Those as old as I do remember how dramatically the system slowed after the overreaction to those accidents and federal condemnation of "cowboy motormen."
The elimination of key-bys also slowed the system.
So did the practice of stopping an entire train when a passenger becomes ill.
Basically, the system slowed to a crawl for some very minor gains.
3
Mr. Byford should be congratulated for taking on the status quo, and re-thinking, cellar-to-ceiling subway operations. Without raising an extra dime, changing MTA subway management culture raises hope that public transit can be a reliable, positive experience for New Yorkers. Andy Byford for Mayor! Today the subways, tomorrow let's cure dysfunctional city government!
11
I am Japanse who often uses Subway in Tokyo.
Compared with Subway in Tokyo, there are many problems in NewYork Subway systems for a long time.
Last week, I went to NY and used Subway after ten years.
Subways were still confused me by the point of the timing of the switch from local to express and ticket system, etc...
6
If you want to see a really slow system, ride the Monorail at Newark Airport to/from the NJ Transit train station. They don't seem to be going much faster than the pace of a running person.
The Newark Airport Monorail doesn't have the same age excuse as the NY Subways. It actually had to close for many months a few years after opening when they 'discovered' that water, when frozen, expands and can cause damage to the system.
3
In addition to everything else I have tried to clarify, everyone omits the Union Square derailment. That was the accident that really slowed down the railroad in places. Under pressure from the NTSB we had to install wheel detectors at crossovers that met certain criteria. Unlike grade time signals, which are satisfied once the lead car bridges the circuit, wheel detectors monitor the passage of the whole train through the slow speed area and have the ability to raise a stop arm under the trailing cars if the speed restriction is exceeded at any time.
2
@fFinbar AND they are really badly calculated meaning the trains go 4 to 6 mph when wheel detectors are in use. They are so bad that I believe they are surreptitiously disabled in areas but the trains still go extra slow because the train operators are scared.
2
Don't tell anyone, but I agree. Many (most, all) of the are probably on bypass; but only the tower operator/ATD/TD know; the operators in the field have no way of knowing.
3
fFinbar,
Where grade time signals extending a train length beyond the crossovers ever considered to serve the same function?
Maybe the reporter who wrote this excellent article could also report how modern or outdated the subway's dispatching system is. Does the MTA employ computer-learning/adaptive software and related technology to support their dispatching decisions, especially when responding to delays that lead to cascading failures? If not, they might want to contact the braniacs at Google, Microsoft, Amazon and our universities, as it would provide a great project for scientists involved in deep learning/AI.
1
Dispatching is not computer driven. It is based on human intelligence and experience, guided by the timetable and schedule.
2
@fFinbar Maybe it can be improved; if we don't try, how will we know? Doing things the way they were done for decades without at least looking into ways of improving them using more recent technology is one way of guaranteeing lack of progress. For example, modern airplanes use various assist technologies to help the pilots fly the plane safely and efficiently. I, for one, appreciate that modern air travel is many times safer than it was in the "good old days". If we'd never changed and updated, we'd still be using horse-drawn carriages as the hottest and newest mode of transportation.
@Pete in DowntownAre you willing to pay $5 a ride to hire those expensive predictive/machine learning modelers and developers? To try to extract some efficiency that may not even pan out.
Great idea. Faster trains will mean that customers like me won't have to strategize the best routes to take. Instead of jumping off the "A" train at West 4th Street to catch the "B" or "D" because these trains stop only 4 times before reaching my station stop (7th Avenue), I can merely cross the platform at West 4th to board a faster moving E train and not descend down two flights of stairs to catch the B or D lines. I like this MTA chief. He's instituting ideas to make the trains run faster, improving our commute.
8
So not only is the subway system & its signals out of date, with many problems, there's Zachary Arcidiacono of the Transport Workers Union Local 100 saying: “We were trained to go 5 to 7 miles per hour below the posted speed...It became part of the work culture.”
1
Don't blame the union here. They're going under the speed limit to avoid tripping faulty signals.
9
Whoever trained Mr. Arciacono to go 5-7 miles below the same speed limit is wrong and needs to be reinstructed. I personally know a motorman who was chastised for going 29mph in a 30mph zone.
3
@Barry Short There was no "blaming" of the union - just pointing out that buried at the end of the story was that drivers were "trained" to go even slower than the slow speeds posted.
1
Years ago the various Manhattan express trains - mostly on the former IRT and IND lines and on the Brighton line in Brooklyn would zip between stops yet there was no carnage, Trains were frequent. Were the train operators better trained and more competent then? Maybe it was a kid's perception of what was fast however seldom does a train make if from one express stop to another without a slow-down-and-crawl episode, even if the previous train on the line passed by many minutes before. Any improvement is welcome.
8
@SML When was in high school in the '60's, I lived near the 238th St station (#1 train). Even though it was only the 2nd stop, there would be no seats. Trains arrived every 60 secs or so. I would not get on a train until there was a seat. I would usually let 5 trains go by. I would get to school in Bklyn 5 to 7 minutes later. Today, I would get to school at least 45 minutes later.
The MTA says, "we can't run more trains because of the outdated signal system". But replicating the current signal system makes no sense to me - do we really need the equivalent of the system designed 100 years ago? Except at switches, the train operator needs to know only one thing: is there a train between me and the next station and if there is, where is it? (And if there isn't, and there are no switches in front of the train, then no signal is needed between that train and the station.)
There are far more modern and simple ways of providing that information than rebuilding the signal system, which will take decades and cost $billions. Why can't each train have a transmitter which broadcasts its location? The train operator would receive a message like "E Train #1243, 500 feet in front of you. Slow down to 5 mph". Or, "no trains between you and the next station."
So many times I wait 20 minutes for a train and then that train is delayed even though there can't possibly be another train on the track in front, unless that train is delayed by more than 20 minutes.
1
You are basically describing Communications Based Train Control, installed years ago on the L, and recently inaugurated on the 7.
1
@SML
It wasn't the operators, it was that they imposed loony regulations after 1995 that slowed everything to a crawl, and that as the article points out the system is in terrible repair.
1
Kudos to Mr. Byford for his realistic approach. The slow-speed problem has its roots in the original operational culture which allowed motormen to "key by" red signals to move their trains closer to stopped ones ahead (usually those in stations). This permitted more trains per hour (at least 30 on most lines, or 2-minute headways in rush hour). A number of accidents resulting from human (motorman) error beginning in the 70's resulted in the barring of "keying by" and, ultimately, the creation of all of these slow zones. This causes longer headways. Also, comparisons of NY's 100+ year old system to newer ones (with up-to-date technology and design) elsewhere is unfair - and the nearest comparably-aged systems in the US (Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago) do not have either the passenger load or complexity of interconnected routes. Let's stay focused on the real problem - the lack of government fiscal commitment, and the political environment that inhibits changing that.
6
@EdNY
"Keying by" a red-red signal is not a culture issue but one of rules. It involves no significant danger since train speeds are limited. In fact, it is necessary to couple trains together!
You can see a discussion of Andy Byford's "Way Back" at http://solutionsny.nyc/nycta.html.
2
@Eugene
IIRC, a motorman on an in-service "A" train keyed by a red signal at Hoyt-Schermerhorn a number of years ago and hit the train in front of him.
2
Au contraire. Keying-by a signal (with permission of course; different rules for yard moves) even at low speed can be dangerous if a blind curve is involved. I've seen such collisions both in the subway and on the structure. IIRC, the Hoyt-Schermerhorn collision (curve involved) was in 1970, the same year as the fatal Roosevelt Avenue collision. The former ended Keying-by without permission; the latter resulted in new rules for other than head car operation.
3
This article, and an excellent one by Adam Pearce on May 9 discussing how MTA decisions lead to delays omit a key discussion of queuing theory.
A system tends to operate fairly well and smoothly at about 85% of its design capacity. At 98% of capacity, it appears to not move at all. In fact, about 95% of capacity is the best that can realistically be achieved without lines becoming intolerably long, and at about 90% of capacity the lines will lengthen to the point that there will be significant complaints.
The real problem is the MTA's total lack of understanding of anything related to a "system."
IF the Transit Authority did ALL of the following, the system would be running fairly smoothly in a very few years at minimal cost:
1) Modify all "consists" - i.e., cars and multiple units so that there is a tripper every 60 feet (IND / BMT).
2) If a tripper is activated (a train is "dumped"), apply the brakes electrically to the entire train before the "train line" air pressure drops to the point of applying the brakes.
3) When a train is dumped, used the ABS braking system which prevents wheel lockups (skids) so that the train stops more quickly. It also prevents rail damage.
4) Return the signal system to the 1938 IND design.
5) Buy additional original (60'-IND/BMT) cars to provide a 10% increase in capacity.
6) Give track crews low powered radios that would emit a beep in operator cabs to alert train operators that someone is on the tracks, regardless of safety zone setup.
3
Funny. I live on the D N R part of Brooklyn mentioned several times in this story as "the first ones to experience faster rides as a result of rule changes to speed up trains." I know that recently I've put in complaints with the MTA because of reduced service on that line. At least twice a week I wait up to 20 minutes for a local train during morning rush hour. What's the use of increased speed if there's less trains.
Decades ago I would take the A train from 207th street and it would local to 125th St. Then it would express to 59 st.
That thing was like a cannonball on the express tracks and calculating the time it took to go from one stop to the other it was traveling over 30 mph.
I also for a while rode the #6 from 59th to Westchester Square in the Bronx. At rush hour back the it was an express on the EL in the Bronx going from Hunts Point to Parkchester. That was always a nice ride because you felt like you were somewhere else as you watched more than a cement wall pass by and the elevated tracks gave the train more of a "clickety-clack" train sound.
It was amazing how fast you could move at rush hour back then, often no more than 30 minutes to get from mid town to the Bronx.
15
@Paul Yes, it's so depressing when the A or D trains move at a crawl between 59'th St and 125'th St, when you compare to our memories of how fast they used to travel.
3
Andy Byford... NY is lucky to have him. He did a lot of good work here in Toronto.
18
@John NY isn't like Toronto. Our train system is ancient and runs 24/7 moving millions of riders per day.
1
I just returned from my first trip to Japan. The Tokyo subway/train system is amazing. The US needs to take lessons from the Japanese on how to build and run subway/train systems. The population of Tokyo is 14 million and the subways run on time, are clean, and safe. Everyone uses it.
8
@Liz K Our system in NYC is old. Tokyo's is better because its newer
4
@Connie
And because it's Japanese.
1
@Liz K They also lack the progressive politicians like Cuomo who give away our tax dollars to every parasite with their hands out rather than using the money to fund things that we actually pay for...like the subway.
1
So happy to hear that they're finally getting to the root of the problem (or at least to one of the roots).
When I was a kid, it used to take no more than 40 minutes to get door-to-door from downtown Brooklyn to the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the 4/5.
Today, every day, it takes me 75–90 minutes, on occasion, 120.
I am astonished every day looking at the long-suffering faces of passengers and contemplating the patience and perseverance of New Yorkers.
And by the way, MTA, we are indeed "passengers," not "customers." Not everything is reducible to commerce, and basic services like transportation most emphatically not. You're providing a service, not a product, and it needs to work. This is not a profit enterprise and it's not about jamming in as many people as possible and providing as little service as possible.
And to anyone who is listening, the loud speakers are way too loud. The MTA is destroying everyone's hearing, including children
19
The slower speeds that resulted from the crashes were the direct result of the sabotage of the signal system by the MTA.
The subway signal system was designed to prevent crashes when a second "tripper" was sixty feet behind the front of the train but the MTA moved it back to ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY feet back, and additional 110 feet.
Thus, the subway signal system, with designed in Positive Train Control, was sabotaged and the system was rendered ineffective.
Even worse, the subway system operates by opening the train air line which locks the wheels on some cars but not applying the brakes on cars at the end of the train. Trains could be brought to a stop more quickly by applying the brakes to the whole train electrically, with the anti-lock system.
7
This response also applies, in part, to your comment above. I have had many motormen tell me they can stop the train in a shorter distance using full service rather than emergency braking. Wrong answer. For one thing, the signal system uses emergency braking in determining safe braking distances. Then if there are dead motors on the train, there won't be complete electric braking, which will increase full service braking distance. As will ABS or slip/slide. And not least, in personal injury lawsuits, the lawyer for the plaintiff has a slam-dunk if hears the emergency brake was not used (documented shortest stopping distance, remember). Emergencies require emergency braking; it is irreversible and no second-guessing oneself. I know: skid possible, flat spots on the wheels, rail wear; tough--not hitting the passenger on the roadbed is more important. Finally, when a train goes into emergency, the circuitry is designed so all the cars, first to last, go into emergency at the same time. Whew, I feel like I'm back in School Car.
4
@fFinbar Thank you for sharing your expertise, very interesting to read such detailed explanations.
2
@fFinbar
You are not correct. The tripper on the track opens the train air line. This takes advantage of the basic design of the Westinghouse Air Brake which stops a train if a coupling opens.
It takes roughly 300 feet (IND/BMT) of train movement for the drop in pressure to reach the last car. Thus, when stopping a train with air (no electric control, the procedure is to apply the brakes full (but not emergency) and then back off to the hold position for about 300', then reapply the brake. This technique will stop a train (R1-10 cars - full brakes) traveling at full speed (45 MPH) in 600'.
If the brakes are applied electrically (brakes are applied in each car at the same time) but without ABS or regenerative braking, the distance is considerably less because the time for the low air pulse to reach the rear car is eliminated.
One can make the argument that this eliminates part of the fail-safe aspect of the Westinghouse brake, but the air component could be replaced by an electrical circuit that would apply the brakes (or actually, hold off the brakes) if the circuit is broken by the train becoming uncoupled.
1
I hope to God mr Byford has a good sense of which lines, and which stretches, can be safely traveled at higher speeds.
I ride the A train in Manhattan and there are segments (for example between 103 and 116) where the trains fly at terrifying speeds and it seems, at times, like the infrastructure is old enough to cause a derailment. One occurred near here a couple of summers ago, too.
3
@jboone
I don't know what speeds "terrify" you, but the maximum speed of a subway car is between 45 and 50 mph. Not very fast at all.
14
@jbooneI would not be concerned--they will probably trust the judgment of the same people who are responsible for the "267 faulty signals found by the "Team".
With regard to another commenter--subway riders are indeed 'customers' and should be treated accordingly-meaning they/we should be getting our moneys worth--oops, maybe we are as we only pay for a minor portion of the real fare while the taxpayers take care of the rest.
Maybe those people in Albany who will be getting a 60% or so pay raise can have the time to figure out what is going on and offer some help.
Gimme the bus--they go about 15 miles per hour too.
Enjoy the faster ride and keep your fingers crossed!
1
On old tracks, 50mph is probably too fast.
A lot of boasting from the MTA re; the Subway is better but for me the 4,5,6 line over the last few weeks has been the same; packed trains at all hours, trains that skip stops due to lateness, trains that have wait times of over ten minutes during rush hour, trains that again due to lateness ask us to depart the local so they can turn the local into an express " this train will now only bet stopping at 86, 125" etc.. all the time so now you get off and wait for the next train, usually several minutes away and then it appears and is too crowded too board. And in the morning sleeping homeless take up many areas for passengers on this line and then the fare beaters who just don;t even pay as now at my station its just like one out of four. The whole subway system is a damn joke.
8
Good news! Glad to see that Mr. Byford is moving forward on this; allowing the trains to travel at safe speed (as opposed to below safe speed) is progress.
One suggestion: While we are waiting for our new signaling system, how about this to further reduce the risk of rear-end collisions: Equip the respective rear car of each train with large, bright rear lights that, for example, are green when the train is accelerating or traveling at speed, yellow when it's coasting down, and bright flashing red when braking or standing. If we mount those lights towards the top of the rear end of each last car, the driver of the following train can, at least see that there is a train ahead and what that train is currently doing. This last resort could add several seconds for that driver to take action, and avoid or mitigate any collision. Lastly, if mounting such lights is a big to-do, use a large portable display and place it in the rear window of the last car. Any thoughts?
7
Pete,
Did I miss the recent rear-enders that the current signal system failed to prevent? I thought we were dealing with over-reaction and sloppy reaction to past problems.
3
My read is Andy Byford knows what he's talking about. If elected officials have any brains, they give him the resources he needs while he's at the helm.
24
@Jeff C
Well put. I give thanks every day that someone as smart and experienced as Andy Byford is on the job. And I pray that our elected leaders back him and his plans to the hilt. It's a crime that a city as great as New York has let its public transportation get this screwed up. Byford has a huge, complicated set of problems to resolve, and we all need to give him the time, space and, especially, funds to do it.
44
Somebody should tell this guy this isn’t Europe. Our system is old and corrupt. It needs to be torn apart which you can’t do since millions live above it.
3
@DMG
Driving the trains at a reasonable speed is a European idea?
8
@DMG
So what? we just don't do anything? That's your solution?
And what does this no being Europe have to do anything. London was somehow able to revamp their system without tearing it apart and with millions living above it.
12
@DMG As opposed to London and Paris with their fresh new subway systems with nothing but empty fields above them?
10
any additional training involved in these changes? or do we look back to the future for collisions?
2
janet,
Did you miss the parts of the article that explained that some lower speeds were over-reactions and that grade time signals were set improperly? This is rectifying mistakes, not changing procedures. No training needed.
3
HardLY, a memorable 'underground' system--when compared with others. It tracks its pathways just underneath the street. Londoners travel fastly in their tube system, very far from the surface, although they have their 'underground' which is often rather near the surface and often above ground. And, there is the Paris Metro, where the gates fly closed and you must be aware lest you are clipped where it hurts the most. And then there are the lovely trains--stately Stalinesque where poets are commemorated and other literary and artisitc figures. There is the rather infamous Tokyo system, where you can't ever get lost--something which can only happen when you are trying to find your way above ground. And lest we forget--we make note of Toronto, Rome, Budapest, and then there are others yet more glorious to travel on, scattered around the world--which put a premium on sheer friendlyness.
3
one other systematic change to speed trains would be changing the logic on the car door controllers. This would be -- once a door is closed and locked, take it "out of loop" of the conductor's control.
many times, the conductor is cycling the doors to clear a pocketbook, etc., and further down the train someone inserts a foot to "catch the train" (and delay 2,000 people).
6
@ssquare
So if something is holding the doors open, the train should just sit in the station?
Or do you propose that the train move with a door part way open?
What if it is a person rather than a pocketbook holding it open?
2
@Eugene
Sorry, Ii didn't fully flesh out the situation in my comment in the interest of keeping it short. the train does stay in the station until all doors are closed and locked, and safety dictates that that remain so. when one door is held open, the conductor reopens and recloses ALL the doors (even those that had already successfully closed and locked), and that's the opportunity some crack-pots take to jam into the train.
5
We incorporated this feature into the "new technology" cars maybe fifteen years ago. Whether Conductors take advantage of this feature is another question. It was purposely included for the reason you state by people with real time operating experience.
5
I applaud Andy Byford for this. This needed to be done. The NYC subways are noticeably slower now than when I was a kid. I've been to subway systems in Chicago, Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal, the DC Metro Area, the Bay Area (BART) and Vancouver among others. The subways at these locations all move much quicker than in NYC.
Byford and his speed crew may want to specifically look at the following if they haven’t already…
1. The Downtown A and D Express run between 125th and 59th Street in Manhattan
2. The F and G line between 7th Avenue and Bergen St in Brooklyn
3. Most of the A express run in Brooklyn, particularly on the Manhattan-bound side
4. The Manhattan-bound E and F express run from Continental Avenue to Roosevelt Ave in Queens
5. The Manhattan-bound 4 and 5 express run between Franklin Avenue and Borough Hall in Brooklyn.
Except for the broad turn at Smith and 9th Street on the F and G line and the sharper turn at Nevins Street on the 4 and 5, these stretches are all relatively straight. Yet, for whatever reason trains do not move particularly fast in these areas.
Finally, many of the old IND Division subway lines feature broad curves. They were SPECIFICALLY designed to have trains take them at quicker speeds. Not at full-speed mind you, but trains generally do not need to slow to a crawl to take these turns. For whatever reason in recent years, the MTA have elected to slow trains to a crawl at a number of these locations.
4
...Two other stretches I neglected to mention...
6. The Uptown Q Express run from 42nd to 57th Street. 7. Most of the Uptown A Express run from 14th to 59th Street.
I can’t wait for the A train to actually feel like an express train between 125th and 59th. Most trips it feels like the conductors of the A and C trains are in a competition to see who can drive the slowest.
22
@Lars E Conductors do not operate the train. The
Conductor closes and opens the doors. The Train Operator is the person who sits in the front moves the train.
13
@Lars E In addition to the signals, dispatching plays a significant role in how fast or slow trains are allowed to run. Until our signaling technology is updated to at least late 1990s standard, trains are often slowed down so that the train ahead has cleared the next station. However, I agree that the A train is currently not running express-anything between 59th and 125th Street, and could probably be overtaken by an asthmatic ant on a walker. (Only slightly exaggerating here).
2
That is purely the signal system at work; not dispatching. Dispatchers are at terminals and en route, where they can hold a train that is ahead of schedule, for a connection, or if there is blockage ahead.
1
Do average hourly speeds include time stopped at a station? In NYC, there’s a station every 60-90 seconds. In SF, trains can run 4-5 minutes (if not longer) between stops.
I’m curious how fast trains actually go when they’re moving.
5
@Chris
Maximum design speed of subway cars is 45 mph. Some may get close to 50 mph. The same cars, running on the LIRR and Metro North run at 85 mph due to different gearing to provide higher speeds but slower acceleration.
3
We've gotten them to fifty-five on an express ending in a downgrade with timers. Express trains can take advantage of the higher speeds: locals might reach 30-35 miles an hour before reaching the next station (not considering grades, curves, or signal controls).
3
That should read WITHOUT TIMERS. My bad. Proofread twice, post once.
1
What about flooding? Are pumps able to clear normal seepage? Would extensive damage result from the next storm tide? Will massive money really be spent? Manhattan's business, real estate, and veritable viability need this addressed - now not latter. Past people like Robert Moses and David Rockefeller would do what had to be done. Whom it may concern better get it together "before" Manhattan's value trends back toward $16. Leading indicator of the future of real estate values from Bay Ridge to Binghamton.
1
The speed restrictions is not only the case. What counts is the equipment (subway cars) the speed is governed.
The M3's, M7's, & M9's railcars on the Long Island Rail Road can reach speeds up to 80 mph. The standards on the subway train is most 40 mph. Remember the railroads have a better signal system then the subway system.
3
@John R. Ross
As mentioned elsewhere, same cars but different gear rations. The choice is top speed vs. acceleration since subway stops are closer together.
The LIRR and Metro North signal systems are grossly inferior to the subway system. That is why they have to install Positive Train Control while PTC is already built into the design of the subway system.
7
@Eugene
Thanks for pointing out about top speed vs. acceleration. Yes the stations are closer with the subway system. They could bump up the acceleration to match some of the speed limits. Plus purchase subway cars with disk brakes, making easier and smoother to stop.
1
Andy Byford deserves credit for fixing the challenging and dilapidated system. Seems to me he is doing it well and quickly. New Yorkers have waited far too long for a working subway line. Reminds me of our crumbling infrastructure elsewhere in the country. We teeter on the edge of safety with our old bridges and slow trains. At least this is forward progress in the city. Now, for the rest of the country.
35
@Anitakey I don't think its fair to say that Andy Byford has fixed the system or even improved it in any significant way.
1
Thank God. We have been artificially slowing down the trains for years to avoid the very rare and unlikely scenario of a train collision. Time for some common sense. New Yorkers have places to be.
13
RE: "Subway officials have blamed “overcrowding” and growing ridership"
Lazy scapegoating. This isn't unique to NY.
The problem isn't that there are too many CUSTOMERS, its that there isn't enough SERVICE.
The CUSTOMERS are being cheated. They pay taxes. They pay fares. The transit systems don't deliver.
However it sounds like they are moving from blaming the CUSTOMERS to looking at their system. A start.
40
Might. A heading with a question mark.
Once the L train goes out of commission it won't matter.
You ever try to go to Brooklyn on the Independent or BMT lines weekends? Everyone I know lives there now. If you live in Manhattan as I do it is as if you are a graveyard ghost amongst the tourists and who-knows-what-the-hecks on Manhattan weekends. The MTA is why everyone has second homes.
No, honey, "everyone" doesn't have second homes.
And let's be clear: Those who do have them in order to advertise how rich they are. Or would have you believe they are. MTA schmem-tee-ay.
8
The subways seem to operate at full speed or a crawl. Full speed always seems plenty fast to me, on the cusp of too fast.
2
@William Huh? I think folks with resources simply enjoy weekends at a slower pace in the countryside. I don't think those lucky people are advertising anything.
@William
45 MPH is too fast?
2
Glad to hear that some improvements are actually underway. That said, comparing BART average speeds to those of the NYC is hardly a valid comparison:
BART - 121 miles of track
NYC - 800 miles of track (includes non-revenue producing track, 665 miles are revenue producing)
BART - 432,000 daily weekday trips
NYC - > 5.5 million daily weekday trips (2017)
I'm just saying.
Sources: https://www.bart.gov/about/history/facts and http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ for NYC
14
@ANDY: Good points. BART also has very long suburban runs where trains can zoom at over 70mph, which brings up the average. They crawl at a snail's pace through downtown Oakland and near Daly City.
2
Finally! Let me know when they stop crawling between 125th and 145th on the A.
18
This must be the only clean stretch of tract in the entire system!
2
@RealTRUTH I was looking at that picture and saying to myself "is that really the new york subway?"
@Alan must be the second avenue extension only opened in January!
@Alan
As were we all!
People accustomed to the excellent, frequent, clean and timely metro service in cities such as Tokyo, Seoul, Milan, Paris, Madrid, etc. would still be appalled at the state of the subway system in one of the world's greatest cities.
36
From Through the Looking Glass: "Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
It's not encouraging to hear that the MTA is racing to fix hundreds of faulty signals and that it is identifying stretches where trains can move faster. The New York City subway system is an antique (quite literally), except for the cars which do get replaced on a regular basis. The station platforms are narrow. There are no barriers preventing people from falling to the tracks. There is no unified modern signaling system which would allow trains to arrive at three minute intervals. The fare for traveling one stop on the shuttle is the same as traveling all the way to Flushing. And, much improvement has been focused on artistic new tile work, which is beautiful, but not particularly functional. The city needs to gut the existing tunnels, one by one, putting in new track, tunnel walls, signaling systems, station barriers, etc. The MTA is wasting resources by delaying the real work that needs to be done, and patching instead. How is it possible that NYC can't have a modern subway system equal to just about any city in China?
11
@ShenBowen
Wow. Gut the tunnels one by one? Why not all of them at once, since we're dreaming...? Yes the NY subway system is an antique, but look what's been built up all around it and over it. We can't very well start from scratch. We have to work with what's here. No choice about it, unless you envision demolishing the whole city to start over.
6
@ShenBowen
WHY?
All of the track is fairly new. Most of the below ground or ground level track is welded rail.
What is wrong with the tunnels?
The signal system allows trains consisting of ten 60' cars to move at 90 second headways. What did you say that we no longer have trains of ten 60; cars? Yes, the MTA did sabotage the signal system when they moved to married pairs and quads. and 85' cars vs. 60' cars. But anyone who gives the MTA credit for competence is mistaken.
3
The signal system was not "sabotaged" when we went to married pairs or four and five car units. Trip cocks were maintained on the lead car, where they count the most, and in between cars, in case a passenger falls to the roadbed. We have no 85 foot cars. 75 feet is the max, and they will most probably be replaced with 60 foot cars which are compatible with the entire BMT/IND; 75 foot cars can not negotiate parts of the Eastern Division of the BMT.
3
The trains run slow because employees are paid by the hour. Making them run faster means more work. So they will stay slow. Bring a long a short novel like War & Peace to finish along your "rush hour" commute.
10
@matty when the trains are slow or late it cuts into the employees break and recovery time. Also the discipline for going too fast can be excessively harsh or capricious. They need to fix the timers and remove speed limits at certain spots.
17
@matty
Moving trains slower is more work. Ask anyone who operates trains.
Seriously.
11
@matty Ah. Yes. Blame the people who have the least to do with improving and making decisions about the system
11
This is predictable, years of disinvesting in the system bears fruit. The bi-partisan congress has been taking funds from NYC for years, they don't have the guts to change the gas tax to keep up with inflation, so now the revenue is all diverted to the automobile.
9
@Eddie B
lol, so it's the fault of Congress, not Albany and City Hall? Riiiiiight....
4
@Eddie B
Certainly Congress has shown a lack of courage, but the gas tax hasn't been diverted to automobiles.
It used to be that 100% of the gas tax went to roads. Now some of the gas tax is diverted to masss transit.
1
Howard Roberts, president of NYC Transit from early 2007 to late 2009, increased train speeds and began to publish station arrival times. Those moves -- plus his appointment of dedicated managers for each subway line -- improved service, as shown in the statistics published each month by the MTA (and as noted in the graphic on train delays published in the May NY Times story linked here). Back then, Roberts was pushing trains in some sections past 30 mph. Now Andy Byford wants to run trains faster, even as he deals with more construction. NYC Transit needs to look at what Chicago did to revitalize its system: Concentrate on fixing the old system -- and old signals -- before putting more resources into modernization.
12
@old straphanger I am not sure Chicago is exactly the best comparable. The system is far, far less complex (I used to live in NYC) and only parts of it are revitalized. The Brown line is definitely running at speeds less than 15 miles an hour. From the stop I get on (Belmont) to where I get off (Washington) is almost exactly 4 miles. It takes at least 25 minutes if not longer for me to get there. That is certainly not 15 miles an hour
Maybe next we can find a way to speed up the Metro North train which spends half the trip from New Haven to NY at a crawl. It’s not good when you look out the window at the slow traffic on 95 and it it moving faster than the train.
33
I remember when Metro-North's "Shell" interlocking at New Rochelle slowed Acelas to 15 mph. Not only were the railfans fine with that, they were furious at Amtrak for bucking the status quo.
1
Try sitting on the Acela and watching not only the traffic on 95 but Metro-North locals pass you by because of the way Metro-North holds back Amtrak traffic in favor of their own. Penn Station to New Haven on the Acela: 100 minutes to go 75 miles; 45 MPH. That's laughable. From New Haven to Rt. 128, MA is also 100 minutes for 145 miles, so 87 MPH which is nothing special but at least the train's moving briskly most of the way.
4
Anybody with half a brain would figure out by now that the train system in America is broken. We refuse to look at the safe high-speed rail systems that run across Europe and Japan. These latest promises that our old system well suddenly run high speeds is nothing more than a' Big Con Job'.
Let's face it the Republican Senate is in the pocket of special interest groups, hopefully with the new democratic House some fresh new ideas about fixing up our interstate highways our rail systems, along with our bridge. In the 50s we showed the world what great American highways can do for the economy. Let us take that same hope and yes dreams to safely modernize this country. To put men and women into the jobs that will bring pride to each one of their families. Haven't we had enough of this snake oil con Man that sits doling out tweets, that are mean-spirited and in many cases just outright lies. We can be so much more, thinking with pride in our hearts.
27
In the olden days, which I remember well, all the trains always ran faster than they do now. It was normal. Now they poke along. They should run more like cars on a Los Angeles freeway-- bumper to bumper at 70 MPH.
We NYers need to get to our work! Rush hour is called that for a reason. I often wonder, when I'm sitting on a delayed train, if MTA engineers sometimes lose sight of that fact because they are already *at work.*
44