Comments on: Weekend service a-OK on J, L, M

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:08:06 +0000

Maybe bus drivers. Definitely not train operators. And I’m not focusing on the individual operators – I’m talking about the management of the line, which is evaluated on on-time performance (“the percent of trains making all the scheduled station stops arriving at the destination terminal on-time, early or no more than 5 minutes late”). There’s no penalty for being early, nor is there a penalty for being up to 5 minutes late.

I don’t think what you say about Staten Island bus schedules is correct – can you show any examples? Buses to St. George are generally scheduled to arrive several minutes before the ferry departs. There are probably some examples of buses that run twice as frequently as the ferry, so only alternate buses are timed to meet the ferry, but if the driver drives really fast, a bus that isn’t supposed to meet the ferry can catch a boat it wasn’t supposed to. And once that happens often enough, riders get used to it and get annoyed when the bus misses the boat!

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:22:14 +0000

The reports I’ve read from bus drivers on the transit boards say they’re reprimanded if they’re early. I’ve also read an anecdote about this from a Staten Island commuter, who complains about how many buses are timed to just miss the ferry. As he explains, sometimes the bus runs fast and is capable of making the ferry, but in order to avoid being early the driver slows down dramatically just before the terminal, so the passengers do not make the ferry.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:54:16 +0000

Or you’ll just drive.

By: Russell Warshay

Russell Warshay — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:55:31 +0000

“Here is the best way to fix the MTA’s budget gap. Terminate the 7 train at Queensboro Plaza permanently.”
Doing this would not fix the budget gap.

“No need to maintain that tunnel.”
Yes there is. The MTA needs the capacity, even if appears to duplicate existing services.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:20:27 +0000

I don’t think that’s the case – it certainly isn’t the case for train operators, who are instructed to keep going as fast as they (safely) can. On-time performance is defined as “the percent of trains making all the scheduled station stops arriving at the destination terminal on-time, early or no more than 5 minutes late.” Early is OK!

http://www.mta.info/persdashbo.....rative.htm

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:49:25 +0000

Early is worse than late. New York bus drivers and train operators are reprimanded if they arrive early, as they’re supposed to wait at stations if they’re ahead of schedule rather than run hot.

If the schedules consistently followed a clockface pattern, such as “every 10 minutes on the 0′s,” then bus and train service would be much easier to follow. In that case, people would plan trips around the schedule, and schedule adherence would matter much more than headway adherence.

This is in line with practice in the German-speaking world, where schedules are clockface and even extra rush hour trains are built around the schedule. For example: off-peak, trains on some line might leave a station at :25 and :55 after the hour; at peak hour, additional trains would leave at :10 and :40 after the hour.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:40:27 +0000

How can you say a fare increase “would never happen” and in the same comment propose gutting the subway?

The LIRR didn’t have “a lot” more passengers than today. It had a little more. LIRR traffic peaked at 91 million in 1929, and is now just short of 90 million.

Metro-North and the LIRR have a lower farebox operating ratio than the subway, as well as a lower capacity. In the LIRR’s case, the lower ratio is much lower – it’s about 40% versus 66% for the subway. Having 5 conductors on a train is really inefficient. So is having 25-meter cars with just two doors, built to maximize seating capacity rather than standing capacity, limited to just two 4-track bottlenecks.

By: pete

pete — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:45:57 +0000

Of course there won’t be. Thats part of the plan. Terminate some 7s at Woodside (hint use LIRR). When your standing at Queensboro Plaza and can’t get on the N/W, time is money, you’ll use LIRR.

By: pete

pete — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:31 +0000

You’ve forgotten that in the history of NYC, before the subway came, the LIRR WAS the subway in Queens and Brooklyn. Montauk, Atlantic, Port Washington, Main Line, Rockaway, Bay Ridge branches had alot more passenger stations than today.

No ridership will be lost because of hire fares or revenue increasing strategies. The MTA has a monopoly on public transit. The private bus companies were the last stand of competition to the MTA. Nobody will quit their jobs and sit home all day collecting welfare because their commute got more expensive.

Metro North and LIRR are underutilized, and practically deserted outside of rush hour. Cityticket only makes the MTA loose revenue. If we can get subway riders to use MNRR and LIRR, the MTA will get much more revenue that it can use to cross subsidize NYCT, or shift unused govt subsidy $ from commuter rail to NYCT.

Raising fares is politically challenging, but pushing riders subtly to commuter rail when its possible isn’t, its just “service cuts”, which the press never looks into beyond the generic word “service cuts”. Perhaps mileage based subway fares that make no difference between MTA commuter rail and the equivalent subway ride should be done, but thats an evil “fare increase” for NYCT and would never happen.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:46:50 +0000

There isn’t enough capacity on the N and W (or N and Q) to handle all the refugees off the 7. Astoria service would have to be increased substantially to compensate – and I doubt there’s track capacity at the terminal or in Manhattan for much more Astoria service. (Nobody’s going to transfer to the LIRR, and the LIRR has capacity issues of its own.)

If your goal is to increase fare revenues, it seems to me that a far simpler (and more equitable) way to do that would be – get ready for this – to raise the fare!