Is Cuomo’s Overnight Subway Closure a Sneak Attack on Full 24-7 Service?

[shiznit1987]

IMHO, to me the solution is for trains to simply go OOS at certain terminals so as to make it legal to remove individuals from the trains themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a train pulls into Coney Island, 71st, Euclid or anywhere else there is a yard I believe the NYPD would have every right to say "nap time over" if the train is going to be going into a non-revenue area. There they can be cleaned, UV'd, scrubbed and sent back on it's way. No need for shutdowns. 

The issue is for years trains simply went back and forth without going into the yards so that gave the homeless hours upon end to set up shop and get some Zzzzs on board. If trains went OOS after a round trip that'd break up some of that. 

 

[Collin]

They'd just get on the next train then.  I think improved technology for disinfection should allow 24 hour service to resume, but whether Cuomo allows it remains to be seen.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, to me the solution is for trains to simply go OOS at certain terminals so as to make it legal to remove individuals from the trains themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a train pulls into Coney Island, 71st, Euclid or anywhere else there is a yard I believe the NYPD would have every right to say "nap time over" if the train is going to be going into a non-revenue area. There they can be cleaned, UV'd, scrubbed and sent back on it's way. No need for shutdowns. 

The issue is for years trains simply went back and forth without going into the yards so that gave the homeless hours upon end to set up shop and get some Zzzzs on board. If trains went OOS after a round trip that'd break up some of that. 

 

There’s one way to know if it works without implementing your idea: see what the situation is like on the . The must proceed beyond the station at both of its terminals to turn back. The (when the is also running), , , , , , , , (Rockaway Shuttle), do that only at one end. Am I missing anything else?

Do the mentioned trains have less of a homeless problem than the ones that just turn around while platformed at the terminal?

[RtrainBlues]

In the past year, the R in Brooklyn has been horrendous with the homeless problem, particularly in the evenings. During the wee hours of the morning, there are more homeless than passengers on the R shuttle in Brooklyn (up to 6 or 7 homeless per car).

I rarely saw homeless on the G, perhaps since they know it's a short length train (4 cars) and most seats are usually needed.

[CenSin]

6 minutes ago, RtrainBlues said:

During the wee hours of the morning, there are more homeless than passengers on the R shuttle in Brooklyn (up to 6 or 7 homeless per car).

Did that only become a problem after the started terminating at Whitehall Street instead of 36 Street?

[RtrainBlues]

It wasn't an issue with the R shuttle 36-95, but several years ago feels like another era.  Back then, then we had many missed connections (southbound D arriving 2:17am at 36th, but the R was sent in front at 2:16am so everyone needed to wait for the 2:36am R shuttle).

So many trains have become much worse in the past year or two with the homeless late nights - especially the 1, 2, R, F, E and Q.

I'm not sure it's a function of the terminal location since it's so widespread now.

[Bay Ridge Express]

18 minutes ago, RtrainBlues said:

It wasn't an issue with the R shuttle 36-95, but several years ago feels like another era.  Back then, then we had many missed connections (southbound D arriving 2:17am at 36th, but the R was sent in front at 2:16am so everyone needed to wait for the 2:36am R shuttle).

So many trains have become much worse in the past year or two with the homeless late nights - especially the 1, 2, R, F, E and Q.

I'm not sure it's a function of the terminal location since it's so widespread now.

I remember getting on the train at 6:30... you had at least 2-3 bodies in each car, and sometimes there's a lottery and you will just see 5 homeless people sleeping in the same car, while people are going to work in the AM rush! Thankfully I have time at 95 to choose whichever car I like.

[CenSin]

21 minutes ago, RtrainBlues said:

homeless late nights - especially the 1, 2, R, F, E and Q

All the routes you mentioned can basically turn around without proceeding beyond the terminal. I’m not sure about the , but it’s technically possible to just use the middle tracks and switches east of 169 Street. Aside from the , , , , , and , I believe the other routes that might share the problem are: , , , , , , , , and .

I can confirm that the and seems to be favorite nesting routes for the homeless. Oddly, I’ve never seen any on the .

[NewFlyer 230]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

All the routes you mentioned can basically turn around without proceeding beyond the terminal. I’m not sure about the , but it’s technically possible to just use the middle tracks and switches east of 169 Street. Aside from the , , , , , and , I believe the other routes that might share the problem are: , , , , , , , , and .

I can confirm that the and seems to be favorite nesting routes for the homeless. Oddly, I’ve never seen any on the .

I call the  the homeless express because the likelihood of finding homeless people on the trains are very high. Once subway ridership decreases during the evening time and overnight hours you can find multiple homeless people sleep within the cars. I remember back in 2018 taking the  at 3am and counted 5 homeless dudes in one of the cars sleeping.

 

[Trainmaster5]

It used to be the homeless flocked to lines that had little or no outside segments. That's why the became the homeless line. There were some homeless people who knew the system. They would ride the from 149th-Grand Concourse to Utica or the from 207th down to Euclid and switch to an uptown train. From what I've read in this thread the shuttle would fit right in. I would also point out that the " homeless " population encompasses different types of people. The biggest difference,  to me, is that there's the down on their luck types  and the mentally ill who frequently have physical problems and cleanliness issues too. It's not a "one size fits all " thing. I talked with a few Transit police back in the day who showed me the difference. I'm not sure if today's NYPD coordinates with the official Outreach people who know the difference. Fact is I doubt that many posters know either. Just my thoughts. Carry  on. 

[Deucey]

6 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

It used to be the homeless flocked to lines that had little or no outside segments. That's why the became the homeless line. There were some homeless people who knew the system. They would ride the from 149th-Grand Concourse to Utica or the from 207th down to Euclid and switch to an uptown train. From what I've read in this thread the shuttle would fit right in. I would also point out that the " homeless " population encompasses different types of people. The biggest difference,  to me, is that there's the down on their luck types  and the mentally ill who frequently have physical problems and cleanliness issues too. It's not a "one size fits all " thing. I talked with a few Transit police back in the day who showed me the difference. I'm not sure if today's NYPD coordinates with the official Outreach people who know the difference. Fact is I doubt that many posters know either. Just my thoughts. Carry  on. 

Two days ago I saw NYPD poking a "down on their luck" and intoxicated person at Bowling Green uptown platform - no outreach team or Social Worker with them.

Upside is they were trying to wake him up and telling him he couldn't be on the floor but would be okay if he were in the chair. Downside is that if it were other Bluebloods, that "courtesy" may not have been extended.

Still would rather have them without pistols and with Social Workers doing these interactions.

[Wallyhorse]

On 6/30/2020 at 5:44 PM, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, to me the solution is for trains to simply go OOS at certain terminals so as to make it legal to remove individuals from the trains themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a train pulls into Coney Island, 71st, Euclid or anywhere else there is a yard I believe the NYPD would have every right to say "nap time over" if the train is going to be going into a non-revenue area. There they can be cleaned, UV'd, scrubbed and sent back on it's way. No need for shutdowns. 

The issue is for years trains simply went back and forth without going into the yards so that gave the homeless hours upon end to set up shop and get some Zzzzs on board. If trains went OOS after a round trip that'd break up some of that. 

 

This might be the compromise that can work where one train goes out of service at a terminal and another train replaces it.  That can at least solve SOME of the homeless issue, at least enough to allow for a return to 24/7 service without any risk of what I had said upthread. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 6/30/2020 at 9:34 PM, Collin said:

They'd just get on the next train then.  I think improved technology for disinfection should allow 24 hour service to resume, but whether Cuomo allows it remains to be seen.

I'm not sure Cuomo would allow it, at least until he feels safe he will get the fourth term as Governor that eluded his father in 1994.  

[Lawrence St]

On 6/30/2020 at 5:44 PM, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, to me the solution is for trains to simply go OOS at certain terminals so as to make it legal to remove individuals from the trains themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a train pulls into Coney Island, 71st, Euclid or anywhere else there is a yard I believe the NYPD would have every right to say "nap time over" if the train is going to be going into a non-revenue area. There they can be cleaned, UV'd, scrubbed and sent back on it's way. No need for shutdowns. 

The issue is for years trains simply went back and forth without going into the yards so that gave the homeless hours upon end to set up shop and get some Zzzzs on board. If trains went OOS after a round trip that'd break up some of that. 

 

The only problem with that is sometimes they will not listen, which delays the train going into the layup, which delays the whole line. IIRC, a few months ago, the  was super delayed in both directions because someone didn't want to leave the train at 168th St.

[B35 via Church]

On 6/30/2020 at 10:29 PM, RtrainBlues said:

I rarely saw homeless on the G, perhaps since they know it's a short length train (4 cars) and most seats are usually needed.

Seriously doubt they care about any of that; the notion of considerate homeless people on the subway is rather oxymoronic....

As was alluded to, they're seldom ever on the though (which is clearly a line they run more than 4 cars on)..... There's some other factor{s} as to why they're not on lines like the & the .....

On 6/30/2020 at 11:51 PM, CenSin said:

I can confirm that the and seems to be favorite nesting routes for the homeless. Oddly, I’ve never seen any on the .

Over the years, the amt. of homeless has definitely increased along the B'way lines.... 8th av (lines) still reigns supreme though.

On 7/1/2020 at 2:54 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I call the  the homeless express because the likelihood of finding homeless people on the trains are very high. Once subway ridership decreases during the evening time and overnight hours you can find multiple homeless people sleep within the cars. I remember back in 2018 taking the  at 3am and counted 5 homeless dudes in one of the cars sleeping.

The is the popular line to pull on, but the is worse.....

On 7/1/2020 at 3:49 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

I would also point out that the " homeless " population encompasses different types of people. The biggest difference,  to me, is that there's the down on their luck types  and the mentally ill who frequently have physical problems and cleanliness issues too. It's not a "one size fits all " thing. I talked with a few Transit police back in the day who showed me the difference. I'm not sure if today's NYPD coordinates with the official Outreach people who know the difference. Fact is I doubt that many posters know either. Just my thoughts. Carry  on. 

In general, yeah - but the ones that fester the subways in-particular are homogeneous... The mentally ill from Amityville (lol) nutcases with the bad hygiene.... The vast majority of the clean(er)-cut guys/girls with the sob stories are f**king con-artists.... The approachable, well-mannered, (former) hard working 9-to-5 guy whose wife & kids left him high & dry for whatever reason (that ended up jobless & homeless), I can't believe represents any significant minority w/i the subway....

I just don't want any seeds being planted in people's heads that you can perhaps take the chance to walk up to & talk to these people willy-nilly (hoping that they aren't the mentally ill nutcases) & have them be receptive to advice and/or assistance (which is how I'm kinda taking that whole homeless population encompassing different types of people bit, as it relates to this discussion about the homeless within the subway anyway)...

[bobtehpanda]

On 7/1/2020 at 6:57 AM, Deucey said:

Two days ago I saw NYPD poking a "down on their luck" and intoxicated person at Bowling Green uptown platform - no outreach team or Social Worker with them.

Upside is they were trying to wake him up and telling him he couldn't be on the floor but would be okay if he were in the chair. Downside is that if it were other Bluebloods, that "courtesy" may not have been extended.

Still would rather have them without pistols and with Social Workers doing these interactions.

This would require budget-balancing micromanagers in chief to acknowledge that spending money on proactive solutions actually ends up being cheaper than reactive solutions.

But we can't have taxes going to druggies and the mentally ill in our neoliberal/neoconservative society, outcomes be damned.

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/2/2020 at 11:35 AM, Lawrence St said:

The only problem with that is sometimes they will not listen, which delays the train going into the layup, which delays the whole line. IIRC, a few months ago, the  was super delayed in both directions because someone didn't want to leave the train at 168th St.

That may be, but it would be a far lesser issue than many of the others.