5 ms·

More importantly, they used the overcrowding excuse as a means to raise $800mm+ from New York taxpayers. If this capital wasn't necessary given the problems the

• DamonHD 9y ago
  Well, fraud only if it were deliberately misleading. It seems highly likely that the MTA believes what it is saying, even if it happens to be misguided, and driven by the right motivations.
  • tomohawk 9y ago
    It's either fraud (deliberate) or incompetence bordering on fraud. They have declining ridership, yet are claiming increasing overcrowding. In either case, probably time to clean house and get rid of the "better safe than sorry" crowd.
    • stouset 9y ago
      If they’re running fewer trains slower, then declining ridership is not incompatible with increased overcrowding.
  • bluGill 9y ago
    It is fraud though: they have/had an "other" category, but they called it "overcrowding" and then used the confusion on what overcrowding means to get funds (I'll bet when you hear overcrowding you think too many people not any of the many random things that can go wrong). Maybe it really is overcrowding, but since the category is really other we don't know. Overcrowding is NOT a misc category, it is a specific situation with a specific definition (the exact definition is something they use should be published so we can decide if we agree with it), with specific training on how to tell if this is really overcrowding as opposed to a failure to get a normal crowd through in time since the solution to the two problems is different. Other/misc is an import category to have - every system of collecting data needs to have a none of the above because there is always something you didn't think of. What is normally missing is that when other is used there needs to be a text explanation of what happened, and then an investigation to see what should be done. You collect data for things like "medical emergency" because from the category alone everybody understands that the delay is beyond control. When something is misc that means you didn't expect it and need to redesign your procedures so it never happens again. Thus the misc category should be something all operators hate to use: they get sucked into meetings on how do we ensure that it doesn't happen again.
• guardiangod 9y ago
  That's not a really fair way to put it as the signaling system is still the root cause of the slowdown. 1. Outdated signaling system cannot handle current load at high safety threshold 2. Network could not upgrade signaling system due to lack of money 3. Network responses by slowing down critical paths and putting in more locks 4. System capacity drops So yeah, you still need the money to fix slow things.
  • stuaxo 9y ago
    Yup - need to pay to get the signals sorted. I guess the you might unearth a bunch of other things, that need sorted... but it just needs doing.
  • notyourday 9y ago
    I'm rather familiar with the L. Signal upgrades wont create a large improvement - it is already a fully automated line ( there's a sign at the end of every platform that spells out that the trains of the L are under automated traffic control ). It was just designed in the bone-headed way - just look at the 8th ave termination point or realize where the switches are in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
  • kelnos 9y ago
    That rationale implies that your assumption in #1 is true, which seems not to be the case. Yes, the signals system needs to be upgraded if they want to increase the number of trains (and their speed) on the lines, but even without the signals system upgrades, they can still run the current loads at acceptably-high levels of safety. Put another way, they are slowing the trains down and increasing delays while not actually increasing the capacity of the system.