www.nycsubway.org

Re: Proof that the Lex can’t support more than 28 tph (504673)

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

Posted by oakapple on Sun Jun 1 09:57:45 2003, in response to Re: Proof that the Lex can’t support more than 28 tph,
posted by AlM on Sun Jun 1 09:21:15 2003.

However, that doesn't mean that Stephen's ideas for improvement are bad. I hope there are people in NYCT who can appreciate his ideas and figure out to what extent they can be applied to improve service.

I doubt that any of them can. The Lexington Line has never run at 40tph. To believe that it could (aided by the behavioral changes and inexpensive upgrades he proposes), you have to believe one of two things:

1) The actual experts who run the system are too dumb to realize this;

2) They do realize it, but conveniently there is a grand conspiracy to keep them quiet.

Both of these are wildly implausible. If it were common knowledge among transit experts that Stephen's ideas would work, surely one of the public gadflys—such as Alan Hevasi, Mark Green, Betsy Gottbaum, Gene Russianoff, or one of their ilk—would be making it front page news. That's precisely what happened, for instance, when the MTA's financial disclosure was incomplete. That's precisely what happened when the MTA overspent on 2 Broadway. In our participative democracy, profound incompetence (and/or conspiracy) on the scale he imagines cannot endure.

If so dramatic an improvement were so easily achievable, someone with actual transit expertise would say so publicly—and put both his credentials and his analysis in front of the MTA's political opponents. Rest assured, those opponents would be only to happy to expose the MTA's incompetence and/or the "conspiracy" that is alleged to have taken place.

Although Stephen's posts are entertaining and make us think, the final conclusion ultimately is that his math is wrong, his observations are wrong, and he's harboring some kind of irrational animosity towards the real experts that completely overcomes any slight merits his ideas might have.

I can respect people who say things like, "Bring the D back to the Brighton Line," for while such comments are often grounded in emotion, they don't pretend to be anything other than they are. Stephen dresses his arguments in mathematical jargon that pretends to be dispassionate, but is really just a fraud.


Responses

Replying to posts on SubTalk are disabled at this time.