|
|
| Re: MTA to run express F train service in Brooklyn in 2017 (1397106) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: MTA to run express F train service in Brooklyn in 2017 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed May 25 13:18:22 2016, in response to Re: MTA to run express F train service in Brooklyn in 2017, posted by Steamdriven on Tue May 24 19:23:13 2016. There are several ideas within your question, so I'll take them one at a time.Your Question - Why not increase the speeds on the express tracks to keep both local and express riders happy? The speed of a train helps the riders on-board the train, but that is not the same as helping the riders waiting at the platforms. An example - a couple of decades ago on Staten Island a private high-speed ferry ran between St. George and Mid-town taking 25 minutes while charging a premium fare. The regular free ferry takes 25 minutes for the 5.5 mile crossing to South Ferry with the subway adding 30 minutes to reach midtown. The fast ferry was indeed "fast" but it was not "frequent!" "Frequent" in transit terms is about how many trains (or buses, etc) greet passengers in a given time period - the wait time between trains. If memory serves there were 6 am rush hour trips only to Manhattan and the pm rush hour 6 trips only from Manhattan. Other-wise there was no service at all. Train speeds can be increased, but that is not the same as saying there is frequent service. Many folks commonly confuse "fast" with "frequent" - but they are not the same thing in this case. Your question - If the trains are going 60 mph (or whatever) then fewer trains can provide the same service, or the same trains provide more frequent service. Beware of confusing "fast" and "frequent". Here you are talking about "turn around" time - the time it takes the train to reach its destination, and then return to its home base. All things being equal in theory - the shorter amount of "turn-around time" could mean fewer train units needed for the service, or possibly frequent service meaning shorter waits between trains for passengers. Except in the real world - all things are not equal. Other guys on the forum are much better than I am at making train schedules, and have worked at the train scheduling offices at the Transit Authority. These folks will be much able to explain why "all things are not equal" - and the other factors involved. Your question - I suspect that could be worked around if the will to do so existed ... The basic problem is simple - and the F-line just happens to be the current example. It is simple - just how does one get a huge group of folks to give up something that they've benefited from & enjoy - for a lesser quality service where others benefit? Especially when the current beneficial situation DOES NOT HAVE TO CHANGE! There are no pressing fiscal, environmental, political, technological, etc. reasons for a change in train service. There is no pressing, "Why" for the proposed service change for the majority of the riders at the most highly used stations. Some transit folks and others forget that "people often do not like change." If that change does not bring about positive benefits - and in fact brings about actual negatives - people will resist! Some transit folks come up all kinds of suggestions - but they really do not have anything that approaches the level of simple direct frequent service to Manhattan that has been enjoyed for decades. One simply can not sugar coat longer waits for trains! Or ferries, or buses! Mike |
|
|
|