MTA: $29m for New and Restored Service

The MTA announced today that it's going to scrounge up $29 million for new and restored service for the various MTA agencies. The MTA has begun to outline plans for what's coming back. You can see the plans for this agency (as posted on the MTA's website) below. I wonder if they're going to take suggestions...

One of the things they are talking about is a permanent full-time extension of the (G) into Brooklyn, which I would presume would be extended down to Church Street.

Here's an article about the news today from WNBC:

Andrew Siff, a journalist for WNBC-NBC New York wrote:MTA to Add $29 Million of New and Restored Service, Delays Fare Hikes
Fare and toll hikes expected in January will be postponed until March 2013

In what MTA officials are calling "the biggest one-time addition of service ever," the authority plans to add or restore $29 million of bus, train and subway service, and delay planned fare and toll hikes.

It's the best news in a while for straphangers, who were expecting a 7.5 percent fare hike in January and are still reeling from draconian service cuts that hit in 2010.

"I want them to know we're listening to them," said MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota, of MTA riders.

Now, Lhota said, the fare and toll hikes will be postponed until March 2013. Those increases would be unavoidable even if the authority did not restore service, he said.

Lhota said the MTA's financial picture is "fragile" but "not as fragile" as when it implemented the 2010 cuts. The rosier budget picture stems in part from increased weekend subway use -- the highest in 62 years, Lhota said. To meet that demand, the authority will add Saturday and Sunday subway service for the first time in years...

Among the other additions are a permanent extension of the G train into Brooklyn -- a change that was initially intended to be temporary -- and several bus service additions in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan.

The MTA's board must approve any changes, which could happen as early as next week.

Read the full article here: MTA to Add $29 Million of New and Restored Service, Delays Fare Hikes

Here's what the MTA Website had for SUBWAY Service Improvements

The full list is at http://content.ny1.com/downloads/Servic ... -FINAL.pdf

This affects bus, subway, Metro North and LIRR service.

I'm confused about why does it cost more money to extend a lines run to a different station? Take the G train extension to Church Ave for example. It used to end at Smith/9th and then they temporary extended it to Church ave. Now the MTA claims they have the funds to keep it permanently to Church ave. Its the same tracks and crew so why would it cost more to go a few more stations?

they extened the G becuase they had no choice, the next station back where a train can turn is Bedford-Nostrand. to maintain normal service to all oringal G stations, they had to extend it to Church Ave.

they didn't know how thier operating budget would be down the road when this project began, it had looked preaty dam bleak. So the extension has, till recently, been classed as only temporary. if the money was not there when the time came to make a desision, then the G would have returned to having Smith/9th as the last stop.

But how does it cost more money to extend it when you are using the same crews and equipment and just going down the line to a different station?

The Train operator and Conductor stay the same and just turn the train at a different station.

is this an MTA accounting trick?

It should take incrementally more electricity to run the train those few extra stops, although that's probably not going to be a big percentage of the cost.
Presumably they don't have an enormous layover at the terminal, so depending on how long the extension is going further might require more trains or crew to maintain the same headways. Example, trains lay over 5 minutes, if extended service 3 stations takes 3 minutes even if you could turn the train in 0 minutes you're going to be 1 minute late returning through the original terminal.

BobLI wrote:I'm confused about why does it cost more money to extend a lines run to a different station? Take the G train extension to Church Ave for example. It used to end at Smith/9th and then they temporary extended it to Church ave. Now the MTA claims they have the funds to keep it permanently to Church ave. Its the same tracks and crew so why would it cost more to go a few more stations?

An example, if I were to currently run the (G) service with 6 train sets, and each set can make the trip in 15 minutes, then the 6 train sets, 6 crews, etc. (2 round trips an hour) with the 15 minute trip time can provide service to those stations every 3 minutes.

Now, should I come across $29 million dollars and decide to extend the (G) "x" amount of the stations. With the extended trip, it will take 30 minutes from A to B. Then those same 6 train sets and 6 crews can only make 1 round trip an hour, instead of 2. Now the stations can only be served every 6 minutes.

Longer routes with same # of trains means reduction in service frequencies. If I were to keep up the "service every 3 minutes" that the original stations had, then you now need 12 train sets, and 12 crews to make the 30 minute trip and provide service every 3 minutes.

Now I have to add those additional train sets, additional crews, additional wear and tear on the track that comes with more trains, additional electricity to run these trains, that all costs money. Of which the MTA has to find a way to pay for it. They apparently have, so they will extend these trains. Let's see how it goes.

Thank you for the excellent reply. I wasnt thinking of service frequency on the line with additional equipment sets. This cleared it all up!