Jump to content

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


Deucey

Recommended Posts

On April 13, 2018 at 1:55 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Little vent, but on a lot of commuter rail lines in general, the rush hour stopping patterns are confusing as anything. For example, on the Harlem Line, even on the Wassaic Express trains, there's no set stopping pattern between Southeast and 125th. The first train of the day makes all stops to Goldens Bridge, then White Plains, then 125th. The next train runs express from Southeast to Katonah, then local stops to Chappaqua, then express to White Plains, then 125th. The next train runs local to Brewster, then stops at Goldens Bridge, then White Plains.

It would be easier for passengers to understand if, for example the Wassaic trains all ran local to Brewster, then stopped at Mount Kisco and White Plains, then the Southeast trains ran all local to White Plains, then the NWP trains ran local to Crestwood, and then the Crestwood trains ran local the rest of the way. It also makes it easier for intra-suburban travelers. 

When I asked about that (especially on the LIRR side of things) the explanation I received was that individual train would be filled up by that station and then would go express into the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

When I asked about that (especially on the LIRR side of things) the explanation I received was that individual train would be filled up by that station and then would go express into the city.

That's precisely why it makes no sense for some trains to make additional stops. They would be too crowded for anyone to board anyway.  Yes, there are some seats on some trains, but part of that is also due to the layout of the trains and the lack of leg room, not because so many seats are actually usable.  You can't have two people sitting in front of each other in many cases, so that means seats go empty while people stand.  That's not my idea of having so many seats available.  The New Haven trains are better configured in that regard, but the Hudson and Harlem line trains are not.  I think there are only a handful of trains during peak hours with seats available and some capacity on some off-peak trains. As it is I've been asking for another train after that 19:59 train from Grand Central, because the 20:37 train is always packed.  

What people don't realize is our subways are so atrocious that people ARE paying the higher fare for Metro-North for stops that they could take the subway for and that is not a good thing either.  If you want to get to certain areas of the Bronx on-time, Metro-North is really your only option, as the subways are delayed, overcrowded and a mess.  

The Harlem Line is the big heavy hitter, and most of those trains are packed with no seats available and standing room room only. The Hudson Line has some seats on some trains, but even on that line during rush hour, most trains are SRO, so the idea that there's so much room available on those trains is a bit of a misnomer.  There are definitely trains that I avoid in the AM and PM because I ALWAYS have to stand while paying almost $9.25 one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

When I asked about that (especially on the LIRR side of things) the explanation I received was that individual train would be filled up by that station and then would go express into the city.

This is especially true for the Harlem line Bronx stations, where the platforms can only accommodate a maximum of 2-4 cars 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

This is especially true for the Harlem line Bronx stations, where the platforms can only accommodate a maximum of 2-4 cars 

At the same time, stations like Fordham are always busy and people are in and out like a subway station. The (MTA) needs to be precise about stating where these empty seats are located.  It's fine to say that they have empty seats, but how many of them can people physically sit in?  During peak hours, I can think of maybe one train with capacity going towards Grand Central on the Hudson Line, and of course there is capacity towards Croton Harmon. The Harlem Line both ways sees good usage, so there are some seats but not that many, and weekends, with all of the Botanical Garden crowds on those local trains, good luck packing more people on those trains.  They are often SRO and dangerously crowded at times, especially as the weather becomes warmer, save later on in the evening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Not a commuter, but frequent Harlem-Line user here. 

While I do support lowering the fare to 2.75 for in-city trips, Increasing MNR service in the Bronx to match that of a rapid transit poses a number of problems. First off, axing skip stop service makes no sense from an operational standpoint, there are enough people to fill the express trains. Forcing those trains to dredge through the Bronx and packing in even tighter with passengers is pretty nonsensical. Secondly, increasing the conga-line at GCT. As it stands now, there is usually a (short) queue for inbound trains waiting to receive a platform, I fear that increasing Bronx service would exacerbate this problem, and would lead to longer queues, not a huge problem I know but still something that should be considered. Lastly, crowding on the (4)(5)(6). As it stands right now the Lex can't handle the amount of passengers from MNR, there's almost always a line to get down onto the platforms during rush-hour. It's already overcrowded and unsafe, and with the additional 3000~ riders would just add to the delays. We would need PSDs at the very least.

The conga line you see at GCT isn't related to terminal capacity. It has to do with the time it takes for dispatchers to settle on a lineup for a train. For whatever reason, they don't seem to be at all good at preassigning/prealigning there. Remember that GCT once handled a much larger commuter network and long distance trains with few delays. This is obviously something that could be fixed.

As for crowding, that really depends. Yes, some trains are full, and I wholly agree those should be kept express, but many of those locals from Croton have space available, and would have even more if they ran longer trains. A few thousand commuters from the Bx won't hurt anyone. And anyway, service increases are always an option, especially on the Hudson line which is practically drowning in underused infrastructure. 

6 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

When I asked about that (especially on the LIRR side of things) the explanation I received was that individual train would be filled up by that station and then would go express into the city.

Classic LIRR obfuscation. That's hogwash. See pages 38 and onwards here. The RR's riders just have seizures when their train makes more than 3 stops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

As for crowding, that really depends. Yes, some trains are full, and I wholly agree those should be kept express, but many of those locals from Croton have space available, and would have even more if they ran longer trains. A few thousand commuters from the Bx won't hurt anyone. And anyway, service increases are always an option, especially on the Hudson line which is practically drowning in underused infrastructure.  

Okay, so then as I said, the City will have to spend some money to provide the service. I just wish people would stop with the BS claiming that it won't cost anything. It will.  Half of the people commenting don't even use MNRR regularly anyway to make such statements. 

I'm also curious as to which "locals" from Croton Harmon have so much space.  Off-peak during the week, there are only two trains that make stops in the City from Croton-Harmon per hour. One is a semi-express after Riverdale and the other makes all stops.  The ones that makes all stops tend to be crowded.  The semi-express trains get their loads as well, so there aren't all of these trains running to afford all of this capacity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Okay, so then as I said, the City will have to spend some money to provide the service. I just wish people would stop with the BS claiming that it won't cost anything. It will.  Half of the people commenting don't even use MNRR regularly anyway to make such statements. 

I'm also curious as to which "locals" from Croton Harmon have so much space.  Off-peak during the week, there are only two trains from Croton-Harmon per hour. One is a semi-express after Riverdale and the other makes all stops.  The ones that makes all stops tend to be crowded.  The semi-express trains get their loads as well, so there aren't all of these trains running to afford all of this capacity. 

It won't cost money is a relative statement. It's very possible that after filling whatever empty seats there are with paying customers we have enough $$$ to cover service increases, but yes, you're right that it's not so simple (at least on the MNR side where capacity is a bit more constricted -- LIRR we have oodles of space to frolic in). This is simple transport economics. 

I was not referring to off-peak, I'm taking peak. And FWIW, I think Bx riders will tolerate crowds given the short duration of their journeys and the speed commuter rail provides. I'm sure you disagree, but just sayin, anything's better than the (4)(5).

I think we need to define our terms here. There's a study in progress of ways the city could facilitate commuter rail usage within the city, whose conclusions, implications on fares, service levels etc are unknown and therefore moot. There's also an MTA-led effort to reduce fares on commuter rail that will go into effect on the Atlantic Branch/in SE Queens shortly, whose terms have been defined and numbers fleshed out. Are we trying to speculate on the conclusions and implications of the former, or discuss the effects of the latter? Don't mean to be *that* guy, just think it's a question worth asking.

19 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Lastly, crowding on the (4)(5)(6). As it stands right now the Lex can't handle the amount of passengers from MNR, there's almost always a line to get down onto the platforms during rush-hour. It's already overcrowded and unsafe, and with the additional 3000~ riders would just add to the delays. We would need PSDs at the very least.

2

I'd imagine (though I can't be sure) that most people who'd be choosing MNR over subway here are those who can walk from commuter rail stations to their jobs. Otherwise, why pay potentially more fare for an unnecessary xfer? 100-150k jobs are within walking distance of the terminal; I don't think those can be discounted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I'd imagine (though I can't be sure) that most people who'd be choosing MNR over subway here are those who can walk from commuter rail stations to their jobs. Otherwise, why pay potentially more fare for an unnecessary xfer? 100-150k jobs are within walking distance of the terminal; I don't think those can be discounted. 

It's quite necessary if they want to keep their sanity and avoid the numerous delays plaguing the system. I have an unlimited Metrocard and started buying LIRR tickets, because the QBL is horrible. Now, I'd much rather transfer to the Subway at Penn Station (or Atlantic Terminal depending on the destination) , than to take the bus to the QBL and be irritated and delayed. Freedom Ticket can't come soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

It won't cost money is a relative statement. It's very possible that after filling whatever empty seats there are with paying customers we have enough $$$ to cover service increases, but yes, you're right that it's not so simple (at least on the MNR side where capacity is a bit more constricted -- LIRR we have oodles of space to frolic in). This is simple transport economics. 

I was not referring to off-peak, I'm taking peak. And FWIW, I think Bx riders will tolerate crowds given the short duration of their journeys and the speed commuter rail provides. I'm sure you disagree, but just sayin, anything's better than the (4)(5).

I think we need to define our terms here. There's a study in progress of ways the city could facilitate commuter rail usage within the city, whose conclusions, implications on fares, service levels etc are unknown and therefore moot. There's also an MTA-led effort to reduce fares on commuter rail that will go into effect on the Atlantic Branch/in SE Queens shortly, whose terms have been defined and numbers fleshed out. Are we trying to speculate on the conclusions and implications of the former, or discuss the effects of the latter? Don't mean to be *that* guy, just think it's a question worth asking.

I'm speaking as someone who is a regular user of the Hudson Line and has been for years (and I've also used the Harlem line for trips in the South and North Bronx and in Westchester for business, so I'm quite familiar with both branches and to some extent the New Haven line - I'll likely be using that regular again in the near future for trips in Westchester), so I know the schedule and usage very well.  Additionally, I've been following the (MTA) study about the Liberty Ticket in Southeast Queens. 

If we're talking about a fare of $6.50, I think that would be something that the (MTA) could absorb without having to add much if any service. However, if we're talking about lowering the fare to $2.75, that is something that is very different and would require investment in terms of monies from the City and infrastructure changes. I see the crowding on a lot of these trains even with the current fares, and I know for a fact that yes, there are seats that are empty, but as I said before how many of those seats can actually be used? The configuration of the seats on MNRR trains make it nearly impossible to fill every seat even if the (MTA) wanted to because of leg room issues, so yes, often times we have standees on trains, yet we have "empty seats".  Metro-North has experienced record ridership for the last several years, so while the LIRR may have lots of empty seats that can be physically filled, I don't buy MNRR having so many empty seats, save a few trains here and there.  It should also be noted that MNRR has expanded service not just to Riverdale, but to several areas of the City over the years in an effort to provide more service and increase ridership, so the notion that people from the suburbs don't want City riders on their trains isn't necessarily true in all cases, and having rode the express trains from Westchester, there is no way that trains starting in Poughkeepsie should be stopping in the Bronx because those trains are crowded before they reach anywhere near Yonkers in some cases. 

Have a look at the Hudson line schedule and tell me where there are so many trains skipping the City that shouldn't be both peak and off-peak.  As it stands off-peak there are two trains serving the City in some capacity per hour and one that skips and that one starts in Poughkeepsie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The conga line you see at GCT isn't related to terminal capacity. It has to do with the time it takes for dispatchers to settle on a lineup for a train. For whatever reason, they don't seem to be at all good at preassigning/prealigning there. Remember that GCT once handled a much larger commuter network and long distance trains with few delays. This is obviously something that could be fixed.

As for crowding, that really depends. Yes, some trains are full, and I wholly agree those should be kept express, but many of those locals from Croton have space available, and would have even more if they ran longer trains. A few thousand commuters from the Bx won't hurt anyone. And anyway, service increases are always an option, especially on the Hudson line which is practically drowning in underused infrastructure. 

Thanks for clearing up the GCT conga-line, I wasn't aware that it was an operations issue.

Crowding, is another story. You can't pack people into MNR trains like you can on Subway trains, keep in mind that the m7s and m3s are 85' long with only two doors, and the crew needs to be able to move freely and unimpeded throughout the train in order to collect fares. The cars aren't designed to be able to handle large volumes of people that you would see on a rapid transit service. Especially at stations like Tremont and Melrose where only two cars can fit into the station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kosciusko said:

Thanks for clearing up the GCT conga-line, I wasn't aware that it was an operations issue.

Crowding, is another story. You can't pack people into MNR trains like you can into Subway trains, keep in mind that the m7s and m3s are 80' long with only two doors, and the crew needs to be able to move freely and unimpeded throughout the train in order to collect fares. The cars aren't designed to be able to handle large volumes of people that you would see on a rapid transit service. Especially at stations like Tremont and Melrose where only two cars can fit into the station.

There's a lot of ignorance floating around in this forum and it's irritating. What's especially annoying is this idea that we can pack people onto commuter rails AND spend monies and invest in such a thing, but we can't take monies and invest in the crumbling subway system.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There's a lot of ignorance floating around in this forum and it's irritating. What's especially annoying is this idea that we can pack people onto commuter rails AND spend monies and invest in such a thing, but we can't take monies and invest in the crumbling subway system.  

We need to do both. Have a world-class regional rail system and subway system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

We need to do both. Have a world-class regional rail system and subway system.

I don't agree with that.  There are parts of this city that were meant to be suburban and the integrity of those neighborhoods should remain as is.  If we built subways in them, they would be entirely different neighborhoods than we know them today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm speaking as someone who is a regular user of the Hudson Line and has been for years (and I've also used the Harlem line for trips in the South and North Bronx and in Westchester for business, so I'm quite familiar with both branches and to some extent the New Haven line - I'll likely be using that regular again in the near future for trips in Westchester), so I know the schedule and usage very well.  Additionally, I've been following the (MTA) study about the Liberty Ticket in Southeast Queens. 

If we're talking about a fare of $6.50, I think that would be something that the (MTA) could absorb without having to add much if any service. However, if we're talking about lowering the fare to $2.75, that is something that is very different and would require investment in terms of monies from the City and infrastructure changes. I see the crowding on a lot of these trains even with the current fares, and I know for a fact that yes, there are seats that are empty, but as I said before how many of those seats can actually be used? The configuration of the seats on MNRR trains make it nearly impossible to fill every seat even if the (MTA) wanted to because of leg room issues, so yes, often times we have standees on trains, yet we have "empty seats".  Metro-North has experienced record ridership for the last several years, so while the LIRR may have lots of empty seats that can be physically filled, I don't buy MNRR having so many empty seats, save a few trains here and there.  It should also be noted that MNRR has expanded service not just to Riverdale, but to several areas of the City over the years in an effort to provide more service and increase ridership, so the notion that people from the suburbs don't want City riders on their trains isn't necessarily true in all cases, and having rode the express trains from Westchester, there is no way that trains starting in Poughkeepsie should be stopping in the Bronx because those trains are crowded before they reach anywhere near Yonkers in some cases. 

Have a look at the Hudson line schedule and tell me where there are so many trains skipping the City that shouldn't be both peak and off-peak.  As it stands off-peak there are two trains serving the City in some capacity per hour and one that skips and that one starts in Poughkeepsie.

I honestly don't understand the vitrol in this post and others. I'm agreeing with you. The $6.50 can be absorbed (I can attest to that firsthand), and the $2.75 no one knows shit about, hence the study. If the city wants it and it costs money, they can pay for it -- that's the way it has always been with city led transit initiatives (see (7) to HY). 

11 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Thanks for clearing up the GCT conga-line, I wasn't aware that it was an operations issue.

Crowding, is another story. You can't pack people into MNR trains like you can on Subway trains, keep in mind that the m7s and m3s are 85' long with only two doors, and the crew needs to be able to move freely and unimpeded throughout the train in order to collect fares. The cars aren't designed to be able to handle large volumes of people that you would see on a rapid transit service. Especially at stations like Tremont and Melrose where only two cars can fit into the station.

To be clear, I was not suggesting you do that. I'm saying that they'd be more willing to tolerate the legroom issues that VG8 mentioned, along with standing in vestibules from time to time.

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There's a lot of ignorance floating around in this forum and it's irritating. What's especially annoying is this idea that we can pack people onto commuter rails AND spend monies and invest in such a thing, but we can't take monies and invest in the crumbling subway system.  

We need both. Now. I hate to sound like one of those college advertisement letters, but it's all about the and. 

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't agree with that.  There are parts of this city that were meant to be suburban and the integrity of those neighborhoods should remain as is.  If we built subways in them, they would be entirely different neighborhoods than we know them today.  

No neighborhood was 'meant' to be anything. Zoning/transit policy made them that way, and should have the power to change them if need be. The city needs more housing, and it's exactly this sort of pandering about 'neighborhood character' that is preventing us from getting there. We should be doing what CA is doing, and allow states to override local zoning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I honestly don't understand the vitrol in this post and others. I'm agreeing with you. The $6.50 can be absorbed (I can attest to that firsthand), and the $2.75 no one knows shit about, hence the study. If the city wants it and it costs money, they can pay for it -- that's the way it has always been with city led transit initiatives (see (7) to HY). 

To be clear, I was not suggesting you do that. I'm saying that they'd be more willing to tolerate the legroom issues that VG8 mentioned, along with standing in vestibules from time to time.

We need both. Now. I hate to sound like one of those college advertisement letters, but it's all about the and. 

No neighborhood was 'meant' to be anything. Zoning/transit policy made them that way, and should have the power to change them if need be. The city needs more housing, and it's exactly this sort of pandering about 'neighborhood character' that is preventing us from getting there. We should be doing what CA is doing, and allow states to override local zoning. 

Areas like Riverdale are protected by law as a Special Natural Area District, affording the area's trees, steep slopes, and other natural features extra zoning protection.  The City should not have the right to come in and destroy that and build whatever just because they want to claim that there's a housing shortage.  There are plenty of empty lots where housing can be built... Plenty... The problem is the City has been re-zoning industrial areas for years (we can look at the (L) train as a primary example) and they've been in bed with developers who have built and built and haven't been required to contribute economically to provide funding for more transit, so it's the City that has gotten us into this mess.  

Even now, with de Blasio's "affordable housing" scheme, he's hell bent on re-zoning neighborhoods with more housing but there's no investment in transportation, so he wants to build more housing near already overcrowded subway lines, then yell that the State needs to pony up more monies for transportation, but it's the City that is exacerbating the problem.  We don't have a housing crisis. We have an affordability crisis which the City has contributed to due to how little market rate housing exists in this city, and what does exists is overpriced as a result.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, RR503 said:

To be clear, I was not suggesting you do that. I'm saying that they'd be more willing to tolerate the legroom issues that VG8 mentioned, along with standing in vestibules from time to time.

I think you're getting hung up on the legroom detail, legroom isn't the problem. The problem is that the MNR trains are already full. The vestibules by the doors are already packed pretty tight during peak hours, and even on some off peak trains there are people who have to stand. I've even seen people squatting in the aisles on some rush hour trains (generally the conductors don't allow that but some do). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I think you're getting hung up on the legroom detail, legroom isn't the problem. The problem is that the MNR trains are already full. The vestibules by the doors are already packed pretty tight during peak hours, and even on some off peak trains there are people who have to stand. I've even seen people squatting in the aisles on some rush hour trains (generally the conductors don't allow that but some do). 

I keep saying this. It's like we're talking to a wall.  Just because the (MTA) says there are empty seats doesn't mean squat.  They should do a breakdown of how many seats per train are available if they can be physically sat in. If they can't then it's pointless.  There are some seats that I and many other people can't sit in because there is simply no leg room to do so.  You'd have to be a midget to sit in them.  I'm sure they still count those as empty seats though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Areas like Riverdale are protected by law as a Special Natural Area District, affording the area's trees, steep slopes, and other natural features extra zoning protection.  The City should not have the right to come in and destroy that and build whatever just because they want to claim that there's a housing shortage.  There are plenty of empty lots where housing can be built... Plenty... The problem is the City has been re-zoning industrial areas for years (we can look at the (L) train as a primary example) and they've been in bed with developers who have built and built and haven't been required to contribute economically to provide funding for more transit, so it's the City that has gotten us into this mess.  

Even now, with de Blasio's "affordable housing" scheme, he's hell bent on re-zoning neighborhoods with more housing but there's no investment in transportation, so he wants to build more housing near already overcrowded subway lines, then yell that the State needs to pony up more monies for transportation, but it's the City that is exacerbating the problem.  We don't have a housing crisis. We have an affordability crisis which the City has contributed to due to how little market rate housing exists in this city, and what does exists is overpriced as a result.  

Speaking of talking to a wall, this. Maybe some thinking is too much to ask, but literally what I was saying is that city housing policy isn’t the way it should be. Now, we differ on solutions, and I think that’s important. You’re all for preserving neighborhood character etc. I say screw that. If it isn’t landmarked or geologically unsustainable, build — and I agree, make the developers pay for the infrastructure. Maybe consider that you aren’t being victimized all the time — it’d make discussions where people agree with you easier. 

59 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I think you're getting hung up on the legroom detail, legroom isn't the problem. The problem is that the MNR trains are already full. The vestibules by the doors are already packed pretty tight during peak hours, and even on some off peak trains there are people who have to stand. I've even seen people squatting in the aisles on some rush hour trains (generally the conductors don't allow that but some do). 

Alright, maybe I am. And yes, I do not know as much about MNR as I do about LIRR, so I’ll defer to you about actual vs reported crowding. I wish I could show the internal numbers so we could compare, but rules are rules. I’m not on this forum to flex my connections.

Regardless of the situation on select MNR trains, the point remains that commuter rail in NYC is an untapped asset. It services many markets that the subway doesn’t in ways that other modes don’t. Today, tens of thousands of seats on the LIRR alone go unfilled. Make those price competitive, and the MTA gains money, and riders gain an alternative. In situations like the Harlem line, yes, some service increases may be required to capture that value, but given the MTA’s mandate to provide a public benefit, I see these less as terrifying budget addendums and more as the cost of progress. Who will pay? Who knows. But someone must, or we’re missing an opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

When I asked about that (especially on the LIRR side of things) the explanation I received was that individual train would be filled up by that station and then would go express into the city.

Even if that was the case, that could be fixed by adjusting the frequencies and exact stopping patterns of each service pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Thanks for clearing up the GCT conga-line, I wasn't aware that it was an operations issue.

Crowding, is another story. You can't pack people into MNR trains like you can on Subway trains, keep in mind that the m7s and m3s are 85' long with only two doors, and the crew needs to be able to move freely and unimpeded throughout the train in order to collect fares. The cars aren't designed to be able to handle large volumes of people that you would see on a rapid transit service. Especially at stations like Tremont and Melrose where only two cars can fit into the station.

Realistically speaking, you could solve a lot of the problem by eliminating the awkward third seat. No one enjoys sitting in them and very rarely are they full, and eliminating it would give you space for two people and a third to squeeze by in the aisle, with appropriate handholds. The main issue I would foresee is not actually the aisles, but the doors; if this were to be as busy as a rapid transit service it takes far too long for someone from the center of a car to get out. BART recently moved to three-car doors for this reason.

Keep in mind that most developed countries that run regional/commuter rail services, do not actually use conductors that must validate every riders' ride. Instead, they use a more SBS style of operation where fares are spot-checked and violators are fined. Depending on how high the fare is you don't need all that many inspectors to make it not worth the while, which keeps costs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There is no way that trains starting in Poughkeepsie should be stopping in the Bronx because those trains are crowded before they reach anywhere near Yonkers in some cases. 

Please read posts fully before deriding the ignorance of those on these forums. One of the first things which I stated about this proposal was that I understand the longer-distance trains from places such as Poughkeepsie or Port Jefferson should stay as expresses. See below:

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

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.

At least if you're going to claim that nobody else know what they're talking about, do yourself a favor and read what they've said first.

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Realistically speaking, you could solve a lot of the problem by eliminating the awkward third seat. No one enjoys sitting in them and very rarely are they full, and eliminating it would give you space for two people and a third to squeeze by in the aisle, with appropriate handholds.

Dare I suggest that MNRR or LIRR could install some longitudinal seating in the area between the doors and the end of the cars? This would create a higher-capacity area on each train without taking away too many seats, and its position near the doors would mean that it wouldn't take people forever to leave the train from there. 

14 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Have a look at the Hudson line schedule and tell me where there are so many trains skipping the City that shouldn't be both peak and off-peak.  As it stands off-peak there are two trains serving the City in some capacity per hour and one that skips and that one starts in Poughkeepsie.

Sure. Maybe you can shed some light on how packed these trains are; all of these run express through the city during weekdays.

During rush hour, inbound, trains 710, 714, 716, 718, 720, 722, 426, 730, 434, 734, and 742 all start at Croton-Harmon or south, and make sizable express runs to Grand Central. Some make two or three stops only before going straight to GCT. How necessary, really, is that? Is there really no wasted capacity here?

Off-peak, Grand Central-bound trains 744, 746, 748, 752, 756, 760, 764, and 768 also start at Croton and skip city stops. These trains, too, are overcrowded to the point of not being able to pick up city passengers? Having these stop would double service to city stations - giving them near-rapid transit level frequencies - and would use up capacity that I would surmise is currently being thrown away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

1. Please read posts fully before deriding the ignorance of those on these forums. One of the first things which I stated about this proposal was that I understand the longer-distance trains from places such as Poughkeepsie or Port Jefferson should stay as expresses. See below:

At least if you're going to claim that nobody else know what they're talking about, do yourself a favor and read what they've said first.

2. Sure. Maybe you can shed some light on how packed these trains are; all of these run express through the city during weekdays.

During rush hour, inbound, trains 710, 714, 716, 718, 720, 722, 426, 730, 434, 734, and 742 all start at Croton-Harmon or south, and make sizable express runs to Grand Central. Some make two or three stops only before going straight to GCT. How necessary, really, is that? Is there really no wasted capacity here?

Off-peak, Grand Central-bound trains 744, 746, 748, 752, 756, 760, 764, and 768 also start at Croton and skip city stops. These trains, too, are overcrowded to the point of not being able to pick up city passengers? Having these stop would double service to city stations - giving them near-rapid transit level frequencies - and would use up capacity that I would surmise is currently being thrown away.

1. I said some not all.  If it doesn't apply to you, then you shouldn't be upset...

2. 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?  The railroad has experienced record ridership now for some time, and they haven't been adding that many trains. They've already started expanding service to some City stops to encourage more ridership, but there aren't that many trains to begin with, so at some point, you have to add more service.  This schedule really hasn't changed much in the years that I've been using it, so there isn't all of these empty trains floating around.  Now the off-peak semi-express trains that stop at Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil... Those trains have some empty seats, but big deal... It's off-peak.  The trains aren't exactly empty either.  Those that can already ride off-peak to get the cheaper fares, both riders in the City and those in the suburbs.  The issue in my mind is the operating costs which both bob and I have spoken about.  That's why the fares are so high in the first place.  Furthermore, MNRR tends to be more reliable than the subway because it doesn't have the same amount of congestion, but even so there are still delays and in fact of late, more of them, so this idea that things are so much better on the railroads is complete BS. 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. The entire system (LIRR, MNRR and the subways) needs serious infrastructure improvements.  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. 

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.