SRO experiment on the (E)

[Grand Concourse]

lmao! True indeed.

[Fresh Pond]

Cut back a few (F)'s, add a few more (E)'s. In fact, some runs on the could be replaced by limited (E)'s.

 

And what will be the benefit of this? If this is done, train riders in Brooklyn LOSE trains, therefore resulting in MORE delays down there. Also, those extra (E)'s have nowhere to go except 179 St.

 

But is all of this really necessary? Just cuz a car has fold-up seats doesn't mean its the end of the world. Just walk 60' down (or up) to the next car. As almost everybody said before, THIS IS JUST A TEST and ONLY 4 CARS HAVE THESE SEATS. The subway wasn't built for comfort, it was built to move the millions of people that use it everyday in the quickest and most efficiently way possible. And if fold-up seats are more efficient, then so be it, people just gotta live with it.

 

If Tokyo can do it, why can't we? If one was to compare the 2 systems, its like comparing the train to the train.

[m7zanr160s]

I hate it when people say that the subway is there to move people and not for comfort. It's not there for luxury, but it is for some comfort. If it's not for comfort there wouldn't be any A/C, suspension, seats, and many other amenities we take advantage of today.

[Fresh Pond]

I hate it when people say that the subway is there to move people and not for comfort. It's not there for luxury, but it is for some comfort. If it's not for comfort there wouldn't be any A/C, suspension, seats, and many other amenities we take advantage of today.

 

But that's the primary reason it was built for

[rr4567]

Personally I love this idea, if the interior wasn't so poorly designed. It needs waaay more straps for people in the middle to hang on to.

 

Here's what the trains in Tokyo looks like, with folded seats:

 

As you can see, more handrails and straps for people to hang on to, as well there is 6 doors per side instead of the usual 4. On the JR Yamanote Line there are only 2 cars like this in the entire 11-car trainset, and the seats are only folded from the start of service to 10am, weekdays only.

 

But I do believe more frequent service would be better. Tokyo added these trains only because it already runs at the maximum frequency that the signaling system can handle, and yet they still can't handle the capacity. But I guess it all comes down to cash, which I guess the MTA doesn't have.

This is why the seats fold

 

 

[Far Rock Depot]

rr4567 is stating the same point i made.

tokyo has way more passenger density than we do. and the flip up seats work. they have the funding the MTA doesnt and this works for them. So why is it bad for the MTA to try it out themselves. the main focus is moving passengers as efficiently with the most cost effectiveness. and paying a couple of thousand dollars per car to convert seating is better that paying 1.3 million dollars per new car. do the math.

 

and cutting F's to add more E's? now your sayin FU to F riders, which,BTW, arent all along QBL. The F serves 3 boros!

we have the longest average commutes in the country. if i have to give up any chance for a seat to get to work on time, ill gladly stand in a seatless train with my Newspaper folded just right so i can still read it. Its a part of being a New Yorker. The hustle and bustle! getting to point B from point A as fast as we can!

LRG said:

"That is NOT going to happen due to the fact that the , unlike the , cannot accommodate so many trains. The can short-turn its trains at Kings Highway and lay up trains at the 179th Street tail tracks; those extra trains you want will just end up going to 179th Street and will not even serve its target riders: the ones who need Jamaica Center."

 

Jamaica Center is a major transfer point due to sections of Queens with bus service only. 2 tracks already cannot handle all the trains needed. E out of 179 come out of 179 because Parsons/Archer cant handle all of those trains. so yes, all of those extra E''s will also just wind up leaving from 179. and congest the line even more.

 

ForestGlen said:

"The busiest E station in Queens is Roosevelt Avenue, not Jamaica Center. Limited E's still stop at Roosevelt Avenue. They can relieve the overcrowding at that station. In fact, Limited E's arrive at Union Turnpike less crowded than 's from Jamaica Center."

 

i use to commute to and from this stop. yes, its crowded, but what does one expect from a station that serves The Flushing line as well as the QBL. and the QBL does one thing the Flushing line doesnt: Serves Lower Manhattan. People board both E's AND F's. But if you were to survey whether more E riders use Roosevelt or Jamaica center i can place ANY amount on Jamaica Center. Why? here's 26 reasons! Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q20A, Q20B, Q24, Q25, Q30, Q31, Q34, Q41, Q42, Q44, Q54, Q56, Q65, Q83, Q84, Q85, Q110, Q111, Q112, Q113, N4. These are the buses that serve that stop. Most of them come from large sections of Queens with NO subway service. If theres ANY reason to add more E's, its for THIS stop. So what would be the point of more E's out of 179?

I would answer that sarcastically, but i dont wanna start another "waaa, waaa" rant.

 

Bring on the flip up seats! A smart, cost effective alternative to move more people.

[INDman]

I'm not going to get into 63rd Street, but I think it's pretty obvious that more people use the than the in Queens. If the is decreased to 12tph and they add 3 extra limited (E)'s then this could work.

 

So to hell with the riders so that a shorter line can have more trains? Sounds really fair to me? Oh wait, this is so Forrest Glen has more train on his line and does not have to use the seat less train. It's ok every one, Mr. Important coming through.

[Far Rock Depot]

So to hell with the riders so that a shorter line can have more trains? Sounds really fair to me? Oh wait, this is so Forrest Glen has more train on his line and does not have to use the seat less train. It's ok every one, Mr. Important coming through.

 

i was tryin to aviod a comment like that but sometimes it cant. lol

 

IND, great point. although more riders do come out of Jamaica on the then the , the , as i stated myself, serves more than the overall. 3 boros. I doubt FG has ever used the on 6th ave and south on a frequent rush hour basis. which is why his argument is flawed. Coming out of brooklyn_ crowded. ive been to roosevelt Is during the morning rush. Mad heads. I personally have commuted on something worse than the QBL during rush hours, its called the . both from uptown and downtown. THAT line is crowded!! commute for one week there and the complaints about QBL will cease! ive had to wait 2-3 trains to pass at fulton before i can even get to the edge of the platform. and i wasnt the only one, there were hundreds as well.

 

i remember an episode of "Cheers" where Woody's GF took the Boston T for the first time and complained other people kept getting into "her" car. everytime this argument comes up, im reminded of that episode.

 

Am i wrong for that?

[Forest Glen]

Once again, I'm going to avoid a on 63rd debate. However, I will say that the on 63rd is underutilized compared to the on 53rd. The doesn't need the same amount of trains as the since the in Queens carries less people. All I'm proposing is a subtle drop in the number of trains and a few extra limited (E)'s from 179 Street. I used to use the on a daily basis but the running on 63rd makes it a undesirable option. At 179 Street I've seen people on the get off when they see the limited arrive across the platform.

[Forest Glen]

So to hell with the riders so that a shorter line can have more trains? Sounds really fair to me? Oh wait, this is so Forrest Glen has more train on his line and does not have to use the seat less train. It's ok every one, Mr. Important coming through.

 

incorrect

[LRG]

incorrect

 

STOP WITH THE WEINBERG-ORIENTED RESPONSES OR ELSE NO ONE WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!!!!

[LRG]

Once again, I'm going to avoid a on 63rd debate. However, I will say that the on 63rd is underutilized compared to the on 53rd. The doesn't need the same amount of trains as the since the in Queens carries less people. All I'm proposing is a subtle drop in the number of trains and a few extra limited (E)'s from 179 Street. I used to use the on a daily basis but the running on 63rd makes it a undesirable option. At 179 Street I've seen people on the get off when they see the limited arrive across the platform.

 

Okay, before December 2001, the ran 18 t.p.h. (every 3.4 minutes on average), while the ran 12 (every five minutes). That totals 30 trains an hour, or every two minutes for a train. I will agree with you in regards to the cutting off access to Lexington Avenue because a lot of LI Bus routes let off at 179th Street, while only the N4 lets off as Jamaica Center, yet that was done for a reason, hence the conception of the and the vis 63rd: have the riders use a local train because it gets the job done just as well as the express. If the MTA wants to make the more useful, send some rush hour (V)s to 179th Street in conjunction with the and that's just one of the many solutions that would make sense!

[INDman]

Once again, I'm going to avoid a on 63rd debate. However, I will say that the on 63rd is underutilized compared to the on 53rd. The doesn't need the same amount of trains as the since the in Queens carries less people. All I'm proposing is a subtle drop in the number of trains and a few extra limited (E)'s from 179 Street. I used to use the on a daily basis but the running on 63rd makes it a undesirable option. At 179 Street I've seen people on the get off when they see the limited arrive across the platform.

 

Who said anything about 63rd Street other then you? Myself and others are talking about the whole line in general including the sections in Manhattan and Brooklyn which handles more riders then the . You are talking about decreasing the amount of trains on the would do less to serve subway riders then increasing service would. Again please try to address the issue rather then a 1 word answer.

[Joe]

OR ELSE NO ONE WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!!!!

 

How is that any different from the current situation?

[LRG]

How is that any different from the current situation?

 

Simple: he's throwing his credibility further down the toilet by coming out randomly with Weinberg-oriented responses when he's been told countless times about it, and it's getting annoying.

 

Last time I even checked, this is a photo thread. We should be commenting on the content rather then complaining back and forth about the seating change. Save that for another thread.

[Matt91]

This is going too far :lock::lock::lock: +1 for LRG

[Joe]

This is going too far :lock::lock::lock:

 

Nah, this is just getting the resistor grids warmed up.

[Forest Glen]

STOP WITH THE WEINBERG-ORIENTED RESPONSES OR ELSE NO ONE WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!!!!

 

I was merely being facetious.

[Forest Glen]

Who said anything about 63rd Street other then you? Myself and others are talking about the whole line in general including the sections in Manhattan and Brooklyn which handles more riders then the . You are talking about decreasing the amount of trains on the would do less to serve subway riders then increasing service would. Again please try to address the issue rather then a 1 word answer.

 

The from Queens goes back to Brooklyn but by the time it arrives at Jay Street it's basically deadheading to Coney Island since there are few reverse commuters. A decrease of 3 tph won't cause an overcrowding situation.

 

On Queens Blvd more people want to ride the than the since the serves 53rd and the serves 63rd. The amount of service on both lines should reflect the ridership patterns. There should be a slight increase in the number of limited (E)'s and a slight decrease in the number of trains. This will relieve crowding at Roosevelt Avenue.

[INDman]

The from Queens goes back to Brooklyn but by the time it arrives at Jay Street it's basically deadheading to Coney Island since there are few reverse commuters. A decrease of 3 tph won't cause an overcrowding situation.

 

 

 

Have you ever ridden on the around rush hour? Yes it gets empty after Church Av (not Jay Street as you falsely stated), but there are still alot of people on the train all the way to CI. Removing 3 trains would create a problem for those who regularly ride the unlike your self.

[Forest Glen]

I was talking about REVERSE PEAK trains ( trains that start at 179 Street in the morning and head to Manhattan and then Brooklyn).

[rr4567]

Nah, this is just getting the resistor grids warmed up.

The resistor grid burned out

[Far Rock Depot]

I was talking about REVERSE PEAK trains ( trains that start at 179 Street in the morning and head to Manhattan and then Brooklyn).

 

if they start at 179th st and head INTO manhattan in the morning, how is that reverse peak?

[Forest Glen]

AFTER THEY LEAVE MANHATTAN and head to Brooklyn it's reverse peak.

[INDman]

AFTER THEY LEAVE MANHATTAN and head to Brooklyn it's reverse peak.

 

What time of day?