I C you...

The C train doesn’t do as much as it could, and it hides in the shadow of its big brother, the A train, hoping that no-one notices. The C train is one of the only trains in the system to retain the corrugated tin look. Other lines might have one or two trains that have that rolled up aluminum exterior, but the C is the only one to exclusively sport that look. It is also a couple of cars short, making a pain for anyone who has ever waited at the back of the platform for it only to then have to run (or feign nonchalance while walking really really fast). These are physical deformities, though, and it would be unfair of me to pick on it for that. However, when you look at the map, and analyze its route, you also see that not only is it ugly and short, but it is also lazy.

Traveling from 168th street all the way to Euclid Ave. in Brooklyn is no easy feat. For such a short, deformed train, the C maintains a fairly long run compared to most other trains in the system. However, its true lazy nature can only be appreciated when compared with its big brother and line/color mate, the A train. The A train is made into a confused overachiever with multiple personality disorder if you look at its behavior in Brooklyn and Queens. After all, where does the A train wind up? Far Rockaway? Lefferts Boulevard? The other side of Far Rockaway? All three are correct. But, how can that be? Why do we have one train running to three different and distinct locations? How confusing is that for people getting on to have to not only wait for an A train, but then wait for the correct A train. The A is helped out in Far Rockaway by a shuttle train, but it splits duty between its other two destinations. With this as a given, how does it even make sense that the C train would stop at Euclid Ave? Why have a train running the same line as another train and have one of those trains stop midway while the other goes to two different destinations?

The solution: Run the C train permanently to Lefferts Boulevard. Run the A train Permanently to Far Rockaway. Why can’t that happen? The only reason I can think of would be that with all the extra stops (7 of them), and the same amount of trains dispatched, C train service would be more sparse, which is something that really shouldn’t happen or else the C train will just be a ghost. But, remember from a few posts ago that we have already discontinued the B train and given some of its service and machinery over to the C train – that handles some of the additional needed traffic.

This way would be far more elegant than the way that is there now. It will also serve the purpose of giving the C train a designated task independent of the A train, which will help it create a more positive image of itself.

beware the unhealthy

On Monday mornings, after a weekend of neglect and (a case could be made) repression, I expect the 1 train to be on its best behavior. I expect to see a shiny, clean train gliding into the station with a smile on its face, happily greeting all of us commuters who have been trapped in our small neighborhoods all weekend. I am generally disappointed, as I was today, when the train came on time, fine, but without a discernable smile or any noticeable cleanliness.

157th street is always the station I use to gauge how I feel about my commute. This works for me in either direction. Usually, if I am not thinking about it, and the thought pops into my head, hmmm… I’ve been on the train for a while, what station am I at? It is 157th street. It is kind of uncanny. Depending on my mood, it is either, Oh, we’re already at 157th? Or How can we only be at 157th? It is kind of a no-man’s land in my journey – sort of far from home, and sort of far from any potential transfer to another train (I decline to acknowledge the elevator situation at 168th street as a proper transfer). I am stuck on my path at that point. In any case, one stop after 157th street today – at 145th street – the train halted in the station.

The initial (and as it turns out, only) reason for this transgression was that there was a sick passenger and that the train was being held in the station and it was also indicated that it wouldn’t be moving any time soon. The guy and girl next to me got a good laugh out of this. Their situation was one in which (from what I inferred through not having my earphones on) they had known each other, perhaps in high school. Now they were in college and just happened to run into each other. They were never really close, but the guy is cooler than what he used to be, and has lots of Important Things he is doing. The girl was friendly and offered up stories of parties and annoying co-workers. They were happy to be young and made jokes about the train stopping in the station because they were really just getting to know each other as adults and it was not a time to be grumpy. I was not so confined. The thing with the “sick passenger” is this: if the person isn’t in your car (and there is a 90% chance that this is the case) then the reality of the situation does not settle in. So, 90% of the people on the train could not give a shit about this supposed sick passenger, and begin to question whether there is such a person. Then, there is a terminology issue. “Sick passenger” makes it seem like someone somewhere has the sniffles or something like that, which while unfortunate, certainly does not seem to warrant the stopping of an entire train and the inconveniencing of the rest of its passengers. This perception is encouraged by ad campaigns against being the sick passenger, exhorting people who don’t feel well to stay off the train. If the sickness is more severe than the sniffles, or some such ailment, then it would not be useful to tell people not to get on the train if they are “under the weather.” That type of ad only works for people who have the types of illnesses that are common, yet manageable enough so that they can at least attempt to go to work. No ad would ever say, “if you feel like you might catch a heart attack, or a brain aneurism, or spontaneous paralysis, don’t get on the train today.” That would be absurd.

So, we have been trained by the MTA’s very ad campaign strategies to associate the term, sick passenger with a person feeling, “under the weather”, who is distinct from a person who just had a heart attack. But, it might be that someone has had a heart attack, brain aneurism, or sudden paralysis. In fact, it may even be likely, because it would be those types of situations that would necessitate the stopping of a train. These people cannot simply walk off the train and be sick on the platform like a person with a cold could. So then, why not simply announce that “There is a passenger who is immobilized and dying. We will be in the station until proper medical personnel arrive.” This would be alarming, no doubt, but it would also give the rest of the passengers a feeling of purpose, and a feeling that we are not being treated like children. A person with a heart attack is not “sick.” We don’t need euphemisms as commuters.

In any case, after working all of this out in my head, the next announcement made was that everyone had to get off the train and that the train was now out of service. This too was incomprehensible. It was a total reversal of reasoning. Clearly there had been no sick passenger in the first place. Or, the train was being used to transport the sick passenger to a station closer to a hospital? No. They lied, and tried to use a pathos inducing reason to cover their malicious ways. How does a sick passenger become a busted train? And, how does a train that rolls swiftly out of the station with all of its passengers packed onto the platform become out of service? Does out of service mean unable to further transport people because of a technical malfunction (that does not preclude its swift roll out of the sation)?

cartography

One of the premises of this blog – that is, one of the things that is assumed upon the reading of this blog is that it is absurd that there should be irregularities in train service more than 30 percent of the time you ride the train. I began writing with the intent of simply logging the irregularities. It has turned into something more like a narrative. I am not upset about this, but it should be mentioned that I am not logging each and every incident of irregular service.

The other day, however, on the 1 train, on the way home after work a bit after rush hour, I had a bit of a long commute. The stated reason was that there was a signal malfunction at 72nd street. It was also stated that there was a stalled train at 72nd street. The consequence of this was that all 1 trains would be running express from 72nd to 96th street. The unstated consequence was that all 1 trains would be running at about 1 mile per hour until 72nd street. The reality of the situation crept up on everyone as they noticed the train’s decreased momentum, frequent stops between stations, and extended stays in stations, tempers began to flare and people began rolling their eyes, cursing under their breath and overall looking like emerging psychopaths. As for me, I questioned why a train stalled at 72nd would have meant decreased service at 28th. It seems like they had the logistics under control. Trains would go express from 72nd to 96th. Ok. So, maybe there would be a slight delay if there was a 1 train trying to cross over to the express track while a 2 or 3 was passing by. But a) that shouldn’t begin a chain of events that reverberates all the was back to 28th street, b) that chain of events should not include as much slowness and stopping as it did.

Of course, by the time the train got to 72nd street, everything had been solved, I guess, because we pulled into the local side of the platform just fine. Then, continued on locally as if nothing had ever happened. There were no more announcements, no more delays, etc. of course, we were about 10-15 minutes behind where we should have been, so I did not feel free, as a result, to let me concentration waver. Why should my concentration wavering have to do with anything? Well, I have been trained by past experience to expect, when there is the slightest delay in service, to have assorted stops skipped, and that these skipped stops might include 225th street. So, in anticipation of this announcement, I denied myself access to my portable music, thus decreasing the quality of my commute. Of course, just as I prepared for the worst, nothing happened. The train ran normal from 72nd to 225th (and presumably to 242nd) and I resisted the urge to feel lucky or good or thankful or anything like that. It is, of course, supposed to stop at 225th, so why feel any particular way about it?

Speaking of being supposed to stop at 225th, another annoying thing: In checking the ultimately depressing and standard-lowering posterboards of weekend service changes that have crept into every train station, this week does not acknowledge that the 1 train would be continuing its skipping of every stop north of 168th street over the weekends. On Monday and Tuesday, I was feeling ok about this. Perhaps they finished what they were doing? But by Wednesday, even though the posterboards weren’t changed, the 1 train began accumulating individualized posters claiming that for the next 2 weekends, service would not exist north of 168th street. It is the same poster that they have been using, except that they dates are changed. Why was this information not included on the original posterboard? Did they not know? Was it a spontaneous decision to continue the work they had started? And as always, why only put the next 2 weeks as the dates for the service obliteration? Are we supposed to believe, again, that in two weeks, everything will be fine? My challenge to the MTA is to be honest. Those posterboards are too print heavy, and most people are accustomed to getting information about train service from train maps – New York having an especially famous one. I say that if they know that service is going to be a certain way for a period of more than a few months, new maps should be produced to reflect those changes. On the New York subway map, the 1 train, for example, should officially be represented by a dashed (rather than solid) line north of 168th street, denoting contingent service. Having it on the map would make it official. Having it on that posterboard makes it seem not-that bad. Artists and cartographers should be at work on this.

Also, the next day, the downtown train stopped at 96th street and waited for a 3 train before taking off. The announcement cited “a scheduled adjustment” as the reason for the delay. What the hell is that?

skipped stops

On two consecutive days, the 1 train skipped many of the stops it was supposed to make on my way home. I remember back in the early 2000’s, the last time I lived in the Bronx before a couple of weeks ago, it was during the time of the 1/9 train madness. Incidentally, one of my clues as to who was and was not a native New Yorker was by noticing who acknowledged the existence of the 9 train by when describing the local train service on northern Broadway. For most native New Yorkers, it was my impression that they just never got used to saying 1/9 instead of just 1. For me, it was a calculated stance never to acknowledge the existence of the 9 train because of the patent absurdity of its premise for existence. For the same reasons why I think it is ridiculous for trains to wait in stations for other trains to pull into the station across the platform, I think the idea of skip-stop service is dumb. Skip stop service was not the same as express service. Express service takes people long distances in one stop. Skip stop service just skipped stops. Say you have a certain amount of people who are at 96th street who are going to get on the train and get off at 145th street. There are also a certain amount of people at 96th street who are going to get off at 157th street. Let’s assume that the amount of people in both cases is more or less the same. Now, with skip stop service, those two groups of people cannot get on the same train. Some had to get on the 1 train, and some had to get on the 9 train. So, if a 1 train came first, and the 1 train stopped at 157th street (but not 145th street), then the people who were able to get on would get home slightly quicker than they would have if there were no skip stop service. Meanwhile, the people who live at 145th street and had to stay waiting for their train would get home slightly later than they would have if there were no skip stop service. So in the end, nobody is really convenienced. The only way to ensure real convenience for the most amount of people is to send more trains and keep them running on their schedule without manipulation. The skip-stop service might have made the trains seem less crowded, but platforms were more crowded. Again – unless you are sending more trains, and running them at regular intervals without manipulation, service is not better.

Those were my thoughts as I waited on the platform at 18th street for what seemed like an extended period of time. Because of the skip-stop mentality of the MTA, I know that anytime I have to wait for an extended period of time for a train, not only is it annoying in itself, but I also have to worry that the train is going to pull something weird and not stop at my stop in the name of making up time on the schedule. On Wednesday, what happened was that the train skipped from 72nd to 96th, from 137th to 168th, from 168th to 207th, and then it went regular the rest of the way. This was during rush hour. I was “lucky” this time in the sense that it still stopped at 225th. Obviously, lots of other passengers were not so lucky. Now, those were 6 stops that were skipped (not counting Dykman, which is out of commission until 2011). So, when I was at 18th street, the train ahead of me might have been at 66th street, in order for us to pull off that many skipped stops without catching up to the train preceding us. Why the large space in the first place? What was happening to make that separation take place? It couldn’t just be people holding the doors. Any mechanical malfunction would not have just magically gotten better…

Speaking of which, the next night, me and my family got on the 1 train at 14th street (after enduring some bizarre guitar-based subway performances at the L’s 1st ave stop and then again in the tunnel walkway between the L and the 1) and things started well enough. We got to 18th street in no time, but then we just sat there with the doors open; and sat there. Eventually, an announcement came on saying that there was a problem with the doors. After a short while, the doors closed. I was thinking, “oh, they must have fixed the problem, or else the doors wouldn’t close.” But, once the train set off, it did so at a snail’s pace, and then came to a full stop between stations. Then I was thinking, “I wonder what this has to do with the doors?” the train then proceeded this way for the next 20-25 minutes, until it got to 96th street, when it began running at regular speed. Of course I was happy that the train began running at regular speed and didn’t stop between stations. But, the fact that it, all of a sudden, was without door trouble and was able to run regularly threw into question the whole mechanical issue in the first place. Of course, in order to make up for lost time, the train decided to skip stops uptown. This time I was not so lucky, 225th was to be skipped. And, despite the conductor’s angry, annoyed commandment that there was a train right behind this one, Anna and I decided to get off at 215th and walk up. It was raining and it was midnight. The “train behind this one” passed over us as we crossed over the Broadway bridge.

sorry b train

Sorry B train – nobody needs you. I’m not saying that we don’t appreciate your expressness (when there isn’t construction going on) in Brooklyn. I’m not saying that we don’t appreciate your stopping throughout the Bronx during rush hours while the D runs express. I’m just saying that all of your accomplishments come in supporting roles for other, more important trains. In fact, you are the only train in the entire system that does not have a station of its own. You are a mooch, in other words.

It seems strange that the B train would be such a useless vessel. Alphabetically speaking, the B seems like it would be pretty important. That is, when people began making trains and then began making names for those trains that correspond to letters in our alphabet, the B train was most likely the second one conceived (we know, however that the reality of the situation is more complex – but it would seem that B would be important). So, how could so prominent a letter be allowed to sink so far into obscurity so as to in fact be unnecessary and burdensome?

It was not always this way. The B used to run on its own line in Brooklyn, servicing many without help. The more obscurely lettered Q train did the work the B train currently does (in support of the new, yellow Q train, I might add) in Brooklyn. These were also the days in which the B train made a random detour into Roosevelt Island during weekends. That was weird. But, better than what it does now during weekends, namely, not run! And what about nights? No. So, we have here a train that does not have a station that it and it-alone serves that does not even bother to run on nights and weekends. Why do we have this train at all? If it is not servicing anyone in particular, then what distinguishes it as an individual subway line other than the fact that it used to be more distinguishable but as a result of random MTA shuffling of trains lost all personality – and the fact that it is called by a very recognizable letter that would be conspicuous in its absence from the pantheon of New York subway parlance? Nothing.

Here is the solution: Eliminate the Q train and call it the B train. There is no reason to have a Q train and no H train or P train (I sort of understand why there is no K train – because of the fact that there used to be, and even sort of less understand why there is no I or O train – because they are vowels lesser vowels?). Those who ride the Q train and derive a sense of self relative to its quirkiness need develop more substantial personality traits. Take the amount of all the B trains that are currently deployed, and split that number by three. 1/3 of those trains will be known as the (B diamond), thus indicating its role as an express train during rush hours through Brooklyn. 1/3 of those trains will become additional C trains, to help out that decrepit line. 1/3 of those trains will become (D diamond) trains, thus indicating that it runs local through upper Manhattan (as the current B does), and express in the Bronx (as the current D does during rush hours).