Jump to content

L shutdown M issues (Voice article)


RR503

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

My bad -- meant transfer off of it by "dump."

Thank you. If this was a for profit service -- some sort of corporation -- VG8 would be right. But the MTA is not. It's a public benefit corporation, meant to provide, well, a public benefit. Tiering that benefit with increasing income defeats that purpose -- and indeed, that of government services in general. 

And FWIW, one express bus carries about 1/4 of a subway car. You'd need forty for a train, and 400 to fill an hour of (R) service. Express buses, while useful for those of means looking to avoid crowds, simply don't exist on the right capacity scale to be a viable alternative to a functioning subway. 

Same goes for ferries. They're cute and bloody fun to ride, but given New York's inland bent, and the fact that a single ferry carries about a subway car worth of passengers, they too will remain nothing but a trinket useful for developers selling waterfront condos. 

You keep saying that. Nobody is saying that express buses or ferries are supposed to replace subways. They can't. They sure as hell can compliment them though. We're talking about ways to ALLEVIATE the the pain of these subway riders and the reality is some of them will have to use other means, regardless of how much you talk about how many people a train can hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

My bad -- meant transfer off of it by "dump."

Ah, gotcha - I misunderstood. 

For whatever it's worth tho, while it's still probably the least popular service on the line, there are plenty of passengers transferring FROM the E to the R at queens plaza every morning. Lots of people need the Lex connection. I know the F has the out of system transfer sure, but many people don't want to deal with it. 

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm not out of touch at all. We all have options right? You can ride the subway for a good price, or if you have more expensive options you can use those. Don't tell I'm out of touch of reality. You've got a lot of nerve. The question is what people prioritize. Now when I moved to where I live now I knew that my transportation expenses would go up OR I'd deal with a BRUTAL commute taking the bus and then taking several subways to reach my final destination after working 10-12 hours. I ultimately budgeted the extra expenses into my budget, so we all sacrifice. That's my point. 

A) I did not say you were out of touch with reality, I said you were out of touch with many people's financial realities. 

  1.  your rebuttal supports this. there are those who's priorities are "rent" and "whatever food they can afford" who literally do not have columns on the ledger from which they  can deduct to add to the transit column. The supposition that everyone has the capacity to prioritize and spend more on transit only serves to underscore my point regarding  your lack of comprehension with regard to the economic mobility of lower-income New    Yorkers. You can say they should get second jobs: some of these people already have three. I agree that nobody should be in such a position, and I concede that where you and I will never agree is on the matter of cause. I will maintain that it is not  'laziness' and end my point there. 

B) I have a lot of nerve? Lets get real for a second. "Oh Please" You're not the only man on the internet with the right to disagree with people. I owe you no deference, and logically, you should expect to receive the level of deference you display towards others. (that would be 'none') 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Ah, gotcha - I misunderstood. 

For whatever it's worth tho, while it's still probably the least popular service on the line, there are plenty of passengers transferring FROM the E to the R at queens plaza every morning. Lots of people need the Lex connection. I know the F has the out of system transfer sure, but many people don't want to deal with it. 

A) I did not say you were out of touch with reality, I said you were out of touch with many people's financial realities. 

  1.  your rebuttal supports this. there are those who's priorities are "rent" and "whatever food they can afford" who literally do not have columns on the ledger from which they  can deduct to add to the transit column. The supposition that everyone has the capacity to prioritize and spend more on transit only serves to underscore my point regarding  your lack of comprehension with regard to the economic mobility of lower-income New    Yorkers. You can say they should get second jobs: some of these people already have three. I agree that nobody should be in such a position, and I concede that where you and I will never agree is on the matter of cause. I will maintain that it is not  'laziness' and end my point there. 

B) I have a lot of nerve? Lets get real for a second. "Oh Please" You're not the only man on the internet with the right to disagree with people. I owe you no deference, and logically, you should expect to receive the level of deference you display towards others. (that would be 'none') 

Hey listen if you're working three jobs and you're struggling that bad then obviously you can't afford to live here. That's not being out it touch with peoples' financial realities. NYC is expensive and is only becoming more expensive. The further out you move, you are going to pay more for transportation. That's just the way it is. I don't understand why these people should get preferential treatment. If they moved to someplace cheaper like the Poconos, their housing costs would certainly go down but they'd spend even more on transportation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Hey listen if you're working three jobs and you're struggling that bad then obviously you can't afford to live here. That's not being out it touch with peoples' financial realities. NYC is expensive and is only becoming more expensive. The further out you move, you are going to pay more for transportation. That's just the way it is. I don't understand why these people should get preferential treatment. If they moved to someplace cheaper like the Poconos, their housing costs would certainly go down but they'd spend even more on transportation. 

literally advocating for preferential treatment of the wealthy while advocating against 'preferentia'l treatment consisting of maintaining the status quo, but whatever, congrats, you win.

I'm not in touch enough with your wavelength to really "get" your obviously correct  reasoning, but enjoy the smell of the city when all the janitors live in the fking poconos, among all the other unfortunate societal quagmires that resigning the totality of the city to the wealthy and middle class would have on the same wealthy and the same middle class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yes and no.  I don't think the City has been advertising the Ferry for (L) riders as much as it should be.  I believe they are running some more boats, but probably not as much as they should be.  Despite your complaints about the system not taking a Metrocard, Ferry service has been a boom across the City and in fact they will have to add more ferries. 

I used to take that NY Waterways ferry to North Williamsburg. That thing needed more service during the rush.

Took it once since the City took it over. Nice boats, and they redid the North Williamsburg landing, but it needs more slips and maybe 2 minute service to Wall Street and 34th Street when the (L) shuts down just to help the (M) and (G)(7) cope when everyone West of Havermeyer or Roebling gets tired of the crowding and the shuttle bus waits and delays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

literally advocating for preferential treatment of the wealthy while advocating against 'preferentia'l treatment consisting of maintaining the status quo, but whatever, congrats, you win.

I'm not in touch enough with your wavelength to really "get" your obviously correct  reasoning, but enjoy the smell of the city when all the janitors live in the fking poconos, among all the other unfortunate societal quagmires that resigning the totality of the city to the wealthy and middle class would have on the same wealthy and the same middle class. 

That's an interesting interpretation. I advocated for EQUAL service for ALL residents in Queens with similar commutes. Seems like you have a reading problem. Plenty of people have left the City to move to cheaper places. It's very simple. If you can't afford rent, transportation and other things and the math doesn't add up you have to move on. That's a reality for MANY New Yorkers and I'm not sure why you're attacking me for speaking the truth.  

I certainly remember the good old days when Brooklyn was reasonably priced and even Manhattan to a degree, but those times are gone. Get mad with the developers, the Air B N B types and the transplants. They're the ones driving up prices for all of us. In the meanwhile people keep saying they can't afford this and can't afford that, but everyone is driving around in the latest fancy car, etc. so clearly some people are full of it. People will always say they can't afford XYZ and some are telling the truth and some are just cheap and don't want to pay more for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I used to take that NY Waterways ferry to North Williamsburg. That thing needed more service during the rush.

Took it once since the City took it over. Nice boats, and they redid the North Williamsburg landing, but it needs more slips and maybe 2 minute service to Wall Street and 34th Street when the (L) shuts down just to help the (M) and (G)(7) cope when everyone West of Havermeyer or Roebling gets tired of the crowding and the shuttle bus waits and delays.

I'm not sure what the frequencies will be when the (L) is shut down, though I do know that they will be running more boats. Likely not enough though. Part of the issue is, they are still having boats made by the supplier, in addition to some boats already breaking down. Ridership wise the new Ferry service has been VERY successful, but there are still many kinks to work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

And you think the (M) is any different? It was already a bitch when the (V) made the (F) move to 63rd St. And with the way crowds are now, you damn well can't squeeze more people on the (E) .

Your (T) is basically rerouted (M) s with a different letter. And I'm 99% sure you can't fit a (J)(M)(T)(Z) on the Williamsburg Bridge. 

Right.  My (T) is in fact part of a split, beefed-up (M) that has a different letter because to avoid confusion on 6th Avenue.  The way I would do it would probably reduce the number of trainsets needed at peak hours by 1-2 for the beefed-up version.  The (M) would be the same as now while the (T) would be the additional trains from Metropolitan going to 96th/2nd on weekdays and also be the service between Met and 96/2 on late nights and weekends.  This is probably the lesser of all evils and as noted something that if such a (T) proved popular on the SAS remain in place after the shutdown on a full-time basis.  Politics I think will come into play on this, especially close to election time and this move keeps the (R) as is on QB and in Bay Ridge.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You keep saying that. Nobody is saying that express buses or ferries are supposed to replace subways. They can't. They sure as hell can compliment them though. We're talking about ways to ALLEVIATE the the pain of these subway riders and the reality is some of them will have to use other means, regardless of how much you talk about how many people a train can hold.

We're having the same discussion here. My point about capacity -- and it really is my bad if this wasn't phrased clearly enough -- is that ferries/exp buses can't mitigate subway capacity issues because they'd barely have an impact. Really, the only way to mitigate lost subway capacity is more subway capacity -- this is why the (L) shutdown is such a PITA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's an interesting interpretation. I advocated for EQUAL service for ALL residents in Queens with similar commutes. Seems like you have a reading problem. Plenty of people have left the City to move to cheaper places. It's very simple. If you can't afford rent, transportation and other things and the math doesn't add up you have to move on. That's a reality for MANY New Yorkers and I'm not sure why you're attacking me for speaking the truth.  

I certainly remember the good old days when Brooklyn was reasonably priced and even Manhattan to a degree, but those times are gone. Get mad with the developers, the Air B N B types and the transplants. They're the ones driving up prices for all of us. In the meanwhile people keep saying they can't afford this and can't afford that, but everyone is driving around in the latest fancy car, etc. so clearly some people are full of it. People will always say they can't afford XYZ and some are telling the truth and some are just cheap and don't want to pay more for anything.

If a big bully comes your way, you should just give everything up because you don’t have the means to defend yourself and nobody should stick up for you—not even the teachers. The economic bullying by rich transplants moving in to the scene and landlords jacking up prices because of pernicious market forces is just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

We're having the same discussion here. My point about capacity -- and it really is my bad if this wasn't phrased clearly enough -- is that ferries/exp buses can't mitigate subway capacity issues because they'd barely have an impact. Really, the only way to mitigate lost subway capacity is more subway capacity -- this is why the (L) shutdown is such a PITA. 

Yeah well clearly buses and ferries WILL pick up some of the slack despite your claims, so let's not act like the subways are going to provide the alternatives here. 

They simply can't due to capacity constraints and the system literally falling apart. Buses aren't the most beautiful things (you admit that you don't even use them, so I'm not sure how you're going to sit here with a straight face and act like you're not anti-bus) otherwise who uses public transportation and NEVER uses buses? I mean what is that? Never? Something is up with that. Clearly you go out of your way not to use them. People will have to use them albeit it reluctantly or use Uber or something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm not sure why you're attacking me for speaking the truth.

Not attacking you. Challenging your reasoning. 

Specifically, I challenged the rationale of "it's okay to cut R service to bay ridge because there are underused, more expensive alternatives, and everyone can just budget differently and use those"

That's faulty logic at face value. I realize you aren't going to accept that assertion. 

The subtext of the article, and my core points during the subsequent discussion: 

  1. The L train shutdown will put additional strain on pretty much every east river crossing, and as such, at a bare minimum current service levels should be maintained on all lines and service should be increased wherever possible. 
     
  2. Non subway alternatives will be absolutely essential to managing displaced ridership, but cutting any existing service other than Canarsie and trying to make up for it with busing - even at standard fare - is counterprodctive, will put additional strain on overtaxed roadways which will be additionally burdened during shutdown, and expand the impact of the shutdown to the entire system more than it's impact is baseline inevitable. 

 

I'm not sure if any of those points are really being debated here - but if I'm missing something beyond dissenting socioeconomic interpretations, let me know by all means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Not attacking you. Challenging your reasoning. 

Specifically, I challenged the rationale of "it's okay to cut R service to bay ridge because there are underused, more expensive alternatives, and everyone can just budget differently and use those"

I didn't say it was "ok".  You're saying that.  If your subway line was a sh*t show and you couldn't get to work, you'd find an alternative, right? That alternative may consist of a commute that's more expensive, and if it is well either you pay for it, or you deal with your subway line.  That was my point.  You're acting like people haven't been paying more to get around because of the mess that is the subway.  This has been going on for a long time now, with plenty of articles posted about people losing wages and money and shelling out more for Uber and the like, but suddenly that you've been impacted by it, now you've awoken to that reality.  Really?  This is the reality that we're in now, so I really don't understand why everyone is acting like I'm saying something that's so foreign or "out of touch with reality".  It's had a huge impact on me financially just like other folks, so I completely empathize, but if you're as angry with me as you appear to be, you'd direct your anger at the people that can actually change things.  As I said, I'm active in improving transportation around the City.  What have you done to improve transportation?  Have you written to Governor Cuomo? Ever filed a complaint to request better service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I didn't say it was "ok".  You're saying that.  

Okay. I guess I misinterpreted this sentence:

On 5/21/2018 at 10:24 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Folks in Bay Ridge can always make their way over to the X27/X37 along Shore Rd if they're that pissy about the (R) train or take the Ferry. 

I thought your initial comment I reacted to, quoted, was meant to convey that cuts to the R in bay ridge were acceptable because the express buses are available.

I still get that message from your comment, but if I am misinterpreting, my apologies. 

33 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What have you done to improve transportation?  Have you written to Governor Cuomo? Ever filed a complaint to request better service?

If you're honestly asking: 

  • I've filed numerous complaints and suggestions,
  • written the gov a few times,
  • submitted a proposal to the genius challenge that I maintain is still better than "trains longer than platforms" (abstract link)
    (Using anonymized cellular access data for real-time load analysis and travel trend mapper and subsequently using machine learning and object based modeling to intelligently reroute service following an incident or during construction),
  • I'm developing a real-time mapping app, a heat-map of subway headways so trouble spots/routes can be seen at a glance by riders,
  • developing open-source RGB matrix countdown clocks so that anyone can build one and not get ripped off by nyctrainsign (check instagram link)
  • creating months-long countdown clocks for biz on Broadway (astoria)  to protest the second half of the astoria line stations shutdown,
  • I'm volunteering media production services to the Access Queens organization. 
  • other minutiae i'm not going to list because nobody wants to read all this

So I've done a little bit. There's always more to do though.

Like rallying for non-canarise services not to be reduced during the L train shutdown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Okay. I guess I misinterpreted this sentence:

I thought your initial comment I reacted to, quoted, was meant to convey that cuts to the R in bay ridge were acceptable because the express buses are available.

I still get that message from your comment, but if I am misinterpreting, my apologies. 

If you're honestly asking: 

  • I've filed numerous complaints and suggestions,
  • written the gov a few times,
  • submitted a proposal to the genius challenge that I maintain is still better than "trains longer than platforms" (abstract link)
    (Using anonymized cellular access data for real-time load analysis and travel trend mapper and subsequently using machine learning and object based modeling to intelligently reroute service following an incident or during construction),
  • I'm developing a real-time mapping app, a heat-map of subway headways so trouble spots/routes can be seen at a glance by riders,
  • developing open-source RGB matrix countdown clocks so that anyone can build one and not get ripped off by nyctrainsign
  • creating months-long countdown clocks for biz on Broadway (astoria)  to protest the second half of the astoria line stations shutdown,
  • I'm volunteering media production services to the Access Queens organization. 
  • other minutiae i'm not going to list because nobody wants to read all this

So I've done a little bit. There's always more to do though.

Like rallying for non-canarise services not to be reduced during the L train shutdown. 

You conveniently left out how I noted that there's a ferry that is $2.75 (the same price of the subway) if they're willing to make their way over to it.  I also said that they should consider running shuttle buses in Bay Ridge to get those people over to the ferry, thus making it more accessible.  I mean it's easy to take a hard line and say NO they can't cut those (R) trains, but really, what's the alternative if they need to run more (M) trains and essentially are maxed out?  More capacity won't just magically appear.  I mean I get it you're a train guy, but if the train can't do the job, well you have to look at other ways of moving people, and preferably not by adding more cars on the road.

I'm also commending you for what you've been doing behind the scenes.  It's good.  More people need to be active rather than just b*tching on the forum.  Transportation is a very important thing, and that's why we have these heated discussions.  They make a difference between a lively and desirable neighborhood and a dead one, among other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You conveniently left out how I noted that there's a ferry that is $2.75 (the same price of the subway) if they're willing to make their way over to it.  I also said that they should consider running shuttle buses in Bay Ridge to get those people over to the ferry, thus making it more accessible. 

I didn't leave it out because it was convenient to my point - It's just the same issue amortized differently. Unless the ferry goes close to a commuter's destination, without a free transfer to subway or bus on the other end, or accepting unlimited metrocards, they're effectively paying a double fare, which is the same issue I had with the express buses. I made my point about maintaining fares for alternatives very thoroughly already, so I won't put a fine point on it.

But I do agree; The ferry will absolutely be a viable option for many, and the shuttle buses would be a good idea. 

27 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

what's the alternative if they need to run more (M) trains and essentially are maxed out? 

I was suggesting run a few to 179, but that's more logistically complicated than I had originally thought. Still, alternatives to cutting other service should at least be explored, that's all i'm trying to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

I didn't leave it out because it was convenient to my point - It's just the same issue amortized differently. Unless the ferry goes close to a commuter's destination, without a free transfer to subway or bus on the other end, or accepting unlimited metrocards, they're effectively paying a double fare, which is the same issue I had with the express buses. I made my point about maintaining fares for alternatives very thoroughly already, so I won't put a fine point on it.

But I do agree; The ferry will absolutely be a viable option for many, and the shuttle buses would be a good idea. 

I was suggesting run a few to 179, but that's more logistically complicated than I had originally thought. Still, alternatives to cutting other service should at least be explored, that's all i'm trying to say. 

We're seeing what a mess this is going to be, and the way I see it, if people don't think their commutes will be impacted by it, they're sadly mistaken, not unless they don't use the subway at all. Even if you go above ground, I predict a lot more traffic.  If the (MTA) doesn't come up with a real viable plan that can actually work and the City doesn't do more to ensure a smoother transaction aside from them just saying "Oh just trust us we know best" I see a lot of people just saying screw it, we'll take an Uber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah well clearly buses and ferries WILL pick up some of the slack despite your claims, so let's not act like the subways are going to provide the alternatives here. 

They simply can't due to capacity constraints and the system literally falling apart. Buses aren't the most beautiful things (you admit that you don't even use them, so I'm not sure how you're going to sit here with a straight face and act like you're not anti-bus) otherwise who uses public transportation and NEVER uses buses? I mean what is that? Never? Something is up with that. Clearly you go out of your way not to use them. People will have to use them albeit it reluctantly or use Uber or something else. 

Of course they will take some of the hit. But that word 'some' is what's important here. Even with extremely frequent shuttle buses and beefed up ferry service, those two modes will only be able to handle 15-20% of displaced Canarsie riders -- that's what I mean when I say they don't exist on the right capacity scale.

And for whatever it's worth, I do ride buses. They're not part of my daily commute, yes, but it's not as if they're foreign/detestable to me.

I understand that about 80% of your rhetorical toolkit is making assumptions that you hope stick, but please, at least make ones that have some grounding in fact. 

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

We're seeing what a mess this is going to be, and the way I see it, if people don't think their commutes will be impacted by it, they're sadly mistaken, not unless they don't use the subway at all. Even if you go above ground, I predict a lot more traffic.  If the (MTA) doesn't come up with a real viable plan that can actually work and the City doesn't do more to ensure a smoother transaction aside from them just saying "Oh just trust us we know best" I see a lot of people just saying screw it, we'll take an Uber.

This, however, I totally agree with. More needs to be done. As was demonstrated in the article that began this discussion, a significant number of displaced riders will have no viable alternate service. The MTA needs to be doing more to fix that. For example, it turns out that all (M) train platforms between FHills and Myrtle Wyckoff can handle 9 car trains (540'). If the MTA could wrangle moving the crossover at Metro back a few feet before the shutdown, we could run 9 car trains with the last car fumigating at Wyckoff. It is a bit out there, but it's the equivalent of another 3tph of (M) service practically for free. 

In general though, the agency needs to be shocked out of its status quo. It is so myopic (see timers, flagging, crew policies, etc) that it would rather abdicate its duty to the city than do some internal soul searching. Maybe time to change that.

On a side note, I'd pay close attention to what Byford has to say tomorrow in his new subway rescue plan. It will be interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

1. I understand that about 80% of your rhetorical toolkit is making assumptions that you hope stick, but please, at least make ones that have some grounding in fact. 

2. On a side note, I'd pay close attention to what Byford has to say tomorrow in his new subway rescue plan. It will be interesting. 

1. Assumptions... Uh, it was you that stated you don't ride buses regularly, so I'm just repeating what you said.  If I have it wrong, it's because you stated it incorrectly. 🖐️

2. I heard about it this morning.  It'll be interesting indeed. At the very worst he's a man with delusions of grandeur. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

The additional M trains are also in place to handle additional riders from Court Sq, so, sending them anywhere but QB is really counterproductive.

Not when it cuts the (R) on QB.  Unfortunately, in this case, the (R) has to take priority because otherwise, you'll likely bring more problems onto both QB and Bay Ridge.

That's why I do it as I would, kowtowing to likely pressure from pols by keeping the (R) as is, running the split of the (M) into (M) as it is now and (T) to 96th-2nd 24/7 while also creating an OOS transfer between Fulton on the (G) and Atlantic-Barclays on the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) and asking riders to use that, the one at Broadway on the (J)(M)(Z) OR go to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the (A)(C) as much as possible to cut down on people going to Court Square.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2018 at 8:19 PM, officiallyliam said:

Must you insist on solving this problem in the least efficient way possible? We've talked about several options:

  • Changing terminating procedures at Forest Hills to allow more capacity;
  • Running more (W) trains to Brooklyn, to make up for the cut in Fourth Avenue service;
  • Or extending a small handful of (M) trains to 179th Street.

And your plan - yet again - is to add another merge to the (F) and (Q), during a time that the subway network will be running at near-maximum capacity, with little margin for error or delay. Why?

This is about keeping pols happy by making sure the (R) does NOT get cut at all, especially on QB.  If it means having 5TPH from Metropolitan-96th/2nd, then that needs to be done, even if it does mean a merge between the (F) and (Q) at 63rd/Lex for such trains that I would have marked as (T). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

As a postscript, I'd also like to add that, having worked for a city councilmember, I think you're vastly overestimating the awareness, understanding and level of attention paid towards technical issues like a 2tph reduction in (R) service. As long as the constituents don't notice (which, trust me, they won't, the (R) runs what feels like 5tph during peak), they couldn't give two sh*ts. 

You're talking about this happening shortly after an election cycle.  Pols will want guarantees the (R) will not be cut if they are in tight races in their counties before the election in November.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the simplest and best way to solve the (R) problem would be to extend some or all (W) trains to 95th Street. This ensures that enough service is kept along 4th Avenue while avoiding merges and not forcing people to use express buses and ferries. If the (R) is cut to 5 tph, 3-5 tph of (W) service could be sent down there for balance. The QBL local doesn't have to worry about low service because of all of those (M) trains.

Other ways could work too but this isn't as difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W4ST said:

I think the simplest and best way to solve the (R) problem would be to extend some or all (W) trains to 95th Street. This ensures that enough service is kept along 4th Avenue while avoiding merges and not forcing people to use express buses and ferries. If the (R) is cut to 5 tph, 3-5 tph of (W) service could be sent down there for balance. The QBL local doesn't have to worry about low service because of all of those (M) trains.

Other ways could work too but this isn't as difficult.

This I agree with. Why not extend the (W) to Brooklyn and run it more frequently to compensate for the proposed cutback to the (R) in Manhattan as well as Brooklyn? If the (R) is indeed cut back to only 6 tph during rush hours and middays, then it should free up enough trains for a beefed-up (W). But they would likely have to cut some (N) service to Astoria to make room for the extra (W) trains. To balance service out, they should send 4 extra (N) trains per hour (the same number of (R) trains getting cut out of Queens) to 96th-2nd instead of rerouting (R) trains there and screwing up Broadway Line service even more than they already have. Seems a lot simpler and more efficient than splitting the (M) into an (M) and T and turning Court Square into an ugly version of Grand Central Station.

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

You're talking about this happening shortly after an election cycle.  Pols will want guarantees the (R) will not be cut if they are in tight races in their counties before the election in November.  

Speaking of splitting the (M) into the (M) and T...

You really don’t understand how politics work in this city, do you? You greatly overestimate how much pols in their “counties” care about public transit (as in less than they do if their toast is burnt). The five boroughs of New York City (where we don’t have county governments) is a (slightly...the key word is slightly) different story. Few pols, if any, get elected on how well the subway runs. And the ones for whom it might matter most - the mayor and City Councilmen - have already had their election cycle. And by the time we get to April 2019, we’ll already know if we’re getting four more years of Prince Andrew. And he’s got way more important things to deal with than the (R) train, so again, you’re greatly overestimating.

Furthermore, you greatly underestimate how many people will descend upon Court Square to transfer from the (G) to the (E)(M)(7). You will not discourage them from doing so. No amount of OOS transfers are going to discourage the vast majority of (G) riders from going to Court Square. 

7 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

I was suggesting run a few to 179, but that's more logistically complicated than I had originally thought. Still, alternatives to cutting other service should at least be explored, that's all i'm trying to say. 

Why is that? For nearly five years (rush hours only for three of them), they ran the (R) local to 179th St, while terminating the (G) at 71st-Continental. And the (R) ran more frequently than the extra (M) trains we’re discussing here. Why could they do it then (1988-93), but they can’t do it now?

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

This, however, I totally agree with. More needs to be done. As was demonstrated in the article that began this discussion, a significant number of displaced riders will have no viable alternate service. The MTA needs to be doing more to fix that. For example, it turns out that all (M) train platforms between FHills and Myrtle Wyckoff can handle 9 car trains (540'). If the MTA could wrangle moving the crossover at Metro back a few feet before the shutdown, we could run 9 car trains with the last car fumigating at Wyckoff. It is a bit out there, but it's the equivalent of another 3tph of (M) service practically for free. 

In general though, the agency needs to be shocked out of its status quo. It is so myopic (see timers, flagging, crew policies, etc) that it would rather abdicate its duty to the city than do some internal soul searching. Maybe time to change that.

On a side note, I'd pay close attention to what Byford has to say tomorrow in his new subway rescue plan. It will be interesting. 

Agreed. I really feel like so many of their decisions and policies boil down to, “Because I’m the boss and I say so!” Especially when it comes to fumigation and timers. Doing 9-car (M) trains and extending the platforms above Myrtle-Wyckoff is something they could (and should) have done while the (M) line was  fully shut down. But when you have incompetent boobs (I’m talking about before Byford got there) at the top making important decisions (or not) “because they say so,” then this is what we get. Is it too late for 9-car (M) trains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Furthermore, you greatly underestimate how many people will descend upon Court Square to transfer from the (G) to the (E)(M)(7). You will not discourage them from doing so. No amount of OOS transfers are going to discourage the vast majority of (G) riders from going to Court Square. 

If you can at least get those going to lower Manhattan to take the (G) the opposite way to Fulton (where I would have the OOS Atlantic-Barclays transfer), Broadway (where they will be an OOS transfer to the (J)(M)(Z)) or Hoyt-Schermerhorn and the (A)(C) transfer there and convince them it's a less-cramped alternative than going to Court Square, you've won a good chunk of the battle right there.  The idea is to get people to actually step back and look at where they are actually going and if they can do it be avoiding what are sure to be a mess at Court Square, it's worth taking a little extra time to do that.  That's also why I run ALL (G) service to Church even if it forces more (F) trains to run express (and also why as part of this I would have done all necessary work to get Bergen LL reopened, even as a barebones station so it could be an express stop on the (F)).

The split into (M) and (T) keeps the (R) as it is now and I do think that will be important.  The other thing I'd be considering there would be to do the (J) / (Z) split I proposed in the past where that essentially becomes a split line from 95th-Jamaica Center, with Chambers Street serving as the terminal for both half of the split line (with during peak hours a limited number of (J) trains still operating to Broad since this version of the (Z) would be a max of 8TPH between 95th and Chambers, reviving the old <RR> "bankers special" route with the (J) terminating. on the "express" tracks at Chambers and the (Z) on the "local" track). That would solve the Bay Ridge issue and allow the (R) to be reduced to where the (M) can go as planned.  

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.