I often pity the poor F train. It reaches from Coney Island to Jamaica, Queens, with an extended local stint in Manhattan, and touches the lives of so many people. Yet, these straphangers by and large can’t stand the F. It’s slow; it’s crowded; it doesn’t offer Brooklyn express service; and the waits can seem interminable.
Last year, under pressure from State Senator Daniel Squadron, the MTA conducted an internal review of F train operations, and the results were decidedly not pretty. With old rolling stock, poorly maintained infrastructure and decaying assets, the F line was literally falling apart. A year later, a follow-up reveals that Transit has greatly improved the F, but the line still lags far behind the average subway performance.
Michael Grynbaum of The Times secured a copy of the follow-up report, and I’ve posted it in full after the jump below. It contains few surprises and perhaps a few twisted numbers as well. The F is doing better, Transit insists, but it’s still not there. “It feels like you get the diagnosis again, and it’s not specific about the solution,” Squadron said to The Times.
In general, the various metrics that tracked the F train’s performance showed marked improvement. The weekday on-time rate is now at 78.1 percent, up from 62.3 percent in 2009 but off the systemwide mark by over eight percent. The weekend and on-time assessments show similar improvements, but the MTA cautions that it has changed the way it calculates on-time performance to “improve transparency and to more closely align measures to customer experience and management priorities.” The trains aren’t necessarily more on time in an absolute sense, but they are on time if we consider only the MTA’s tracking methods.
Most notable is the vast improvement in the mean distance between car failures. Over the last year, the rolling stock options along the F declined from five — with some of the oldest cars running along this route — to two, and thus the MDBF shot up from 148,257 to 703,159 in July. “Improvements in F performance statistics over the past year can be attributed to the replacement of older R46 cars on the F train with newer R160 cars, as well as the completion of trackwork in Queens that had been underway for several months in 2009,” says the report. “The replacement of V with M service in Manhattan and Queens may also have positively affected performance of the F train.”
Ah, yes, the semi-controversial, semi-obvious M train rerouting. The report couldn’t assess the F train without contemplating the V, and it does so in depth. Transit believes the elimination of the V train and the replacement with the M between 47th-50th Sts. and Broadway/Lafayette St. can be a boon for the F. No longer with V trains interfere with F train operations at 2nd Ave. as the M bypasses that stop and trains no longer terminate there. Additionally, the reduction in the number of passengers transferring between the J/M/Z and the F at Delancey St./Essex St. has speeded up trains into and out of that station. As a result of the M train’s continuing along the 6th Ave. line, the F trains are also relatively emptier out of Delancey/Essex as well.
At some point in the near future, we’ll have enough data to assess fully the successes of the new M train, but so far, the results have been positive. Anecdotally, the northbound M trains leaving Broadway/Lafayette and West 4th St. have been more crowded than the V trains were, and with so many passengers from Middle Village and Brooklyn bound for Midtown, the one-seat ride has proven to be a welcome addition to the subway map. It’s a change that should have come sooner. But I digress.
F train load analysis results for the AM rush.
Finally, Transit is still working to assess load demands along the F at the AM and PM rushes. The tables above show that train car crowding levels are within acceptable parameters, but again, it’s worth noting that the MTA has changed its load guidelines since the initial F assessment. In 2009, a train was considered 100 percent full if every seat was taken. Today, a train is considered 100 percent full if every seat is take and around 15-18 passengers are standing. Thus, at times when the F cars are at 80 percent capacity, there are no seats to be had.
Ultimately, the F is still suffering from years of neglect and few adjustments to the operation schedule as the train’s popularity has peaked. Transit didn’t need to add more layers of management as they threatened to do last year, and key capital improvements and signal modernization programs are still awaiting funding. Concerns over the timetable and frequency of off-peak service haven’t been addressed, and the F is still very much a work in progress.
Postscript: For those of us still holding out hope for an F Express train in Brooklyn after the interminable Culver Viaduct project wraps in 2014, Transit has promised at least a feasibility study. “The review of express service in Brooklyn will be undertaken closer to the completion of the Culver Viaduct project,” the document says. There’s hope for it yet.
After the jump, read the F train review follow-up in full.