For the last few weekends and into September, service along the various IRT routes will not run as normal. From midnight on Saturdays until 5 a.m. on Mondays, 2 trains will not run into the Bronx, terminating instead at 137th St./City College, and 3 trains won’t run at all. To replace the 3, 4 trains will run local in Brooklyn. For two popular subway lines, this work is creating a lot of headaches.
In The Post on Saturday, Tom Namako wrote about this so-called “weekend chaos” and got some excellent straphanger-on-the-street quotes. While most of the IRT riders are resigned to their long, slow shuttle bus fates, one person’s attitude in particular struck my as indicative of the way New Yorkers relate to the subway system and necessary work. The emphasis below is mine.
“I live in Bed-Stuy, and I take care of my elderly parents in The Bronx, and I go to church in The Bronx,” Ernestine Ortiz said to Namako. “The shuttle buses are all right, but the train is way more convenient — when it’s running. It just gets you where you need to go faster. Can’t they find another time to work on it — like just late at night?”
I’m sure Ms. Ortiz is a very friendly woman, and it sounds as though she’s a very devoted daughter. No one, of course, likes to see their weekend routines interrupted, but her approach is one we all share. It goes a little something like this: I know the MTA has to do subway work; I know this work has to take place over regular hours; but please only do subway work when it doesn’t inconvenience me.
Nothing bothers New Yorkers quite like a commute interrupted. I know that my trip from Park Slope to City Hall should take around 20 minutes, and when a train is delayed at, say, Bowling Green because of a sick passenger down the line, we get irritated. “Why is this happening on my commute? Why doesn’t the sick passenger simply not board the train in the first place? Why am I the one who has to suffer because of the MTA’s need to do work?”
This attitude reveals the inherent problems with a 24-hour subway system and the way New Yorkers rely on it. We don’t want service changes when we want to travel because we need to travel at set times. We have to get to work; we have to get to our families; we have to get from Brooklyn to the Bronx in less than two hours. That’s where the subways come in. The great system underneath our city streets transports people relatively quickly through a dense urban environment that cannot support cars for every resident. For a low price, I can get from Point A in Bed-Stuy to Point B in the Bronx without worrying about gas, insurance, parking.
Of course, people dislike the MTA because it often seems as though fates underground conspire against us. If we travel anywhere during the weekend, our trips are delayed because of work. Late-night construction isn’t the answer, as Ms. Ortiz would like, because the Transit crews need a more concentrated period of time during which to work. Plus, the service changes will always interrupt someone’s travel. It could be me or it could be you. To Ms. Ortiz, it might seem as though the changes hurt her, but to someone else, a different set of changes will be equally as bothersome.
So work will go, and the city’s love/hate relationship with the subway system will go on. We want it to run reliably; we need it to run reliably; we know what level of investment must go into it to run reliably. But when push comes to shove, please make sure the service changes impact someone else’s commute.
27 comments
On the two-track lines, it’s a solvable problem, using better signaling. If the signals are configured for wrong-way operation, then lines can be single-tracked at night for maintenance. This is how trains run 24/7 without express tracks in Copenhagen, whose system benefits from fully automatic train operation, and I hope that the MTA is studying how much it would cost to implement a similar system in New York.
Ironically, it’s the three- and four-track trunk lines where it could be a problem: trains can switch from a blocked local track to the express track but not to the local track in the opposite direction. Thus, they can’t serve the platform, and must skip a few stations, as they do today.
Nice idea, but often impractical.
First of all, your “better signaling” idea, if not installed already, would require full line shutdowns for installation (not to mention the expense of designing the signal system and of installing it on top of the existing signal system).
Fortunately, current NYCT practice is to include reverse signaling in all new signal designs on two-track lines. The Lenox Avenue line is signaled for reverse running. This was used extensively in 1998 for the Lenox Avenue rehab:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/br.....rehab.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03.....usion.html
So why not do something like this? Several reasons.
First, at least when this was done in 1998, using a single track between the interlockings at 110th and 142nd restricted operations to a 24-minute headway. It might be even worse now, with new safety rules (implemented a few years ago) requiring trains to operate at 10 mph when work is taking place on the adjacent track. It might be possible to run two or three trains back-to-back, but everybody’s going to try to cram onto the first train anyway, and some of the reverse signal installations (I’m not sure about this one) are designed on the cheap, only allowing one train in the entire section in the reverse direction.
Second, the work going on now is at the interlocking where the 2 and 3 diverge. Interlocking work often requires that both affected tracks be out of service. So running trains might not be possible at all. Even if it is, it might not be possible for trains to use this interlocking – in which case they’d have to wrong-rail from 110th all the way up to 149th and 3rd! That would increase the minimum headway even more, and would interfere with through 5 service.
I think CBTC (as implemented on the L) is fully bidirectional – trains can run at full capacity in either direction on either track. But the 10 mph safety rule is still in effect. Copenhagen probably doesn’t have that. Copenhagen’s system is also new, and I doubt interlockings have to be replaced just yet.
First, if the 10 mph rule is so important, then why do other cities not have trains run over workers? And if it’s not actually necessary, why does NYCT not request a waiver?
Second, even the interlocking issue is solvable. For one, the MTA could add interlockings to allow 3 tph per direction in its signal work. And if one interlocking has to be replaced, it’s not a big deal to have a GO saying that for a couple of nights, trains run every half hour, with the schedule clearly posted for riders’ convenience.
Again, this may be too expensive, but it needs to be studied for future GOs. The benefits of not screwing up weekend daytime service may be worth the extra bother.
Adding a new interlocking is an enormous undertaking. You seem to be taking it awfully lightly.
Do you know how much it costs in New York? Or, better yet, how much it costs in cities that don’t overpay for capital construction by a factor of 7?
The current cost of installing an interlocking is readily ascertainable, because the capital program budgets usually itemize these projects separately.
Each new interlocking you add also increases the ongoing costs of maintenance, because interlockings are intricate and complex mechanisms whose failure could be catastrophic.
If it were possible to do capital construction in New York at 1/7th the cost (a claim that you have not come remotely close to demonstrating), obviously many options would be on the table that aren’t today.
The fact that every other city in the developed world digs tunnels for 1/7 the cost of SAS (except for those that dig tunnels for 1/20 the cost of SAS…) should be enough to convince you. New York isn’t that special.
It’s actually worse than that. If we’re looking at a new interlocking where none has ever existed, there are probably support columns in the way. They’d need to be removed, which means finding a different way to support the street.
Once it’s installed, it needs to be wired into the signal system. Signal logic at interlockings is a lot more complex – i.e., expensive – than elsewhere. Somebody needs to make sure that trains are being given the proper lineups at each of those interlockings. And each interlocking has four switches that need to be maintained.
If these were interlockings that would be used with any degree of regularity, then the expense might be worth it. But if they’d only be useful to avoid shuttle buses during a very specific type of shutdown, it’s not. Especially once you consider all of the shutdowns that would be necessary for the construction!
A waiver from what? The 10 mph rule is a local NYCT rule, instituted in 2007 following two separate incidents (within one week, I think) of track workers being killed by passing trains. I don’t like the rule either, but it’s not going away any time soon.
When an interlocking is being replaced, it is often necessary for all train traffic on all affected tracks to be shut down. In this case, all the interlockings in the world wouldn’t help.
And this sort of work can’t be completed in a couple of nights. It’s been going on pretty much every night since mid-summer and every weekend in August. It’s a big job.
Ms. Ortiz can easily avoid the shuttle buses: just stay off the West Side. Anybody going from Brooklyn to the Bronx should use the 4 and 5 trains.
In fact, aside from people using the Lenox Avenue stations themselves, the only people who really need the shuttle buses are those traveling between the Upper West Side and the Bronx. Are conductors on 2 trains pushing Bronx-bound passengers onto the 4 at Nevins and onto the shuttle at Times Square? I sure hope so.
If you’re trying to get somewhere, always try to avoid the shuttle buses. Always. It’s not always possible, but it often is.
As for doing the work at night, a night shutdown offers about 3 hours of access to the tracks; a weekend shutdown offers over 48. Weekend shutdowns are a lot more efficient. And if concrete is being poured, a night is simply not enough time for it to dry.
The problem with that is, first, she’s coming from Bed-Stuy (served by the A line, which is skipping Broadway-Nassau). Also, the 4 is running local in Manhattan while the 5 only runs from Grand Central to 241st Street.
With this shuttle bus mess in Harlem, there’s a solution on how to set up the subway lines.
2 train: no trains running at all
3 train: trains run between New Lots Av and 137th Street all times
5 train: trains run between Flatbush Av and 241st Street all times
4 train: runs between Utica Av and Woodlawn
With the 4 and 5 both going to Brooklyn and no train terminating at Grand Central, it allows the 4 and 5 to run express in Manhattan, something very crucial for those traveling between the Bronx and Brooklyn, including Ms. Ortiz. As for the 6 train, since it’s running to Bowling Green, just reduce the 4 and 6 from 8-minute headways to 10-minute headways in order to reduce bottlenecks at Brooklyn Bridge and Bowling Green.
Don’t forget a shuttle for the section of the 5 from East 180th Street-Dyre Avenue.
I forgot about that too. The shuttle train would probably run every half-hour on a single track.
Just a nitpick but I think the 2 train should run in Manhattan, while the 5 is just the shuttle. Just say the 2 train runs via Lex Ave, that’s happened before.
Having the (2) run via Lexington Avenue would confuse riders more. They would wonder, if the (2)’s running, where’s the (5)? Having the (5) run to Flatbush would reduce confusion for normal riders and they would know that the (2)’s not running since there’s no service to the West Side or Central Harlem.
Fair enough on the Broadway-Nassau transfer, although there is an out-of-system transfer set up from Chambers.
But I don’t see your point about the 4 running local. Even a local 4 is faster than a shuttle bus. Express service is nice but I wouldn’t call it “very crucial”.
Your idea is an interesting one, although I’m not thrilled with the idea of cutting 6 service to 10 minutes – it’s already crowded at its normal headway now.
The MTA should be doing more longer shutdowns to avoid the months of partial disrupted service. In London entire lines are stut down on weekends for work and stations are taken out of service for weeks/months straight. Sure it’s annoying for that period, but brief highly disruptive periods are easier to schedule around than extended periods of partial pain.
I think it’s doubtful that MTA customers would prefer shutdowns of entire lines. Having visited London many times, I can tell you that many people there do not think this is such a great idea. I wonder how many NYC customers, given the choice between inconvenient service and none at all, would choose none at all.
There are some significant differences between the NYC subway and the tube in London. Since most NYC subway lines have express tracks, there is often a way to provide partial service while performing track and/or tunnel maintenance. In London, where they do not have express tracks, there usually is no alternative to a complete shutdown.
In NYC, there are many more connections and alternative routings available, meaning that there is often a way to route trains around construction while still providing service. The fact is, shutting down entire lines probably wouldn’t save much construction time. All it would mean is that, instead of having SOME way to reach your destination (albeit re-routed), you would have none at all, or only a bus.
Several years ago the CTA shut the Green line down for a total rehab. When the line reopened, customers didn’t return as quickly do to anger reguarding sed shutdown. I figure the riders returned by now since fuel costs are quite high in that part of the US.
“Several years ago the CTA shut the Green line down for a total rehab. When the line reopened, customers didn’t return as quickly do [sic] to anger reguarding [sic] sed [sic] shutdown. I figure the riders returned by now since fuel costs are quite high in that part of the US.”
What? Riders angry at the inconvenience of a prolonged shutdown decided to extend that inconvenience to themselves as some sort of protest? That makes no sense.
So I’ve Been thinking about this for a while and the solution I’ve come up with is that Lines should have a scheduled shutdown schedule while keeping most of the rest of the system running. This would provide the a major benefit of predictability to service changes, which is the main problem with service changes.
ACE(Blue) BDFM(Orange) G(Light Green) JZ(Brown) LS(Grey) NQR(Yellow) 123(Red) 456(Green) 7(Pink)
One example would be Having the Blue’s not running Monday 1am – 5am, Orange, Brown, Light Green and Yellow Tuesday 1am-5am, Red and Green Wednesday 1am – 5am and the L and S 1am – 5am.
The reason for the breakup as I did it was based on track sharing, perhaps Sunday could be made into an all system for slack keeping late night fridays and saturdays construction free when late night train usage goes up and should be pushed to prevent drunk driving.
Um, no. This would maximize disruption, instead of minimizing it. If you insist on shutting down lines, do it in segments, so that trains can be rerouted easily, and group together lines with easy alternatives and connections.
Your proposal is the worst of all worlds. Lines would close even when no repair work was needed, while more complex work could not be completed in the four-hour window you are allowing.
Alon and Marc, I’m not suggesting that the lines could never be shut down for greater periods when need arrises, but one of the main reasons why we often need “major” track work is because we don’t do regular repairs and cleaning in order to stress high up times, but this means long down times when there is a problem. If tracks can be regularly cleaned, inspected and worked on for minor work the major work will be minimal. Also certain power and signaling work is best done when an entire line is our of service. This is much safer for workers and would allow for more affective maintenance in the time allotted. One would be shocked how much work is always needed, certain examples would be garbage, which is heavy rain conditions has been known to cause flooding and in other conditions cause track fires.
Bus service parallels most lines and specific shuttle buses could certainly be regularly scheduled. 1am to 5 am is a relatively standard time for entire systems through out the world to be down, which is when they do maintenance, which prevents the terrible service disruptions that we end up with, to have a line have one or two days like that would allow the NYC subway system to be upgraded and kept in a state of good repair for less money than it does now. If we don’t switch to a model of ongoing maintenance for every lines the NYC subway system will simply cease to be. Yes it will be a bit inconvenient, but I think we should all learn that 24/7 service for the Subway system is both one of the systems greatest strengths and one of its greatest weaknesses.
Noah, you don’t get the difference between New York and the other cities: New York has four-track mainlines. This simply does not exist in other cities, except for one line in Chicago, which does run 24/7, and one line in Seoul. Nighttime maintenance shutdowns are necessary on old legacy systems because the infrastructure doesn’t handle single-tracking well.
Alon, I’m sorry to note, but first of all not all of NYC is actually four track. This is especially true in the boroughs other than Manhattan. Much of the NYC Subway system is actually only three tracks and many areas are only two, hey even the second ave subway in its planned implementation is only going to be 2 tracks. There are many safety issues that still have to be addressed when working next to an active track that increase the costs of construction/repairs/maintenance and decrease the efficiency of such endeavors. Many stations share platforms between express and local service, this would mean that if you were to want to work on an actual platform, say West fourth, it would be advantageous to have both the express and local not running. In my plan, which is not perfect nor have a spent enough time to figure out how such a schedule should be done to optimize work efficiency, the system would be 24×7, with little down time for each line per week. The idea is that by having 52 weeks of 4 hours of work plus some possible additional flex you would never come upon a randomly down train line or have major incidents that are more difficult to fix when they happen instead of being prevented through regular maintenance. Other systems in the world do regular maintenance to keep the system clean and functioning so that the system never leaves a state of good repair, in NYC a system went from good repair to decaying and being kept alive on life support to okay and then back to life support, continual and constant maintenance would make our system better and more reliable.
Thanks for the information, Noah.