MTA announces $51 billion plan to save the subway, treat NYC’s transit sickness

[Union Tpke]

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-capital-plan-five-year-51-billion-20190916-vv4redne5nfkvjrjtfwxuuckqi-story.html

New York City’s transit network, neglected and underfunded for decades, is about to get an incredibly expensive shot in the arm.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials on Monday laid out the broad strokes of a $51.5 billion, five-year capital plan to quickly modernize the subway system, make 70 more subway stations accessible and revolutionize the way people move throughout the region.

The vast majority of the money, roughly $40 billion, will go towards New York City Transit, $37.3 billion of which will be used to pay for subway projects. For context, the MTA spent roughly $32 billion on its current five-year capital plan, which wraps up at the end of the year.

“This is an historic, transformational capital plan that we’re describing,” said MTA Chairman Pat Foye. “Customers will have more reliable, efficient service.”

But the plan will be painful. Transit officials warned that the aggressive construction plan will lead to extended shutdowns of service on nights and weekends across some areas of the subway — but insisted the sacrifice will be worth making.

“Let’s be clear, re-signaling the subway is going to take the patience of New Yorkers," said NYC Transit president Andy Byford, whose “Fast Forward” plan released last year laid out much of the framework for the capital plan. "We’re not ruling out line closures, but the lesson with the L train project is that there are ways to avoid that kind of thing. "

The MTA plans to add modern signaling systems to six segments of subway track that, along with new signals on the L and No. 7 lines, will give roughly half of the city’s daily riders speedier commutes, said Janno Lieber, the agency’s head of capital construction.

Those lines are:

The Nos. 4, 5 and 6 lines between Grand Concourse-149th St. in the Bronx and Nevins St. in Brooklyn

The A and C lines between Jay St.-MetroTech and Euclid Ave. in Brooklyn

The N and W lines between Ditmars Blvd. in Queens and 57th St. in Manhattan

The end of the E and F lines at Jamaica Center through Key Gardens-Union Turnpike in Queens

The F line between 21st St.-Queensbrige in Queens through 57th St. in Manhattan

The end of the G line at Court Sq. in Queens through Hoyt-Schemerhorn in Brooklyn

“The strategy of which lines [are re-signaled] first has been based on impact," said Lieber. “It’s also been based on which lines we need to maintain service to provide service to customers at the same time that you’re rebuilding the lines”

Beyond fixing a sizable chunk of the subway’s arcane, delay-inducing signaling system, the MTA’s plan also exceeds previous expectations for accessibility.

The next five-year plan will bring ramps or elevators to 66 new subway stations, and MTA leaders said they will begin work to make another four stations accessible by the end of 2019. Previous estimates only included 50 new accessible stations in the capital plan.

[Union Tpke]

Key details:

• Funding: $15B CBD, $10B new sources, $9.792B Debt!, $10.7B Feds, $3B State, $3B City
• The cost of SAS Phase 2 has ballooned to $6.9 billion! They said that they were cutting costs!
• Over 1,000 B-Division cars, 900 A Division
• $4.1 Billion for station improvements (ESI here we come!)
• 66 stations will become ADA-accessible; 4 stations "accelerated" into 15-19 program
• $37.303B NYCT, $3.512B Buses, $5.714 LIRR, $4.689 MNRR
• $719M Boondoggle for access ramp to Bruckner from RFK and widening FDR Drive between 125th and 116th
• $1.127B Boondoggle on Verrazano reconfiguring left-hand exits to right-hand, widening Belt (No funds for bike/pedestrian walkway)
• $485 million for M3 replacement
• Harlem Line Capacity-I hinted at this before-provisions for third track, new substations, future Brewster Yard expansion
• GCT Trainshed/ Viaduct/Tunenl rehab
• Port Jervis Capacity Improvements
• Penn Station Access
• 4 stations-ADA accessible MNRR
• Up to 7 ADA accessible LIRR $910 MILLION on station improvements!
• $1.1 Billion on electric buses

Edited September 16, 2019 by Union Tpke

[Union Tpke]

$300 million of that will go toward fare evasion initiatives!

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2019/09/16/signal-modernization-ada-accessibility-take-center-stage-in-51-billion-mta-capital-plan/

Fast Forward is in good shape, funding wise.

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/09/13/cuomos-tone-on-byford-softens-sparking-talk-of-a-detente-1188257

Edited September 16, 2019 by Union Tpke

[CenSin]

15 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

$300 million of that will go toward fare evasion initiatives!

That money may or may not be good use of limited funds. We don’t know if it will be a net benefit for MTA’s coffers. But a secret part of me is thinking, “even if it costs the MTA more money, at least the fare evaders stop getting freebies while I have to pay.”

[Union Tpke]

3 minutes ago, CenSin said:

That money may or may not be good use of limited funds. We don’t know if it will be a net benefit for MTA’s coffers. But a secret part of me is thinking, “even if it costs the MTA more money, at least the fare evaders stop getting freebies while I have to pay.”

Just imagine how many closed subway entrances could be reopened and how many new entrances could be built with that money! This is an outrage!

[Cabanamaner]

32 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Just imagine how many closed subway entrances could be reopened and how many new entrances could be built with that money! This is an outrage!

Was thinking the same thing. The closed entrances at 168th, Nostrand, Franklin, 50th Street, and many others have been stuck in limbo waiting for funding for years. Only now that the system gets absurd amount of funding and it still doesn’t happen. 

[Union Tpke]

4 minutes ago, Cabanamaner said:

Was thinking the same thing. The closed entrances at 168th, Nostrand, Franklin, 50th Street, and many others have been stuck in limbo waiting for funding for years. Only now that the system gets absurd amount of funding and it still doesn’t happen. 

If anyone here would be interested in working on reopening closed entrances with a group I work with, PM me.

[P3F]

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

 

• $1.127B Boondoggle on Verrazano reconfiguring left-hand exits to right-hand, widening Belt (No funds for bike/pedestrian walkway)

Assuming that "widening" means they are adding a fourth eastbound lane from Exit 3 to Exit 5 (Bay Parkway) on the Belt, all I can say is, it's about time. This will finally ease the endless traffic jam at the Verrazzano merge. On the other hand, the left exits are fine in my opinion, and replacing them with right exits isn't worth the effort or money at all.

I don't really know what you would want to be done to the bike/pedestrian walkway. It's pretty good already, and having walked it, all I could really suggest is to add some lights to it, so it's not in total darkness at night.

Edited September 16, 2019 by P3F

[Union Tpke]

26 minutes ago, P3F said:

Assuming that "widening" means they are adding a fourth eastbound lane from Exit 3 to Exit 5 (Bay Parkway) on the Belt, all I can say is, it's about time. This will finally ease the endless traffic jam at the Verrazzano merge. On the other hand, the left exits are fine in my opinion, and replacing them with right exits isn't worth the effort or money at all.

I don't really know what you would want to be done to the bike/pedestrian walkway. It's pretty good already, and having walked it, all I could really suggest is to add some lights to it, so it's not in total darkness at night.

Um, there is no pedestrian/bike walkway on the Bridge.

https://gothamist.com/news/a-bike-lane-on-the-verrazano-for-the-summer-advocates-electeds-say-its-feasible

This would be $400 million well spent.

[P3F]

14 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Um, there is no pedestrian/bike walkway on the Bridge.

https://gothamist.com/news/a-bike-lane-on-the-verrazano-for-the-summer-advocates-electeds-say-its-feasible

This would be $400 million well spent.

Ah, I thought you had meant the greenway next to the Belt Parkway that stretches from Bay Ridge to Bay Parkway.

I'd certainly support the addition of a separate walkway on the Bridge (and not simply repurposing one of its existing lanes), as it would provide a nice link between Brooklyn and Staten Island. It would certainly be less of a hassle to bike over the bridge, than to take the S53. In my opinion, they should cancel the left to right exit reconfiguration (while keeping the Belt expansion) and use that money for a cantilevered walkway.

Edited September 16, 2019 by P3F

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, P3F said:

On the other hand, the left exits are fine in my opinion, and replacing them with right exits isn't worth the effort or money at all.

Two aspects to this:

1) Left-hand exits are technically illegal under the Federal Highway Aid acts - as they’re not in spec for interstate highways, and each expenditure for roads with them have to be explicitly mentioned in law as grandfathered and eligible, and 

2) They contribute to backups and cause wrecks - like left-hand entrances - because people cut across lanes to get to them - causing delays or wrecks that cause delays.

Now if only NYCDOT could get money to get rid of the left entrances and abrupt lane shifts on the FDR (ie Under the UN/Rockefeller University)...

[P3F]

11 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Two aspects to this:

1) Left-hand exits are technically illegal under the Federal Highway Aid acts - as they’re not in spec for interstate highways, and each expenditure for roads with them have to be explicitly mentioned in law as grandfathered and eligible, and 

2) They contribute to backups and cause wrecks - like left-hand entrances - because people cut across lanes to get to them - causing delays or wrecks that cause delays.

Now if only NYCDOT could get money to get rid of the left entrances and abrupt lane shifts on the FDR (ie Under the UN/Rockefeller University)...

The ones on the VZ Bridge are "exit only" and are signed well in advance (all the way from the other end of the bridge), giving plenty of space to change lanes. They are certainly not such a huge hazard, that we need to reconfigure recently rebuilt ramps to get rid of them.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

How many politicians and "advocates" will oppose this plan (at least privately) on the grounds that it might deprive them of complaint/campaign material? (The advocacy groups actually opposed the first Capital Program in 1981-1982 because they feared it might put them out of business.)

[subwaykid256]

5 hours ago, Cabanamaner said:

Was thinking the same thing. The closed entrances at 168th, Nostrand, Franklin, 50th Street, and many others have been stuck in limbo waiting for funding for years. Only now that the system gets absurd amount of funding and it still doesn’t happen. 

Absolutely I would also like to see some stations get new entrances. 

[Union Tpke]

$37,303,000,000 for NYCT, $3,512,000,000 for MTA Bus= $40,815,000,000

• $7.1 Billion for Signal Modernization
• $5.2 Billion for Station Accessibility
• $6.1 Billion for Subway Cars
• $4.1 Billion for Station Improvements
• $2.6 Billion for Track
• $2.3 Billion for Replacement Buses
• $1.1 Billion for Electric Buses
• $.109 Billion for "Improving Customer Experience"
• $.217 Billion for Additional Buses
  "Allows network redesign to provide more and better service" - Presumably, Operations funding would go up as well
• $.880 Billion for Depots
• $5.165 Billion for SAS

+SAS ($1.735 billion from 2015-2019 Program) Entire project will now cost $6.9 Billion! $6.9 Billion-$1.735 Billion=$5.165 Billion

These groups account for $34.871 Billion of the $40.815 Billion for NYCT/SIR/MTA Bus, meaning that there is $5.944 Billion that we know nothing about. The cost for SAS is bonkers. If they can't get the costs down SIGNIFICANTLY, I will be among the first to say that it needs to be cancelled. Anyway, it would be much better to accelerate CBTC, to fix bottlenecks like Nostrand, Astoria, etc.

 

 

 

[Enjineer]

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Anyway, it would be much better to accelerate CBTC, to fix bottlenecks like Nostrand, Astoria, etc.

 

Astoria CBTC is part of the Capital Plan, though!

[CenSin]

Any think that they’ve decided to install CBTC in all the wrong places? Methinks CBTC should be added around where trains do a lot of switching, like:

• 145 Street to 103 Street ()
• 72 Street to 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal/47–50 Streets–Rockefeller Center ()
• 49 Street to 23 Street ()
• 57 Street to 42 Street–Bryant Park ()
• West 4 Street–Washington Square to Delancey Street–Essex Street ()
• York Street/Fulton Street to Carroll Street ()
• 7 Avenue to Church Avenue ()
• Prospect Avenue to 53 Street/9 Avenue ()
• Manhattan Bridge to Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center ()
• West 4 Street–Washington Square to Fulton Street/World Trade Center ()
• High Street to Clinton–Washington Avenues ()

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

Any think that they’ve decided to install CBTC in all the wrong places? Methinks CBTC should be added around where trains do a lot of switching, like:

• 145 Street to 103 Street ()
• 72 Street to 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal/47–50 Streets–Rockefeller Center ()
• 49 Street to 23 Street ()
• 57 Street to 42 Street–Bryant Park ()
• West 4 Street–Washington Square to Delancey Street–Essex Street ()
• York Street/Fulton Street to Carroll Street ()
• 7 Avenue to Church Avenue ()
• Prospect Avenue to 53 Street/9 Avenue ()
• Manhattan Bridge to Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center ()
• West 4 Street–Washington Square to Fulton Street/World Trade Center ()
• High Street to Clinton–Washington Avenues ()

That's a good point actually...

My only question is how the CBTC system and the trains would handle entering/exiting CBTC zones on the fly like that.

[Around the Horn]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

$37,303,000,000 for NYCT, $3,512,000,000 for MTA Bus= $40,815,000,000

• $7.1 Billion for Signal Modernization
• $5.2 Billion for Station Accessibility
• $6.1 Billion for Subway Cars
• $4.1 Billion for Station Improvements
• $2.6 Billion for Track
• $2.3 Billion for Replacement Buses
• $1.1 Billion for Electric Buses
• $.109 Billion for "Improving Customer Experience"
• $.217 Billion for Additional Buses
  "Allows network redesign to provide more and better service" - Presumably, Operations funding would go up as well
• $.880 Billion for Depots
• $5.165 Billion for SAS

+SAS ($1.735 billion from 2015-2019 Program) Entire project will now cost $6.9 Billion! $6.9 Billion-$1.735 Billion=$5.165 Billion

These groups account for $34.871 Billion of the $40.815 Billion for NYCT/SIR/MTA Bus, meaning that there is $5.944 Billion that we know nothing about. The cost for SAS is bonkers. If they can't get the costs down SIGNIFICANTLY, I will be among the first to say that it needs to be cancelled. Anyway, it would be much better to accelerate CBTC, to fix bottlenecks like Nostrand, Astoria, etc.

They need to cut SAS phase 2 cause that price tag is ridiculous... 

The $5.944 billion that is "unaccounted for" is probably contingency funds for all of the capital projects combined.

[RR503]

On interlocking CBTC islands, I don’t think that’d work well. CBTC’s most positive effects on line capacity are at crowded stations — you sometimes actually lose capacity around merges because CBTC treats stop arms like they’re bumping blocks. In any case, many of the merge fluidity benefits of CBTC are accrued through reduced runtime variability over the course of the route (=better OTP at merges), which is a benefit you’d lose here.  

[CenSin]

16 minutes ago, RR503 said:

On interlocking CBTC islands, I don’t think that’d work well. CBTC’s most positive effects on line capacity are at crowded stations — you sometimes actually lose capacity around merges because CBTC treats stop arms like they’re bumping blocks. In any case, many of the merge fluidity benefits of CBTC are accrued through reduced runtime variability over the course of the route (=better OTP at merges), which is a benefit you’d lose here.  

Hmm! I thought CBTC would actually do merges better by allowing trains to be closer together where there are interlockings. I’ve seen when trains cross over just past the end of the platform and the next inbound train on a different track is held outside the station even though there would be no physical interference. I’ve also seen  trains during AM rush come into 36 Street on the local track just to facilitate a more customer-friendly merge north of the station instead of holding one train in the tunnel. CBTC ought to be able to make decisions like that on-the-fly.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

Hmm! I thought CBTC would actually do merges better by allowing trains to be closer together where there are interlockings. I’ve seen when trains cross over just past the end of the platform and the next inbound train on a different track is held outside the station even though there would be no physical interference. I’ve also seen  trains during AM rush come into 36 Street on the local track just to facilitate a more customer-friendly merge north of the station instead of holding one train in the tunnel. CBTC ought to be able to make decisions like that on-the-fly.

Let me illustrate my point using Canal St. A southbound  entering there usually gets a short route into the station, but faces a red home signal at the leaving end of the platform. That red home does not indicate a conflict so much as it does a lack of an established route all the way through the interlocking; a train tripped by it would likely overshoot onto the local track without any issue. Aside from the weird approach locking time thing that happens north of the station, operators enter in these conditions as if everything were normal -- they may brake a bit more conservatively because they're facing a red, but they do not act as if they're entering a stub-end terminal. CBTC, however, would enforce that level of safety. If my understanding of NYCT CBTC architecture is correct, a stop arm is considered a fixed obstruction, and therefore becomes the endpoint for a safe braking curve which, in turn, forces trains to enter interlocking areas at restricted speed -- imagine the  entering 8th Ave, or the  entering Main. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by RR503

[CenSin]

33 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Let me illustrate my point using Canal St. A southbound  entering there usually gets a short route into the station, but faces a red home signal at the leaving end of the platform. That red home does not indicate a conflict so much as it does a lack of an established route all the way through the interlocking; a train tripped by it would likely overshoot onto the local track without any issue. Aside from the weird approach locking time thing that happens north of the station, operators enter in these conditions as if everything were normal -- they may brake a bit more conservatively because they're facing a red, but they do not act as if they're entering a stub-end terminal. CBTC, however, would enforce that level of safety. If my understanding of NYCT CBTC architecture is correct, a stop arm is considered a fixed obstruction, and therefore becomes the endpoint for a safe braking curve which, in turn, forces trains to enter interlocking areas at restricted speed -- imagine the  entering 8th Ave, or the  entering Main. 

And that couldn’t be reclassified as some other kind of “stop” without too much red tape/programming difficulty? Is the input data totally unavailable for the computer to make that kind of decision?

[RR503]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

And that couldn’t be reclassified as some other kind of “stop” without too much red tape/programming difficulty? Is the input data totally unavailable for the computer to make that kind of decision?

I don't know. You'd basically be telling the computer that it's okay to overrun a stop arm in cases where you're facing a home red for lineup and not occupancy reasons. Unsure that'd fly with system safety, though I do know they made some change to Canarise CBTC interlocking logic that had something to do with speed...

[Deucey]

On 9/16/2019 at 8:58 PM, P3F said:

The ones on the VZ Bridge are "exit only" and are signed well in advance (all the way from the other end of the bridge), giving plenty of space to change lanes. They are certainly not such a huge hazard, that we need to reconfigure recently rebuilt ramps to get rid of them.

Still requires two things:

1) delaying thru traffic to merge into that exit lane (and related backups on the on/off ramps), and 

2) attentive motorists who plan ahead versus last minute changes.

There’s a reason the Feds mandated this - it’s best practice.

And given people drive like they walk, and in NYC people don’t pay attention to who’s behind them - on roads or even subway stairs - this is a beneficial project.