most of those trains aren't stopping.

Yes, there are physical constraints with the Bronx Harlem line stations as they stand today - but that's not a dealbreaker to starting better commuter rail service in the city. Should the new services prove popular, there will be the need (and the will to provide money for) platform extensions at the Harlem and Hudson line stations. It will also likely spur funding for better infrastructure (such as track and signal improvements) which will benefit suburban riders as well as city riders. This could easily be a win-win for all current - and future - railroad users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

To add on to what @officiallyliam said, if you're really worried about people from Croton having to make more than a few stops, there is a massive and very abandoned yard at Tarrytown that could be used for staging short turns, along with place at Greystone and Yonkers for creating pocket tracks to turn trains.

The entire Hudson line is a capacity playground. Why not have fun with it?

Why don't we have fun with your commute instead?

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

How so? The closest parallel bus routes to the railroad, the Third Avenue Bx15 and Webster Avenue Bx41, are some of the busiest in the city. Melrose, Tremont, and Fordham are all in very dense areas; Botanical Garden, Williamsbridge, Woodlawn, and Wakefield less so, but the nearest subway rides to Manhattan are slow. And if people who live east of the railroad in the South Bronx and currently walk or take a bus to the subway could use the railroad instead, more room would be left on subway trains for people who live closer to those corridors (in the case of the Harlem line, Concourse and Jerome). Those in the North Bronx would no longer be stuck with the slow (2) or (5).

As for the station lengthening, that's why I said this:

Yes, there are physical constraints with the Bronx Harlem line stations as they stand today - but that's not a dealbreaker to starting better commuter rail service in the city. Should the new services prove popular, there will be the need (and the will to provide money for) platform extensions at the Harlem and Hudson line stations. It will also likely spur funding for better infrastructure (such as track and signal improvements) which will benefit suburban riders as well as city riders. This could easily be a win-win for all current - and future - railroad users.

Commuter rail service has already improved. What you're proposing isn't commuter rail service. You want an urban set up with trains running every few minutes like subways. If I wanted that I could live in Manhattan. I'm sure there would be pushback if the fares were lowered below the current proposals. I don't want to ride subways. I purposely live where I do because I like suburban living, without homeless people everywhere and other crazies and you're essentially trying to break up what is a civilized ride. 

Not everyone desires Manhattan (it's filthy and overrun with crazies and homeless people) and suburban living is fine. Cleaner and nicer. To each their own. Don't try to force your urban crap down our throats! Don't want it, don't need it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

How so? The closest parallel bus routes to the railroad, the Third Avenue Bx15 and Webster Avenue Bx41, are some of the busiest in the city. Melrose, Tremont, and Fordham are all in very dense areas; Botanical Garden, Williamsbridge, Woodlawn, and Wakefield less so, but the nearest subway rides to Manhattan are slow. And if people who live east of the railroad in the South Bronx and currently walk or take a bus to the subway could use the railroad instead, more room would be left on subway trains for people who live closer to those corridors (in the case of the Harlem line, Concourse and Jerome). Those in the North Bronx would no longer be stuck with the slow (2) or (5).

Again lowering fares to make the MNR more accessible to Bronx commuters is great, I think we should do that. Bronx commuters at Fordham can already take advantage of the existing frequent MNR service to GCT if plan they their commutes. 

Keep in mind that MNR only gets people to Grand Central, where they need to use the already overburdened (4)(5)(6)(S) to get to their final destination, and I'd be willing to bet that a non-insignificant amount of Bronx commuters are better off taking the (B)(D) or (2) to their jobs. Norwood to Bryant Park is only about 45 minutes with the (D) express.

Expanded MNR service isn't the way to irrigate the 3rd Ave. transit desert, what we need is an actual subway. If you're going to go through all the effort (and money) of lengthening the stations, therefore disrupting service on the Harlem and New Haven line, and buy the extra equipment needed to run rapid-transit style service, why not build a good SBS or even *gasp* an LRT? By having the 3rd Ave commuters pile onto the already crowded MNR trains you're not only screwing them out of the transit service they actually need, but you're also doing it at the expense of the millions of Metro North commuters who have no other option other than driving.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the commuter railroads should charge the current local bus/subway fare ($2.75 currently) within the same fare zone in city limits, and $5.50 for two zones with no peak differential. If the city is willing to subsidize this sufficiently, perhaps a free transfer to transit buses and subways could be arranged.

On Metro-North this can be done easily because the fare zone changes between Manhattan and the Bronx. LIRR's got a couple of quirks they should sort out. You don't want to charge $2.75 for someone to go from Penn to Willets Point (both Zone 1) and then charge $5.50 from Willets Point to Main Street (Zone 3)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, paulrivera said:

I think the commuter railroads should charge the current local bus/subway fare ($2.75 currently) within the same fare zone in city limits, and $5.50 for two zones with no peak differential. If the city is willing to subsidize this sufficiently, perhaps a free transfer to transit buses and subways could be arranged.

On Metro-North this can be done easily because the fare zone changes between Manhattan and the Bronx. LIRR's got a couple of quirks they should sort out. You don't want to charge $2.75 for someone to go from Penn to Willets Point (both Zone 1) and then charge $5.50 from Willets Point to Main Street (Zone 3)!

At a minimum the proposed $6.50 fare makes sense. Why should a faster ride be cheaper than the express bus?  That's like telling people that ride first class on planes that their fares should be the same as economy class. We have tiers for a reason...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Again lowering fares to make the MNR more accessible to Bronx commuters is great, I think we should do that. Bronx commuters at Fordham can already take advantage of the existing frequent MNR service to GCT if plan they their commutes. 

Keep in mind that MNR only gets people to Grand Central, where they need to use the already overburdened (4)(5)(6)(S) to get to their final destination, and I'd be willing to bet that a non-insignificant amount of Bronx commuters are better off taking the (B)(D) or (2) to their jobs. Norwood to Bryant Park is only about 45 minutes with the (D) express.

Expanded MNR service isn't the way to irrigate the 3rd Ave. transit desert, what we need is an actual subway. If you're going to go through all the effort (and money) of lengthening the stations, therefore disrupting service on the Harlem and New Haven line, and buy the extra equipment needed to run rapid-transit style service, why not build a good SBS or even *gasp* an LRT? By having the 3rd Ave commuters pile onto the already crowded MNR trains you're not only screwing them out of the transit service they actually need, but you're also doing it at the expense of the millions of Metro North commuters who have no other option other than driving.

 

This is something else that many are ignorant about. Lowering the fare to $2.75 would certainly require more service and longer platforms. There's no way around that. The other issue is reconfiguring the cars. Some Harlem Line trains see insane crowding as it is. I once could not get off at Woodlawn because people were standing in the aisle and there were so many people that they closed the doors before we could get off so I was stuck getting off at Fordham and having to change my commute entirely. MNRR runs trains that are 6-8 cars max and that usually means that the entire train cannot platform at numerous stations as you mentioned. In short, this would be an expensive endeavor and in some cases would just concentrate the crowding to other subway lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You want an urban set up with trains running every few minutes like subways.....

This is what's making this part of this discussion an agitating read AFAIC; attempting to urbanize the RR's (which is all it is) & passing it off as commuter service at the same time... Metro rail & Commuter rail are two different services.... If we're going to do the whole *that doesn't matter* bit, then let's start using freight rail for passenger service - f*** it, it's still a train all in the same..... Anyway, the whole thing with this is reminiscent of a few people on here & other transit forums/blogs in the past wanting to lower the express bus fare & having them run open door in/within the outerboroughs.... Both desperate attempts to try to have some significant amt. of people avert current problems on the opposing service types of those respective modes (subway service, local bus service).....

I just can't with this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What you're proposing isn't commuter rail service. You want an urban set up with trains running every few minutes like subways. If I wanted that I could live in Manhattan.

Is there a definition of "commuter rail service," other than a rail service for commuters? There's nothing that says that commuter rail service has to have a given frequency or service pattern. There are some commuter rail systems that run only a few times in the peak direction during rush hours; others run at 10-minute intervals (or less) throughout the day. Both are still equally commuter rail. The development of rail systems such as BART, WMATA, MARTA, the Paris RER, Crossrail further blur a useless distinction between urban and commuter train service.

And are you saying that there is no suburban demand for frequent, rapid-transit style rail service? In that case, why'd the MTA propose it on the LIRR as part of the 1968 Program for Action? Why have numerous cities around the world (London, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin) implemented (very popular) urban commuter rail programs? Why are other cities (London, Toronto, Montreal, Brussels) working on implementing new regional rail systems, or expanding existing ones? To the point of this thread, what are the disadvantages to frequent and consistent commuter service in the New York area?

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I like suburban living, without homeless people everywhere and other crazies and you're essentially trying to break up what is a civilized ride. 

I thought the homeless weren't a concern:

15 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The presence of a seat and the homeless are not a concern. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

This is what's making this part of this discussion an agitating read AFAIC; attempting to urbanize the RR's (which is all it is) & passing it off as commuter service at the same time... Metro rail & Commuter rail are two different services.... If we're going to do the whole *that doesn't matter* bit, then let's start using freight rail for passenger service - f*** it, it's still a train all in the same..... Anyway, the whole thing with this is reminiscent of a few people on here & other transit forums/blogs in the past wanting to lower the express bus fare & having them run open door in/within the outerboroughs.... Both desperate attempts to try to have some significant amt. of people avert current problems on the opposing service types of those respective modes (subway service, local bus service).....

I just can't with this....

Excellent point.  Amtrak just happens to run through the City.  We could have people from Albany and elsewhere make stops in the City.  Why not? it's just a few stops.... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

1. Is there a definition of "commuter rail service," other than a rail service for commuters? There's nothing that says that commuter rail service has to have a given frequency or service pattern. There are some commuter rail systems that run only a few times in the peak direction during rush hours; others run at 10-minute intervals (or less) throughout the day. Both are still equally commuter rail. The development of rail systems such as BART, WMATA, MARTA, the Paris RER, Crossrail further blur a useless distinction between urban and commuter train service.

2. And are you saying that there is no suburban demand for frequent, rapid-transit style rail service? In that case, why'd the MTA propose it on the LIRR as part of the 1968 Program for Action? Why have numerous cities around the world (London, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin) implemented (very popular) urban commuter rail programs? Why are other cities (London, Toronto, Montreal, Brussels) working on implementing new regional rail systems, or expanding existing ones? To the point of this thread, what are the disadvantages to frequent and consistent commuter service in the New York area?

3. I thought the homeless weren't a concern:

 

1.  There is... It's to move people from far suburban areas quickly. Since you asked for a definition of commuter rail service, here it is:

Commuter rail, also called suburban rail, is a passenger rail transport service that primarily operates between a city centre and middle to outer suburbs beyond 15 km (10 miles) and commuter towns or other locations that draw large numbers of commuters—people who travel on a daily basis. 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail 

It's called commuter rail service or suburban rail service for a reason, because its primary users are people who live in suburban areas or the suburbs.  For urban areas in the City you use the subways.  Both services are supposed to compliment one another, not one replacing another.

2. No, I'm saying that "frequent" for suburban areas and frequent for urban areas is a different concept since there's less density in suburban areas.  For me frequent for commuter service is every 15 minutes.  For urban users that may be every 3 - 5 minutes and it makes sense.  Completely different populations in terms of density.  People live in the suburbs and suburban areas to have a less crowded environment, that includes the commute.

3.  That's precisely the advantage of living in a suburban area... No homeless people, otherwise, I could just move to Manhattan, and take the subway.

 

15 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I'm not. Simplifying service into two patterns will increase the potential frequency for suburban stations which express trains pass by today, and will make service more reliable, as trains of different speeds will no longer have to share the same tracks north of Spuyten Duyvil. Penn Station Access could make this even simpler, if expresses were sent to Penn and locals to GCT. My point as it pertains to city stops, though, is that they should have higher ridership - ridership from people who would otherwise be packing into the subway. And the (1) and MNRR are apples and oranges; the whole point of this proposal is to give people in such areas an alternative form of rapid transit.

You're not giving them a form of rapid transit.  The subways in the City ARE supposed to be the form of rapid transit. The fact that we're looking to commuter rails to fill the void of horrendous subway service is a big problem.  All you're doing is trying to force another form of transit to take on the responsibility of the subway, thereby overburdening commuter rail service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's called commuter rail service or suburban rail service for a reason, because its primary users are people who live in suburban areas or the suburbs.  For urban areas in the City you use the subways.  Both services are supposed to compliment one another, not one replacing another.

The primary users of commuter rail trains will always be suburban users. That doesn't mean that commuter trains can't make stops in the city. The benefits go both ways: people can make easier intra-city journeys, and people from the suburbs have access to more of the city. Nobody is proposing that commuter rail service can replace the subway; that would never work. But complementing the subway means making stops either in areas where subway access isn't near (such as the Hudson or Harlem lines) or where subway services are overcrowded or slow (such as the LIRR Main line or the Port Washington branch). My desire to see railroad service work better for city residents - as well as those outside - does not supersede my desire to see the subway improve.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

2. No, I'm saying that "frequent" for suburban areas and frequent for urban areas is a different concept since there's less density in suburban areas.  For me frequent for commuter service is every 15 minutes.  For urban users that may be every 3 - 5 minutes and it makes sense.  Completely different populations in terms of density.  People live in the suburbs and suburban areas to have a less crowded environment, that includes the commute.

Service every 3-5 minutes on the commuter lines would be overkill, I agree (nor would it be possible). Peak service every 6-10 minutes, and off-peak service every 12-15 would suffice. Making commuter rail more frequent throughout the day would actually reduce crowding across the board - since anyone going to any station would able to use any train, as opposed to having ridership concentrated on certain services.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You're not giving them a form of rapid transit.  The subways in the City ARE supposed to be the form of rapid transit. The fact that we're looking to commuter rails to fill the void of horrendous subway service is a big problem.  All you're doing is trying to force another form of transit to take on the responsibility of the subway, thereby overburdening commuter rail service.

Running 12 tph during the rush - and 5 tph at other times, as I propose above - absolutely qualifies as rapid transit. This doesn't mean that the subways shouldn't be improved, or that I want the commuter rail to "become the subway." They'll still have different roles. The net effect: the subways will be less overburdened, and latent capacity on commuter rail services will be used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

1. The primary users of commuter rail trains will always be suburban users. That doesn't mean that commuter trains can't make stops in the city. The benefits go both ways: people can make easier intra-city journeys, and people from the suburbs have access to more of the city. Nobody is proposing that commuter rail service can replace the subway; that would never work. But complementing the subway means making stops either in areas where subway access isn't near (such as the Hudson or Harlem lines) or where subway services are overcrowded or slow (such as the LIRR Main line or the Port Washington branch). My desire to see railroad service work better for city residents - as well as those outside - does not supersede my desire to see the subway improve.

Service every 3-5 minutes on the commuter lines would be overkill, I agree (nor would it be possible). Peak service every 6-10 minutes, and off-peak service every 12-15 would suffice. Making commuter rail more frequent throughout the day would actually reduce crowding across the board - since anyone going to any station would able to use any train, as opposed to having ridership concentrated on certain services.

2. Running 12 tph during the rush - and 5 tph at other times, as I propose above - absolutely qualifies as rapid transit. This doesn't mean that the subways shouldn't be improved, or that I want the commuter rail to "become the subway." They'll still have different roles. The net effect: the subways will be less overburdened, and latent capacity on commuter rail services will be used. 

1. Not at $2.75 they won't and not with the frequencies that you're proposing.  Your proposal ignores suburban commuters and puts City riders first, not only in terms of cost, but in terms of suburban commuters being expected sacrifice by putting up with longer commutes with more with nothing to show for it.  Someone from Westchester or Long Island is supposed to put up with more stops for "increased service" but the increased service is really for City commuters...

2. That's what you think will happen, but why should I take the (4)(5)(6) at $2.75 to 125th and Lex. when they make more stops from Grand Central and are more delayed?  More people would take Metro-North instead, causing severe overcrowding.  Even with the high fares, more people already take Metro-North to 125th because of how poorly the Lexington Avenue line has become.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NY1635 said:

Will the city even commit to building an intermodal center at Flushing, Atlantic Terminal, Queens Village and Woodside for city residents who wish to use the LIRR?

I doubt it.  They yell about how they want more service for City residents to absolve themselves of giving more funding for the subways, but when it comes to them coughing up funding for it, that's another story.  This is what this is really about.  They've been re-zoning parts of the City like crazy thus exacerbating crowding where subway lines exist and not having developers pay their share to fund the system, so now they want to yell at MNRR and LIRR and say oh you have all of these trains running through the City and all of these empty seats that our residents could use, trying to paint the MNRR and LIRR as classist when they are simply meeting the needs of their primary customers. 

Something else that hasn't been addressed is that the cost isn't the only reason that a lot of the stations aren't well used. They're located out of the way and a pain to reach, so frequencies or not, you have to make a concerted effort to get to them.  Some of them are not served by any local buses, yet the City hasn't said squat about that.  All of this is supposed to be FREE... *Sarcasm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

At a minimum the proposed $6.50 fare makes sense. Why should a faster ride be cheaper than the express bus?  That's like telling people that ride first class on planes that their fares should be the same as economy class. We have tiers for a reason...

Even with a new fare structure there could be tiers in a sense if you turn the stops into "D-Stops" (drop-off only) on some of the trains. 125th Street and Fordham are good examples: If you board a train that's not drop-off only, you pay the city fare. If the train is drop off only and if you insist on boarding the train, you pay the fare from the previous boarding allowed station.

Being charged $22-plus the onboard penalty ($28!!!) on the inbound 8:03 Hudson Line train from 125th-GCT (it runs nonstop from BEACON) is a damn good deterrent to using a Metro-North service that's designed to bring in a suburban commuter to work in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

Even with a new fare structure there could be tiers in a sense if you turn the stops into "D-Stops" (drop-off only) on some of the trains. 125th Street and Fordham are good examples: If you board a train that's not drop-off only, you pay the city fare. If the train is drop off only and if you insist on boarding the train, you pay the fare from the previous boarding allowed station.

Being charged $22-plus the onboard penalty ($28!!!) on the inbound 8:03 Hudson Line train from 125th-GCT is a damn good deterrent to using a Metro-North service that's designed to bring in a suburban commuter to work in the city.

There would be too much confusion with that because the trains would be so frequent.  It's a little easier to figure out with fewer trains.  There has been plenty of times that I've taken Metro-North from 125th to Grand Central and plenty of others do as well because it's faster than the subway and I may buy a pay per ride Metrocard as opposed to my Metro-North monthly pass.  The arrival times are purposely not shown to deter people from riding them, but when I have a monthly from Riverdale to Grand Central, I am going to USE what I paid for, especially when the train gets me to Grand Central in 10 minutes versus 20 - 30 on the (4)(5)(6). I simply put on Metro-North Train Time which tells me exactly when each train is scheduled to arrive. They can only come in on two tracks and I figure out which one they come in on and then go to that track and wait. 

Even now though, between the express trains and the local trains, you have trains coming in so frequently at 125th especially that it can be tough at certain times to know what train is what until it actually arrives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Is there a definition of "commuter rail service," other than a rail service for commuters?

Yes there literally is.

Quote

Commuter rail, also called suburban rail, is a passenger rail transport service that primarily operates between a city centre and middle to outer suburbs beyond 15 km (10 miles) and commuter towns or other locations that draw large numbers of commuters—people who travel on a daily basis. Trains operate following a schedule at speeds varying from 50 to 200 km/h (30 to 125 mph). Distance charges or zone pricing may be used...

 

...Most commuter (or suburban) trains are built to main line rail standards, differing from light rail or rapid transit (metro rail) systems by:

being larger

providing more seating and less standing room, owing to the longer distances involved

having (in most cases) a lower frequency of service

having scheduled services (i.e. trains run at specific times rather than at specific intervals)

serving lower-density suburban areas, typically connecting suburbs to the city center

sharing track or right-of-way with intercity or freight trains

not fully grade separated (containing at-grade crossings with crossing gates)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like quoting all that has been said, so here we go. Those who are addressed will know who they are. 

Commuter rail is a construct like any other. It's a delineation borne out of tradition and nineteenth-century corporate boundaries, and one that has persevered to the twenty-first solely because no one has made an effort to change them. Almost exactly when the distinction between city and suburbs was blurring, the companies that ran 'commuter rail' were going bankrupt, and needed to be saved as fast as possible. This meant preserving existing management and operational structures, and instead focusing on the construction of a monetary raft to support threatened services. Since that era, we have been treated to just stagnation in roles. 'Commuter rail' still serves the 'suburbs,' while 'rapid transit' serves the city. 

What I'm getting at is this: these distinctions need not exist. Before I elaborate, let me make this abundantly clear, so a certain member doesn't conveniently miss what I'm saying and paint me as a Poughkeepsie-hater: suburban commuter services with all their trappings and comforts need to exist as they do now. There is simply no good reason for trains from relatively Poughkeepsie, or even Croton Harmon to make every stop within city limits, just as there is no reason for the (A) to make all stops on Fulton Street. The salient point here is that this infrastructure exists, and is well below its design capacity. The study whose announcement this discussion sprang from is meant to address just this question of how to bring latent capacity on heavy rail lines into use in our city's transportational scheme. This isn't just some excuse to pressure the MTA to lower city rail fares to $2.75, and then walk away. This is a full fledged examination of capital, operational, and managerial changes that could be made to the system to make it a viable mode of transport for New Yorkers. Its conclusions may include things like platform lengthening, car redesigns, resignalling, a new fare system, and so on. It may also include suggestions that would paradigmatically change the 'commuter rail experience' for those in NYC. The only reason we don't have a crossover commuter rail/rapid transit type system running in the inner ring suburbs/in the city is because of those silly distinctions. Yes, those further out should keep their experience given their commute lengths, but given that the density and track capacity exists in these inner areas to support such a service, there really is no reason we should not harness these corridors to take some strain off of our subways, buses, and streets.

Now, responding to this sort of proposal, there comes the very salient critique of the subway not being able to handle the overflow from these services. This I think is overblown. Let's look at GCT. As I mentioned before, a not-insignificant fraction of New York's jobs market is within walking distance of the terminal, creating a massive O&D market for the station itself. And while increased intra-city service would certainly cause additional people to make the MNR (4)(5)(6)(7)(S) switch at the station, I'd imagine that those who are considering the merits of commuter rail versus their existing, subway-based travel patterns would opt for continuing with the subway if taking the MNR would require them to make that transfer. Escaping the subway for only part of one's route, and then having to reenter it at its most unpleasant of points is not an advertisement for changing one's travel pattern. At other terminals, capacity exists, so this is less of a concern. 

I think its also worth keeping in mind the changes in travel patterns that have occurred over the past few decades. The commuter's world isn't just 'everywhere to Manhattan.' Given that many of our city's heavy rail routes link these potential outer-borough job hubs, I see a facilitation of their use going hand in hand with economic decentralization and a growth in non-conventional commuters. 

So hey, maybe I am a young, arrogant, map toting, ignorant little shit trying to change the time honored traditions of our venerated commuter railroads. But I think that someone needs to challenge these idiotic distinctions and categorizations we put on transit. In the end, our job is to bring the greatest good to the greatest number. Doing so sometimes requires us to get creative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.