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

[itmaybeokay]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

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.

b-b-b-but I want my first class seat from riverdaaaaaaale! I don't want to sit with the poooooor! (flails plutocratically)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

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  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  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. 

The only problem with your comments are some of them are flat out wrong. Bus ridership has been declining for YEARS and continues to so what "strain on buses" are you referring to?

[kosciusko]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

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. 

The categorizations of "commuter rail" and "rapid transit" are idiotic to you? I don't follow. These are distinct and separate systems which provide different services. Turning MNR into a Subway-Commuter rail chimera isn't the way to bring transit to the Bronx. We should be investing money in giving these commuters the services that they need, not just pushing them onto MNR.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The only problem with your comments are some of them are flat out wrong. Bus ridership has been declining for YEARS and continues to so what "strain on buses" are you referring to?

If there is no strain on the buses, why are you literally always complaining about crowding on them? Please make a cogent, facts based, specific counterargument, or for once in your life, at least consider you may be wrong.  

1 hour ago, kosciusko said:

The categorizations of "commuter rail" and "rapid transit" are idiotic to you? I don't follow. These are distinct and separate systems which provide different services. Turning MNR into a Subway-Commuter rail chimera isn't the way to bring transit to the Bronx. We should be investing money in giving these commuters the services that they need, not just pushing them onto MNR.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear about this. I'm not advocating for the dissolution of commuter rail-style service. I think suburban folks deserve comfortable, expedient means of accessing the region's core. What I'm objecting to is the insistence that the infrastructure that those trains use cannot also be used for a regional rail, RER type service serving inner ring suburbs/city folks.

I absolutely agree that we should be making subway capacity investments. But I also think given the existence of this capacity, and the relative cost-effectiveness and expediency of implementing this sort of thing, it should be done too. Money doesn't grown on trees, and regional rail investments are a great way to get good dollar value. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

If there is no strain on the buses, why are you literally always complaining about crowding on them? Please make a cogent, facts based, specific counterargument, or for once in your life, at least consider you may be wrong.  

Because of something called bus bunching, MIA buses and unreliability in general.  If you actually used buses you would know this and you know that bus ridership has been declining every single year now for several years in a row.  I would have more respect for some of the comments in here if they were pulled out of folks' @ss.  That strain on buses is one of them.  Run buses on time and there won't be any strain.

[RR503]

31 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Because of something called bus bunching, MIA buses and unreliability in general.  If you actually used buses you would know this and you know that bus ridership has been declining every single year now for several years in a row.  I would have more respect for some of the comments in here if they were pulled out of folks' @ss.  That strain on buses is one of them.  Run buses on time and there won't be any strain.

Wow. Insightful observation, VG8. A perfectly operated system works well. Fields medal for you. FWIW I ride the buses too. In fact, I'm paid by the agency those bloody buses.

While I appreciate the image of the entire New York commuter rail system being pulled out of someone's behind, your attitude here is about equivalent to that of an insecure adolescent jock losing an argument. You refuse to do anything but find the most peripheral details and puff them up like MTA construction costs, making minutiae of questionable importance into the centerpiece of rudderless discussions while degrading the level of discussion with almost comical levels of ad hominem. 

So I ask again. Do you have any cogent, comprehensive counterargument to present? 

[officiallyliam]

32 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Because of something called bus bunching, MIA buses and unreliability in general.  If you actually used buses you would know this and you know that bus ridership has been declining every single year now for several years in a row.  I would have more respect for some of the comments in here if they were pulled out of folks' @ss.  That strain on buses is one of them.  Run buses on time and there won't be any strain.

I also ride buses. They are strained.

Yes, bus ridership across the board has been in decline. But my route - the B38 - is still busy as ever. And yes, if service ran better, crowding would be better, but it wouldn't change the demand for buses on the corridor. This isn't the only route where buses are strained, because demand has exceeded the capacity of a standard bus service, without bus lanes or fast boarding. The same can be said for other extremely busy routes - Bx12, M15, B46, B35. Even if the buses ran to time 100% of the time, the service would still be strained; the people who need the service aren't going anywhere. If anything, better service will entice even more people to buses.

Not directly on topic to this thread, but let's be real - the bus and subway systems are strained with current demand. The only transit system in the city that isn't struggling tremendously to cope with current ridership is the commuter rail system.

[P3F]

6 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

The only transit system in the city that isn't struggling tremendously to cope with current ridership is the commuter rail system.

That doesn't mean you have to go and drag it down.

[NY1635]

12 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Not directly on topic to this thread, but let's be real - the bus and subway systems are strained with current demand. The only transit system in the city that isn't struggling tremendously to cope with current ridership is the commuter rail system.

 

That's simply untrue. The LIRR has the worst on-time performance in decades, ESA is way behind schedule, and many commuters are getting fed up with being left stranded at Penn, Mineola, and Hicksville because of delays or cancellations on their branch. It's just that what happens on Long Island stays in News12 or Newsday.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Wow. Insightful observation, VG8. A perfectly operated system works well. Fields medal for you. FWIW I ride the buses too. In fact, I'm paid by the agency those bloody buses.

While I appreciate the image of the entire New York commuter rail system being pulled out of someone's behind, your attitude here is about equivalent to that of an insecure adolescent jock losing an argument. You refuse to do anything but find the most peripheral details and puff them up like MTA construction costs, making minutiae of questionable importance into the centerpiece of rudderless discussions while degrading the level of discussion with almost comical levels of ad hominem. 

So I ask again. Do you have any cogent, comprehensive counterargument to present? 

My response has been quite realistic. I've asked about funding given the agency's funding issues. You act as if these things don't cost anything. They do. If the agency can't pay for it, then it's irrelevant and as it stands Freedom Ticket is severely delayed in parte due to cost concerns, so you can keep telling lies about how buses are strained when ridership continues to decline and I'll focus on reality.

 

23 minutes ago, NY1635 said:

That's simply untrue. The LIRR has the worst on-time performance in decades, ESA is way behind schedule, and many commuters are getting fed up with being left stranded at Penn, Mineola, and Hicksville because of delays or cancellations on their branch. It's just that what happens on Long Island stays in News12 or Newsday.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Wow. Insightful observation, VG8. A perfectly operated system works well. Fields medal for you. FWIW I ride the buses too. In fact, I'm paid by the agency those bloody buses.

While I appreciate the image of the entire New York commuter rail system being pulled out of someone's behind, your attitude here is about equivalent to that of an insecure adolescent jock losing an argument. You refuse to do anything but find the most peripheral details and puff them up like MTA construction costs, making minutiae of questionable importance into the centerpiece of rudderless discussions while degrading the level of discussion with almost comical levels of ad hominem. 

So I ask again. Do you have any cogent, comprehensive counterargument to present? 

 

[RR503]

35 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

My response has been quite realistic. I've asked about funding given the agency's funding issues. You act as if these things don't cost anything. They do. If the agency can't pay for it, then it's irrelevant and as it stands Freedom Ticket is severely delayed in parte due to cost concerns, so you can keep telling lies about how buses are strained when ridership continues to decline and I'll focus on reality.

Where did I ever suggest these commuter rail reimagining programs would cost nothing? Do not put words into my mouth. They definitely will, and I'd imagine that the study will come up with some way of funding them (TIF, some new tax, repurposing some funds, etc).

Maybe I was too delicate about this earlier, but here goes. I work closely with those involved in creating Freedom Ticket. Unless I've really missed something, it is not being delayed due to cost concerns. It is being delayed because bureaucracies are slow, and the LIRR is the slowest of them all. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Where did I ever suggest these commuter rail reimagining programs would cost nothing? Do not put words into my mouth. They definitely will, and I'd imagine that the study will come up with some way of funding them (TIF, some new tax, repurposing some funds, etc).

Maybe I was too delicate about this earlier, but here goes. I work closely with those involved in creating Freedom Ticket. Unless I've really missed something, it is not being delayed due to cost concerns. It is being delayed because bureaucracies are slow, and the LIRR is the slowest of them all. 

Really... Then why are they now trying to step back from the original plan? It's been documented in articles posted on this very forum that they have concerns about the cost of the program... The City has been very vocal about how the fares should be lowered for all of the reasons you mentioned, but they have not been all that vocal about funding it. By the way this Freedom Ticket Program is only supposed to be a pilot and they can't even roll that out. The program is several months behind schedule and here we are talking about how they can run a program at $2.75... It's a joke. In my mind the math doesn't add up one bit. So how do you make this program palatable so that the agency isn't hemorrhaging money? 

You've been up voting official liam the entire time and he's adamant about how the changes he's proposing won't cost anything. In my mind this is all talk unless it can actually be put into place. Between the costs, and pushback from the unions, I don't see it working. We're looking at fare increases for 2019 and the unions keep yelling that they aren't getting paid enough, so we're introducing a program that lowers fares at a time when the agency is starving for funding. 

At the speed that this agency is moving, even if such a program is implemented it may not matter the way Uber and Lyft are stealing riders.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Really... Then why are they now trying to step back from the original plan? It's been documented in articles posted on this very forum that they have concerns about the cost of the program... The City has been very vocal about how the fares should be lowered for all of the reasons you mentioned, but they have not been all that vocal about funding it. By the way this Freedom Ticket Program is only supposed to be a pilot and they can't even roll that out. The program is several months behind schedule and here we are talking about how they can run a program at $2.75... It's a joke. In my mind the math doesn't add up one bit. So how do you make this program palatable so that the agency isn't hemorrhaging money? 

You've been up voting official liam the entire time and he's adamant about how the changes he's proposing won't cost anything. In my mind this is all talk unless it can actually be put into place. Between the costs, and pushback from the unions, I don't see it working. We're looking at fare increases for 2019 and the unions keep yelling that they aren't getting paid enough, so we're introducing a program that lowers fares at a time when the agency is starving for funding. 

At the speed that this agency is moving, even if such a program is implemented it may not matter the way Uber and Lyft are stealing riders.

The pilot is being changed/pushed back for a variety of reasons, none of which are funding. It was originally supposed to start last year, but then the whole Penn Station trackwork thing happened, diverting attention away from it. They now are attempting to start i this year, but without Penn in the plan, so that when the next round of trackwork comes, there won't be an onrush of new commuters trying to use the station. 

I have been upvoting officiallyliam this entire time because I agree with his general argument. Sure, I may differ with him about funding, but I'm with him about pretty much everything else, and he's a damn good debater to boot. I also think again that we can't speak in absolutes about funding yet. We have no idea what they're going to propose. 

[officiallyliam]

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You've been up voting official liam the entire time and he's adamant about how the changes he's proposing won't cost anything.

I never said this could be done for free. The reason I want the city fare to be so low - $2.75 - is because I want the city to step up in funding this. I don’t think anyone other than the City of New York should subsidize lower fares and improvements to city railroad stations. If the city can find the money to extend the  line to Hudson Yards in anticipation of demand, then they can pony up for making commuter rail accessible for city riders. 

Obviously, this needs to be subsidized; I'm not asking suburbanites to pay for improvements to infrastructure in the city. I just think that integrating the commuter rail system is a better use of city money than a lot of the city's recent transportation efforts - NYC Ferry, BQX, etc.

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

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....

Commuter rail & metro rail are actual rail services just like regional rail is.... How is it that you're dismissing the former of the two as idiotic constructs, but somehow regional rail falls through the cracks?

By the logic conveyed in this diatribe of yours regarding constructs, the distinction of "regional rail" shouldn't exist either..... The fact that regional rail is more expansive/widespread than suburban rail & metro (urban) rail doesn't make it any less of a construct.....

9 hours ago, kosciusko said:

The categorizations of "commuter rail" and "rapid transit" are idiotic to you? I don't follow. These are distinct and separate systems which provide different services. Turning MNR into a Subway-Commuter rail chimera isn't the way to bring transit to the Bronx. We should be investing money in giving these commuters the services that they need, not just pushing them onto MNR.

An illusion of inclusion.... I don't even see it as killing two birds with one stone (so to speak).....

9 hours ago, RR503 said:

Sorry if my post wasn't clear about this. I'm not advocating for the dissolution of commuter rail-style service. I think suburban folks deserve comfortable, expedient means of accessing the region's core. What I'm objecting to is the insistence that the infrastructure that those trains use cannot also be used for a regional rail, RER type service serving inner ring suburbs/city folks.

I absolutely agree that we should be making subway capacity investments. But I also think given the existence of this capacity, and the relative cost-effectiveness and expediency of implementing this sort of thing, it should be done too. Money doesn't grown on trees, and regional rail investments are a great way to get good dollar value. 

Nah, I don't get the sense that you want to do away w/ the subway.... The issue I have here (as it pertains to the city's sudden push for subway riders to use the RR's), is the fact that regional rail is even being brought up..... You & anyone else can advocate for it, sure, but has much of squat to do with the MTA getting their shit straight with the subway....

I'm all for creativity, but passing the buck, ehh. - that's what's being done here with this latest outcry by the TA..... Any progressive ideas & implementations of addressing whatever existing holes there are regionally via a regional rail system, I see as a completely separate issue....

8 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I also ride buses. They are strained.

Yes, bus ridership across the board has been in decline. But my route - the B38 - is still busy as ever. And yes, if service ran better, crowding would be better, but it wouldn't change the demand for buses on the corridor. This isn't the only route where buses are strained, because demand has exceeded the capacity of a standard bus service, without bus lanes or fast boarding. The same can be said for other extremely busy routes - Bx12, M15, B46, B35. Even if the buses ran to time 100% of the time, the service would still be strained; the people who need the service aren't going anywhere. If anything, better service will entice even more people to buses.

Not directly on topic to this thread, but let's be real - the bus and subway systems are strained with current demand. The only transit system in the city that isn't struggling tremendously to cope with current ridership is the commuter rail system.

I hope you're not being disinformative here under the guise of being real..... Now I'm not one of these "not all" police, so I don't mind speaking in generalities.... However, if we're going to do that, you can't pinpoint the highest utilized bus routes in the city & conclude that the bus system is being strained with current demand....

As it is, the only transit system in the city that is struggling to cope with current demand is the subway..... Generally speaking, the buses & the RR's city-wide/region-wide are not strained with current demand.... The buses are being overburdened/strained (and hampered) with the increasing amt. of traffic on the roads.... The RR's are being strained by an ever increasing amt. of delays (as was previously stated) - in other words, current service..... I no longer take the LIRR because of it.

 

21 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Really... Then why are they now trying to step back from the original plan? It's been documented in articles posted on this very forum that they have concerns about the cost of the program... The City has been very vocal about how the fares should be lowered for all of the reasons you mentioned, but they have not been all that vocal about funding it. By the way this Freedom Ticket Program is only supposed to be a pilot and they can't even roll that out. The program is several months behind schedule and here we are talking about how they can run a program at $2.75... It's a joke. In my mind the math doesn't add up one bit. So how do you make this program palatable so that the agency isn't hemorrhaging money? 

You've been up voting official liam the entire time and he's adamant about how the changes he's proposing won't cost anything. In my mind this is all talk unless it can actually be put into place. Between the costs, and pushback from the unions, I don't see it working. We're looking at fare increases for 2019 and the unions keep yelling that they aren't getting paid enough, so we're introducing a program that lowers fares at a time when the agency is starving for funding. 

At the speed that this agency is moving, even if such a program is implemented it may not matter the way Uber and Lyft are stealing riders.

It is one thing for us end-users to be doing all this talking, it is quite another when the powers that be, and/or those that have the wherewithal to get shit done, is doing just as much talking as NYC commuters are..... Honestly, there's been more pushing back of these projects than a damn Bone Thugs n Harmony album...

Hi... My name is not Mermaid Melissa & I'm not going to do all this holding my breath & waiting for shit to be rectified.... Like anyone else, I'm not getting any younger..... Anyone that knows me on a personal level knows that I'm a proponent of "talking" with my feet (so to speak).... What am I to do if I like a] talking transit & b] utilizing mass transit - but those responsible for providing mass transit in this city aren't stepping up to the plate here?

[paulrivera]

12 hours ago, P3F said:

That doesn't mean you have to go and drag it down.

Yea, I happen to like Metro-North's 95% on-time rate.

Metro-North and LIRR also have more reasonable loading guidelines (up to 100% seated capacity, which means everyone is supposed to get a seat on a normal day.) If the subways and buses fixed their loading guidelines (125% seated capacity, which means your trip is supposed to have people standing even on a good day) I'd be willing to bet that complaints would be cut in half and we wouldn't be talking about using commuter rail to relieve local service (well... maybe not so much on the bus side, but still...)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, paulrivera said:

Yea, I happen to like Metro-North's 95% on-time rate.

Metro-North and LIRR also have more reasonable loading guidelines (up to 100% seated capacity, which means everyone is supposed to get a seat on a normal day.) If the subways and buses fixed their loading guidelines (125% seated capacity, which means your trip is supposed to have people standing even on a good day) I'd be willing to bet that complaints would be cut in half and we wouldn't be talking about using commuter rail to relieve local service (well... maybe not so much on the bus side, but still...)

Excellent post... The cut their loading guidelines on the subways and buses, and even when communities have been vocal about the need for more service when the has the capacity to do so, they refuse, so while the subways are under strain, there is definitely room to expand bus service. How many bus lines do we have running on 15 or 30 minute head ways for good parts of the day as opposed to in the past? Since the 2010 service cuts, they haven't needed as many buses, not to mention them buying more and more artics, so bus service is definitely not under strain.  Congestion is a separate issue, but they have the capacity to add more service.  They also haven't been modifying many of their bus lines to meet changing travel patterns. 

[RR503]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Commuter rail & metro rail are actual rail services just like regional rail is.... How is it that you're dismissing the former of the two as idiotic constructs, but somehow regional rail falls through the cracks?

By the logic conveyed in this diatribe of yours regarding constructs, the distinction of "regional rail" shouldn't exist either..... The fact that regional rail is more expansive/widespread than suburban rail & metro (urban) rail doesn't make it any less of a construct.....

You seem to have wholly missed my argument. My argument regarding constructs is this insistence that commuter rail infrastructure -- despite its having plenty of excess capacity -- can only be used for commuter trains. I call bullsh*it. Using that excess capacity (with some capital improvements) to create a high-capacity regional rail network is a cheap and simple way of increasing transit service and capacity in NYC. 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Nah, I don't get the sense that you want to do away w/ the subway.... The issue I have here (as it pertains to the city's sudden push for subway riders to use the RR's), is the fact that regional rail is even being brought up..... You & anyone else can advocate for it, sure, but has much of squat to do with the MTA getting their shit straight with the subway....

I'm all for creativity, but passing the buck, ehh. - that's what's being done here with this latest outcry by the TA..... Any progressive ideas & implementations of addressing whatever existing holes there are regionally via a regional rail system, I see as a completely separate issue....

You say passing the buck, I say pragmatism. Building subway lines to Bayside, Laurelton, Yonkers or wherever just doesn't make economic sense, even if construction costs weren't what they were. Luckily for us, there exists rail infrastructure that serves those markets, and does so well. Why not capture it? 

Yes, it'd cost money, but what the subway needs right now is not cash. It's a management shakeup. The subway crisis right now actually has nothing to do with maintenance; it has to do with obtuse operational practices coming home to roost. Look at the delay data, and you'll see what I mean. I think that Voice article has it. In the long term, building subways to serve new markets is imperative, but again, I don't see the construction of a regional rail system and the construction of new lines as mutually exclusive. They serve different markets; the one will not supplant the other. 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I hope you're not being disinformative here under the guise of being real..... Now I'm not one of these "not all" police, so I don't mind speaking in generalities.... However, if we're going to do that, you can't pinpoint the highest utilized bus routes in the city & conclude that the bus system is being strained with current demand....

That's like saying that because not every subway line is like the Lex, the subway isn't overcrowded. I mean hey, the  line is quite roomy, so how bad can it be? 

1 hour ago, paulrivera said:

Yea, I happen to like Metro-North's 95% on-time rate.

Metro-North and LIRR also have more reasonable loading guidelines (up to 100% seated capacity, which means everyone is supposed to get a seat on a normal day.) If the subways and buses fixed their loading guidelines (125% seated capacity, which means your trip is supposed to have people standing even on a good day) I'd be willing to bet that complaints would be cut in half and we wouldn't be talking about using commuter rail to relieve local service (well... maybe not so much on the bus side, but still...)

Creating a regional rail network would not effect MNR/LIRR's performance beyond their use of the same infrastructure. New trains and station capacity would be furnished to provide the service. And FWIW, the LIRR's issues are also caused by an internal management structure resistant to common sense. It's not like switch heaters and wires with insulation are new technologies. 

With you on loading guidelines though. 

More generally, NYC commuter rail needs a reinvention. The next generations of New Yorkers will be among the most impatient ever. They aren't gonna wait around for an hourly train to take them to the city; they're gonna Uber. Similarly, they won't be bothered to understand the complexities and irregularities of scheduling and commuter rail transfers (Jamaica). They expect a system as navigable as Amazon's website, with the predictability of a Prime shipment. The current rail system doesn't provide that. It runs infrequently, and without any common interval, trains don't have regularized stopping patterns, and they are wont to end anywhere. Coupling better utilization of heavy rail capacity in the city with a rethink of commuter rail service management could yield a system with the intuitiveness of a subway and the comfort/speed of commuter rail. 

So yes, there'll be disruption to the status quo. Sadly, that's how progress works. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You seem to have wholly missed my argument. My argument regarding constructs is this insistence that commuter rail infrastructure -- despite its having plenty of excess capacity -- can only be used for commuter trains. I call bullsh*it. Using that excess capacity (with some capital improvements) to create a high-capacity regional rail network is a cheap and simple way of increasing transit service and capacity in NYC. 

You say passing the buck, I say pragmatism. Building subway lines to Bayside, Laurelton, Yonkers or wherever just doesn't make economic sense, even if construction costs weren't what they were. Luckily for us, there exists rail infrastructure that serves those markets, and does so well. Why not capture it? 

Yes, it'd cost money, but what the subway needs right now is not cash. It's a management shakeup. The subway crisis right now actually has nothing to do with maintenance; it has to do with obtuse operational practices coming home to roost. Look at the delay data, and you'll see what I mean. I think that Voice article has it. In the long term, building subways to serve new markets is imperative, but again, I don't see the construction of a regional rail system and the construction of new lines as mutually exclusive. They serve different markets; the one will not supplant the other. 

That's like saying that because not every subway line is like the Lex, the subway isn't overcrowded. I mean hey, the  line is quite roomy, so how bad can it be? 

Creating a regional rail network would not effect MNR/LIRR's performance beyond their use of the same infrastructure. New trains and station capacity would be furnished to provide the service. And FWIW, the LIRR's issues are also caused by an internal management structure resistant to common sense. It's not like switch heaters and wires with insulation are new technologies. 

With you on loading guidelines though. 

More generally, NYC commuter rail needs a reinvention. The next generations of New Yorkers will be among the most impatient ever. They aren't gonna wait around for an hourly train to take them to the city; they're gonna Uber. Similarly, they won't be bothered to understand the complexities and irregularities of scheduling and commuter rail transfers (Jamaica). They expect a system as navigable as Amazon's website, with the predictability of a Prime shipment. The current rail system doesn't provide that. It runs infrequently, and without any common interval, trains don't have regularized stopping patterns, and they are wont to end anywhere. Coupling better utilization of heavy rail capacity in the city with a rethink of commuter rail service management could yield a system with the intuitiveness of a subway and the comfort/speed of commuter rail. 

So yes, there'll be disruption to the status quo. Sadly, that's how progress works. 

BS.  I posted an article right on this forum about how the biggest group riding Metro-North now are millennials, and Metro-North has been responding accordingly by increasing frequencies, so no, Metro-North doesn't need to "reinvent" themselves because their ridership continues to grow year after year. It's the LIRR that is plagued with problems and doesn't need more of them by having to deal with subway riders to boot.  Your problem is you're hell bent on passing the buck to the commuter rails to deal with an inadequate subway system where projects are far overpriced, and where the KNOWINGLY hires corrupt vendors who then inflate costs even more, but you won't speak about that. Instead you'll argue that we should look to overburden our railroads arguing that the costs would be cheaper.  That "latent capacity" that you speak of should be for the LIRR and MNRR to increase service for those millennials that you speak of. Long Island is already building apartments right next to the railroad stations, so there will be growth. 

The needs to learn how to hold to a damn budget without stealing service from riders.  Year after year during their board meetings they yell about how they're buckling down, but they do so by constantly cutting bus service and refusing to expand subway service where there IS capacity in some cases.  That's what you should be angry about and advocating for, not looking to elongate the commutes of suburban commuters.  I find it troubling that you don't see this and you claim you work so closely with people within the agency.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I never said this could be done for free. The reason I want the city fare to be so low - $2.75 - is because I want the city to step up in funding this. I don’t think anyone other than the City of New York should subsidize lower fares and improvements to city railroad stations. If the city can find the money to extend the  line to Hudson Yards in anticipation of demand, then they can pony up for making commuter rail accessible for city riders. 

Obviously, this needs to be subsidized; I'm not asking suburbanites to pay for improvements to infrastructure in the city. I just think that integrating the commuter rail system is a better use of city money than a lot of the city's recent transportation efforts - NYC Ferry, BQX, etc.

It needs to be HEAVILY subsidized and that's something that it is being overlooked.  This is going to be expensive especially when you throw in union labor costs that only keep going up.  As it stands Metro-North is already having issues making service because they need more trains, so yeah fill up the seats but who is paying for these new trains?  Platforms would have to be expanded and so on, so this would not be as cheap as people seem to think (especially not at $2.75 - I think at $6.50 it's expensive but more doable) and if the City is bitching about forking over more money for the subway, where are they getting this money from?

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

You seem to have wholly missed my argument. My argument regarding constructs is this insistence that commuter rail infrastructure -- despite its having plenty of excess capacity -- can only be used for commuter trains. I call bullsh*it. Using that excess capacity (with some capital improvements) to create a high-capacity regional rail network is a cheap and simple way of increasing transit service and capacity in NYC. 

Your overall argument isn't lost on me.... I just see that diatribe about constructs being worthless.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

You say passing the buck, I say pragmatism. Building subway lines to Bayside, Laurelton, Yonkers or wherever just doesn't make economic sense, even if construction costs weren't what they were. Luckily for us, there exists rail infrastructure that serves those markets, and does so well. Why not capture it? 

Suggesting that riders utilize the commuter rails due to the subway system slowly regressing, sets a poor precedent.... Pragmatism shouldn't have to be spurred from desperation & I refuse to believe that this is some show of progression on their end.... A la, "passing the buck"...

When the TA was touting record subway ridership, where was this talk (from the TA) of having some of that good ole record ridership be shifted to the RR's....

 

[officiallyliam]

46 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It needs to be HEAVILY subsidized and that's something that it is being overlooked.

I understand this; that doesn't make it impossible. If the city wanted to do it, the money could be found.

Where did I say that I thought any of this would be free? Quote me.

47 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Platforms would have to be expanded and so on, so this would not be as cheap as people seem to think (especially not at $2.75 - I think at $6.50 it's expensive but more doable) and if the City is bitching about forking over more money for the subway, where are they getting this money from?

I know, and I've addressed all of that. There would clearly need to be capital expenses put into a commuter rail improvement project, and the money for projects within the city should come from the city government. The lack of willingness on the part of the city to come up with funding for the subway system has more to do with the idiotic political warfare being staged between the mayor and the governor than it does with the city being strapped for cash. It's not that the city has no money for transportation, it's that the current mayor has decided that non-integrated, largely pointless vanity projects are better uses of said money.

31 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Suggesting that riders utilize the commuter rails due to the subway system slowly regressing, sets a poor precedent

Again, though, you're acting like the proposal is to in some way replace the subway system with commuter service, or use railroads as a way to justify deferred maintenance of the subway system; rather, what we are suggesting is a rethink of the way commuter rail is used. It's more about adding capacity to the transit network as a whole than shifting all or most of the transit demand to a different mode.

[B35 via Church]

28 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Again, though, you're acting like the proposal is to in some way replace the subway system with commuter service, or use railroads as a way to justify deferred maintenance of the subway system; rather, what we are suggesting is a rethink of the way commuter rail is used. It's more about adding capacity to the transit network as a whole than shifting all or most of the transit demand to a different mode.

I'm doing no such thing though; you have me misconstrued, I assure you.... I'll partially blame myself for not being curt/vehement about where I'm at with this here (which I'll take the time to do right now)....

I care more about the fact that the MTA now all of a sudden, wants to push subway riders onto the RR's, much moreso than any notion/idea of  regional rail being proposed or otherwise brought up by you or anyone else on here..... The former to me is worrisome, the latter AFAIC is another discussion to be had for some other time.... Regional rail isn't on my radar when the MTA is proverbially waving the white flag with (further addressing) its subway usage.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I understand this; that doesn't make it impossible. If the city wanted to do it, the money could be found.

Where did I say that I thought any of this would be free? Quote me.

I know, and I've addressed all of that. There would clearly need to be capital expenses put into a commuter rail improvement project, and the money for projects within the city should come from the city government. The lack of willingness on the part of the city to come up with funding for the subway system has more to do with the idiotic political warfare being staged between the mayor and the governor than it does with the city being strapped for cash. It's not that the city has no money for transportation, it's that the current mayor has decided that non-integrated, largely pointless vanity projects are better uses of said money.

Again, though, you're acting like the proposal is to in some way replace the subway system with commuter service, or use railroads as a way to justify deferred maintenance of the subway system; rather, what we are suggesting is a rethink of the way commuter rail is used. It's more about adding capacity to the transit network as a whole than shifting all or most of the transit demand to a different mode.

No, It's that the mayor doesn't think that the City should put any more funding towards transportation, but he's re-zoning neighorhoods that put more strain on the same subway system that he claims the City is doing their part in funding (they aren't funding enough in the overall scheme of things). It comes down to this... Railroads have their purpose and so do the subways. 

[Caelestor]

It's fine if some people stand at the most crowded parts of each line - people who get on at those points usually have much shorter commuters than those already seated. Plus, a seated passenger takes up as much space as two standing riders, which is why metros all around the world are starting to remove seats in the middle of the car to increase capacity during rush hour. 

What's not acceptable is having the trains consistently delayed - the schedule gets messed up and nobody can give proper estimates of travel time. The subway is supposed to get people where they want to go on time, which it clearly isn't doing right now various reasons.

The best way to get capacity out of the existing lines is to reduce the interlining that causes delays on one line to propagate throughout all other lines in the division, but since this is a regional rail thread let's talk about some RR proposals that can actually divert passengers away from overcrowded subway lines.

MNR 125 St: Suppose we gave riders the opportunity to board Metro-North trains at 125 St to GCT for approximately one subway fare, ~$3. Given that GCT is the current bottleneck of the , it seems logical to assume that the Lex Ave Line would run a lot smoother if some riders chose to take MNR instead. Obviously the fare should be adjusted so that neither Metro-North nor the  would be negatively impacted compared to today.

Harlem Line: The loss of the IRT 3rd Ave Line has caused riders to crowd the  lines at 3 Ave - 149 St or the adjacent . Assuming the 125 St pilot works out, then the pilot can be extended to also accommodate all the MNR stops in the Bronx.

Port Washington Branch: Flushing -Main St  has insane ridership because of bus riders coming from the east. Perhaps some Penn Station / Herald Square riders could be diverted over to the LIRR instead with reasonable fares. One could even argue that the whole branch needs to be separated from LIRR operationally and run like a less frequent subway line, but that's a topic for another day.

LIRR Main Line:    trains are SRO at Forest Hills. The stops at Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, and Jamaica could also be used to divert Penn Station / Herald Square riders from QBL.

On one last note, ESA will add 24 LIRR tph, or about another subway line's worth of capacity from Queens into GCT. Surely some Queens commuters should benefit from the service instead of giving it all to peak-only riders coming from east Long Island.