[44 / 1 / 19]
How do you fix this mess? I'll start with some suggestions
>Fare tiers: A trip from Grand Central to PABT should not cost the same as a trip from Harlem to Jamaica. If done sensibly, this should provide more revenue than they could ever dream of using the current fixed fare system. Tiered fares are also common in every single city outside of North America
>Close stops that are right next to each other: Imagine you are on the Brighton line Q on a weekend, and your train has to stop twice within 350 yards because it serves two stops that no one gets off at. While an extreme example, it can be applied to a lot of stations in all of NYC. Most local stops in Manhattan are only 5 blocks apart, that's around 450 yards. It is better to close the redundant stations and instead walk 3 more minutes, than have a train lose 10 minutes for stopping every 400 yards.
>Abolish some or most express services: For example the A in midtown Manhattan serves serves 5 stops between and including 59th St and W4th St, the C serves 7 stops. This is an insufficient advantage compared to increased overall service for all stations. The Broadway line is a similar example, and the 6th Avenue line sacrifices connections from the Express to the Canarsie Line L or the PATH. That would leave the issue of congestion on the local tracks, which can be solved by...
>fixing the signalling: The network still runs on century-old signals with only the L and the 7 seeing sophisticated signalling improvements. CBTC (as already used on the L and 7, and also used on London Underground's sub-surface lines, which also feature intersecting lines) and ATO can drastically increase capacity on any line.
Of course this all comes down to funding, but is it really better to burn like 3 billion dollars per mile on a new line that won't finish before 2035, or wouldn't you prefer to fix the existing network as quickly as possible?
>Fare tiers: A trip from Grand Central to PABT should not cost the same as a trip from Harlem to Jamaica. If done sensibly, this should provide more revenue than they could ever dream of using the current fixed fare system. Tiered fares are also common in every single city outside of North America
>Close stops that are right next to each other: Imagine you are on the Brighton line Q on a weekend, and your train has to stop twice within 350 yards because it serves two stops that no one gets off at. While an extreme example, it can be applied to a lot of stations in all of NYC. Most local stops in Manhattan are only 5 blocks apart, that's around 450 yards. It is better to close the redundant stations and instead walk 3 more minutes, than have a train lose 10 minutes for stopping every 400 yards.
>Abolish some or most express services: For example the A in midtown Manhattan serves serves 5 stops between and including 59th St and W4th St, the C serves 7 stops. This is an insufficient advantage compared to increased overall service for all stations. The Broadway line is a similar example, and the 6th Avenue line sacrifices connections from the Express to the Canarsie Line L or the PATH. That would leave the issue of congestion on the local tracks, which can be solved by...
>fixing the signalling: The network still runs on century-old signals with only the L and the 7 seeing sophisticated signalling improvements. CBTC (as already used on the L and 7, and also used on London Underground's sub-surface lines, which also feature intersecting lines) and ATO can drastically increase capacity on any line.
Of course this all comes down to funding, but is it really better to burn like 3 billion dollars per mile on a new line that won't finish before 2035, or wouldn't you prefer to fix the existing network as quickly as possible?
