Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

Morning Meltdowns Continue, Despite Byford's Assurances of Improvements

Recommended Posts

On 8/2/2018 at 9:42 AM, paulrivera said:

Train with mechanical problems in Harlem? “No (B) between Bedford Park and Brighton Beach in both directions.”

Switching problems on 8th Avenue and they have to reroute the (A) onto 6th Avenue? “No (B) between Bedford Park and Brighton Beach in both directions.”

(Q) trains having problems on Brighton? “No (B) between Bedford Park and Brighton Beach in both directions.”

Any little problem along the (B) ’s route, even if the problem isn’t caused by an actual (B) train, will usually suspend service on the (B) from end to end. This shtick gets really old really fast.

Replace (B) with (M) and you’ll have this morning’s rush hour meltdown.

The southbound (A) and (C) had to be rerouted onto the (F) line between Manhattan and Brooklyn due to a broken train at Fulton Street.

This problem didn’t take place along the (M) line (much less involve an actual (M) train) but they had to suspend it between Manhattan and Queens to make room for the (A) and (C) reroutes and run the (brownM) between Metropolitan and Chambers instead.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how this factors into property values. If a property with transit access is near a VIP route ((1)(2)(4)(6)(7)(A)(C)(D)(E)(F)(J)(L)(N)(Q)(R)) as opposed to one that gets truncated or put out of service whenever the opportunity arises ((3)(5)(B)(G)(M)(W)(Z)), would the value be higher?

  • (3) because it gets reduced to a long shuttle between Harlem and Penn Station and the ever-present possibility of it being eliminated entirely at night if the MTA ever experiences a budget crunch again
  • (5) because it becomes a short shuttle at night
  • (G) because it is all-around neglected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

Replace (B) with (M) and you’ll have this morning’s rush hour meltdown.

The southbound (A) and (C) had to be rerouted onto the (F) line between Manhattan and Brooklyn due to a broken train at Fulton Street.

This problem didn’t take place along the (M) line (much less involve an actual (M) train) but they had to suspend it between Manhattan and Queens to make room for the (A) and (C) reroutes and run the (brownM) between Metropolitan and Chambers instead.

You know what could be at least a decent idea? Sending the (M) to Brighton Beach with the (brownM) to Chambers St whenever these sort of changes occur. Send the (M) via 6 Av exp and/or 63 St also if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

You know what could be at least a decent idea? Sending the (M) to Brighton Beach with the (brownM) to Chambers St whenever these sort of changes occur. Send the (M) via 6 Av exp and/or 63 St also if necessary.

And how exactly would that work out with the (Q) having the frequencies that it does??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the (B) and (M)'s frequent suspensions, while they're inconvenient, I'm sure we'd hear the same people who are complaining about them carping about miles long traffic jams on these lines if they weren't suspended. Because we have eroded system capacity so much with timing and poor disciplinary culture, we now operate with a razor thin margin of flex capacity. What that means is that really any service reroute will almost immediately translate into massive delays -- delays that will increase proportionally with the number of trains involved. Thus, any effort to reduce the number of trains entering the affected area increases fluidity -- something (rightfully) held as paramount during those times, as if there is no fluidity, then no one gets service. 

While I agree that there are certain cases where the agency is a bit trigger-happy with the (B), I think generally the (B) and (M) are perfect 'removable' routes -- their key markets can be covered effectively with short turn versions of themselves or transfers. So, until we regain that flex cap (or have fewer impactful incidents), you can expect this to continue. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Regarding the (B) and (M)'s frequent suspensions, while they're inconvenient, I'm sure we'd hear the same people who are complaining about them carping about miles long traffic jams on these lines if they weren't suspended. Because we have eroded system capacity so much with timing and poor disciplinary culture, we now operate with a razor thin margin of flex capacity. What that means is that really any service reroute will almost immediately translate into massive delays -- delays that will increase proportionally with the number of trains involved. Thus, any effort to reduce the number of trains entering the affected area increases fluidity -- something (rightfully) held as paramount during those times, as if there is no fluidity, then no one gets service. 

While I agree that there are certain cases where the agency is a bit trigger-happy with the (B), I think generally the (B) and (M) are perfect 'removable' routes -- their key markets can be covered effectively with short turn versions of themselves or transfers. So, until we regain that flex cap (or have fewer impactful incidents), you can expect this to continue

Oh please... That's such BS.  Do you know how overcrowded the 6th Avenue line is WITH the (B) running? Without it what exactly is supposed to be picking up the slack? The (D) ? In other words, it's not like they add more (D) service when they cut the (B) so how exactly is the slack being picked up? Please do tell me because if there's a secret I'd like to know it, this way I can stop giving up on getting a train when I have to let 3 or 4 pass by.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please... That's such BS.  Do you know how overcrowded the 6th Avenue line is WITH the (B) running? Without it what exactly is supposed to be picking up the slack? The (D) ? In other words, it's not like they add more (D) service when they cut the (B) so how exactly is the slack being picked up? Please do tell me because if there's a secret I'd like to know it, this way I can stop giving up on getting a train when I have to let 3 or 4 pass by.

You’re completely missing/misconstruing my point. I’m not at all saying that the (B) is an unnecessary train. I’m saying that when shit goes into the toilet, its suspension is one of the easiest ways to mitigate the resultant delays. I suggest you read what I wrote again. 

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices for a greater good. This is one of those examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RR503 said:

You’re completely missing/misconstruing my point. I’m not at all saying that the (B) is an unnecessary train. I’m saying that when shit goes into the toilet, its suspension is one of the easiest ways to mitigate the resultant delays. I suggest you read what I wrote again. 

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices for a greater good. This is one of those examples. 

I read it very well.  This is what you wrote:

Quote

 I think generally the  and  are perfect 'removable' routes -- their key markets can be covered effectively with short turn versions of themselves or transfers.So, until we regain that flex cap (or have fewer impactful incidents), you can expect this to continue. 

I think you chose the wrong word there. In other words, suspending the (B) lessens the delays and overcrowding that riders face otherwise, but you're still essentially cutting service by half of what it was.  If you had an agency that effectively communicated during such meltdowns, then perhaps suspending the (B) wouldn't be so bad, but they'll have "Good Service" up when things are a mess and the platform just keeps filling up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I read it very well.  This is what you wrote:

I think you chose the wrong word there. In other words, suspending the (B) lessens the delays and overcrowding that riders face otherwise, but you're still essentially cutting service by half of what it was.  If you had an agency that effectively communicated during such meltdowns, then perhaps suspending the (B) wouldn't be so bad, but they'll have "Good Service" up when things are a mess and the platform just keeps filling up.  

You still seem to have failed to understand my point. Suspending the (B) is absolutely a capacity cut, and I agree it's one that is frequently miscommunicated. Not suspending it, however, is more of one -- the delays that will result from such action will kill throughput even more than this type of mitigation. 

Generally, it is unrealistic to expect anywhere near normal capacity during disruptions. Schedules are calibrated to normal service, so when train spacing/routing gets screwed up, you are inherently facing a capacity loss. Unless we add gap trains -- which can add back some of that lost capacity downstream of disruptions -- then we will just have to accept this near-constant triage until the system rights itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You still seem to have failed to understand my point. Suspending the (B) is absolutely a capacity cut, and I agree it's one that is frequently miscommunicated. Not suspending it, however, is more of one -- the delays that will result from such action will kill throughput even more than this type of mitigation. 

Generally, it is unrealistic to expect anywhere near normal capacity during disruptions. Schedules are calibrated to normal service, so when train spacing/routing gets screwed up, you are inherently facing a capacity loss. Unless we add gap trains -- which can add back some of that lost capacity downstream of disruptions -- then we will just have to accept this near-constant triage until the system rights itself. 

No, I totally understood your overall point. It was you that said that "I think generally the (B) and  (M) are perfect 'removable' routes -- their key markets can be covered effectively with short turn versions of themselves or transfers." Clearly that is not the case.  Just not possible to cover such routes effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 9:42 AM, paulrivera said:

Train with mechanical problems in Harlem? “No (B) between Bedford Park and Brighton Beach in both directions.”

Switching problems on 8th Avenue and they have to reroute the (A) onto 6th Avenue? “No (B) between Bedford Park and Brighton Beach in both directions.”

(Q) trains having problems on Brighton? “No (B) between Bedford Park and Brighton Beach in both directions.”

Any little problem along the (B) ’s route, even if the problem isn’t caused by an actual (B) train, will usually suspend service on the (B) from end to end. This shtick gets really old really fast.

Not always true .Big signal problem now at Ave H and service is still running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CenSin said:

I wonder how this factors into property values. If a property with transit access is near a VIP route ((1)(2)(4)(6)(7)(A)(C)(D)(E)(F)(J)(L)(N)(Q)(R)) as opposed to one that gets truncated or put out of service whenever the opportunity arises ((3)(5)(B)(G)(M)(W)(Z)), would the value be higher?

  • (3) because it gets reduced to a long shuttle between Harlem and Penn Station and the ever-present possibility of it being eliminated entirely at night if the MTA ever experiences a budget crunch again
  • (5) because it becomes a short shuttle at night
  • (G) because it is all-around neglected

It's all about perception. Most people do not know which services are more or less reliable, particularly those looking for an apartment for the first time. It's a seller's/landlord's market out there.

It is important though; IIRC Ridgewood started gentrifying right around the time the (M) was rerouted up 6th to Midtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CenSin said:

I wonder how this factors into property values. If a property with transit access is near a VIP route ((1)(2)(4)(6)(7)(A)(C)(D)(E)(F)(J)(L)(N)(Q)(R)) as opposed to one that gets truncated or put out of service whenever the opportunity arises ((3)(5)(B)(G)(M)(W)(Z)), would the value be higher?

  • (3) because it gets reduced to a long shuttle between Harlem and Penn Station and the ever-present possibility of it being eliminated entirely at night if the MTA ever experiences a budget crunch again
  • (5) because it becomes a short shuttle at night
  • (G) because it is all-around neglected

I doubt it as rents will more likely vary based on the commute time, which is why areas along the (J) between Jamaica and Broadway Junction as well as SI are not seeing much new development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's all about perception. Most people do not know which services are more or less reliable, particularly those looking for an apartment for the first time. It's a seller's/landlord's market out there.

It is important though; IIRC Ridgewood started gentrifying right around the time the (M) was rerouted up 6th to Midtown.

I wonder if the (L) shutdown will spur any additional development along the (G). That could put the (G) into a more favorable position if the ridership can sustain it after the (L) is back in service to Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CenSin said:

I wonder if the (L) shutdown will spur any additional development along the (G). That could put the (G) into a more favorable position if the ridership can sustain it after the (L) is back in service to Manhattan.

Personally I think that the shutdown is really the time for it to shine to the MTA... if they see how useful it can be, they could consider building a new station at Union Av to replace Lorimer and Hewes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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