Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
VWM

If you could, would you have fixed the (9)?

Recommended Posts

Well, would you have taken the opportunity to have fixed the (9) while it was still around? Things like:

Extending the range of Skipped stops

Relocating the stops

Maybe even using the IRT Broadway center track

So what would you have done to fix the (9)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (9) was unnecessary and saved little time. Not to mention how the skip-stop thing was not good for heavy stops like 225 Street (Metro-North, Bx9, mall), 207 Street (Bx12 SBS), and 157 Street and 145 Street, which are dense areas.

 

Speaking of which, I think the same thing about the (Z). I think the (Z) should be eliminated. Unless there is something good about the (Z) that the online schedule does not tell me, the (Z) does not seem to serve any purpose and is as redundant as the (9) was. On the one hand the skip-stop portion is longer on the (J)(Z) than it was on the (1)(9) and the (J)(Z) serve areas that are much further from Manhattan, but still the (Z) only saves about one minute over the (J) according to the schedule, so it seems useless. Also maybe loading guidelines play a part and the skip-stop is needed since trains move so slowly on the BMT Jamaica line. But that seems kinda far out.

 

I can only see people wanting the (J)(Z) skip-stop for psychological reasons (trip does not feel as long as it would if we had all (J)s making all stops). In this case, however, the psychological reasons would be pretty weak and the line would not lose ridership, nor do I think (J)(Z) riders would blow a gasket if they killed the (Z).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between the (9) and the (Z) is that the (Z)'s range of stops it skipped were overall longer and because it went express after Myrtle heading to Manhattan, it's a preference for those who live west of Woodhaven Boulevard going to Lower Manhattan without having to backtrack to the (E) at Sutphin Boulevard. While the (Z) runs shorter hours than the (9) did, it still is useful and it does work so I don't see the (Z) getting cut anytime soon.

 

I would have probably liked to see the (9) operate express north of 96th Street to 157th Street, and express north of Dyckman Street to the last stop during peak directions. In the evenings, some of the (9) put ins could enter service at 96th Street and run express to South Ferry, and then run normal to 96th Street and express to 242nd Street. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between the (9) and the (Z) is that the (Z)'s range of stops it skipped were overall longer and because it went express after Myrtle heading to Manhattan, it's a preference for those who live west of Woodhaven Boulevard going to Lower Manhattan without having to backtrack to the (E) at Sutphin Boulevard. While the (Z) runs shorter hours than the (9) did, it still is useful and it does work so I don't see the (Z) getting cut anytime soon.

 

I would have probably liked to see the (9) operate express north of 96th Street to 157th Street, and express north of Dyckman Street to the last stop during peak directions. In the evenings, some of the (9) put ins could enter service at 96th Street and run express to South Ferry, and then run normal to 96th Street and express to 242nd Street. Just a thought.

 

The problem with that is then you have a near useless train because a lot of the stops it skips are heavily used. Basically that (9) would only benefit those who get off at the last stop or anywhere between 137th and Dyckman. And even then most would just take whatever shows up if they're headed to say 168th street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lance25

It's less about getting there faster and more about distributing the amount of passengers evenly. For the most part, riders on Jamaica are heading into Manhattan, regardless of which station they're starting at. If the (J)s all ran full local from Parsons Blvd to Myrtle Av, those trains would be at max capacity well before reaching Broadway Junction. Right now with the way things are run, there are still some seats available.

 

By the by, the 2009 service cuts included the elimination of the (Z). It wasn't considered for the 2010 cuts because it wouldn't have saved any money. It still would've run the same amount of trains which likely would have been more crowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the (9) restored. It was a lot faster to get to 242nd or below on the (1)/(9) Skip-Sop Express. Have the (9) Express from 96 to 137th Street (Or 145th), have the (1) Local thru that portion, then start the Skip-Stop north of 137th/145th. This way it can cut the crowd numbers. Especially since its heavy along 103rd/110th/116th.

 

Maybe even have the (9) run late nights to replace the (2) at the local due to it being way to long.

 

 

The difference between the (9) and the (Z) is that the (Z)'s range of stops it skipped were overall longer and because it went express after Myrtle heading to Manhattan, it's a preference for those who live west of Woodhaven Boulevard going to Lower Manhattan without having to backtrack to the (E) at Sutphin Boulevard. While the (Z) runs shorter hours than the (9) did, it still is useful and it does work so I don't see the (Z) getting cut anytime soon.

 

I would have probably liked to see the (9) operate express north of 96th Street to 157th Street, and express north of Dyckman Street to the last stop during peak directions. In the evenings, some of the (9) put ins could enter service at 96th Street and run express to South Ferry, and then run normal to 96th Street and express to 242nd Street. Just a thought.

 

There would be to many trains on the express train and may cause increased headways for the (2) / (3). Unless the (9) can squeeze in without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think sending the (9) as express would've saved much time. Sure it might reach the switch sooner, but you still have to hold trains north of 96th to pick one or the other to send. Sure the (9) would help those north of 137th, but it'd be almost like the (W) Astoria express - bypassing busy stops and not really doing very much. Much as service should be faster, I think now is best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Idea is to have it run skip-stop north of 42-times Square.

first stop: 50 St (1)

it would skip-stop all stops unless there is a transfer to something major

Like @ 59, 168, 207, and 225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Idea is to have it run skip-stop north of 42-times Square.

first stop: 50 St (1)

it would skip-stop all stops unless there is a transfer to something major

Like @ 59, 168, 207, and 225

 

If it didn't work north of 96th, how the hell do you think it will work below 96th? Face it, Manhattan is not a good place for skip-stop at all. Too much demand. You are better off with what it is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towards te end of the (9)'s life, there was reportedly some test of a super express, but it apparently did not work out. Then skip stop was canned altogether.

The problem is the way the middle track does not run all the way through, so you have to merge in and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Towards te end of the (9)'s life, there was reportedly some test of a super express, but it apparently did not work out. Then skip stop was canned altogether.

The problem is the way the middle track does not run all the way through, so you have to merge in and out.

 

Yep. And there is no island stations north of 96th Street on Broadway IRT. So pretty much if a middle track from 96th to 242nd St existed(Unlike how it is now), an express train would not help out along the line, since there isn't at least one local/express station. After 96th, 242nd last stop.

 

It might benefit those who come from Westchester County off bee-line, with direct express to 96th and below, but not much for those in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it didn't work north of 96th, how the hell do you think it will work below 96th? Face it, Manhattan is not a good place for skip-stop at all. Too much demand. You are better off with what it is right now.

 

They need to do something though above 96th street. Those folks need express train service. A real long & tedious ride going further north that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They need to do something though above 96th street. Those folks need express train service. A real long & tedious ride going further north that's for sure.
Well, like people have said before: just because there are express tracks, it doesn't mean the MUST be used. Look at the Jerome, West End, Sea Beach and Culver lines - those have express tracks, but why don't they use them? = People want more service for their stations. Plus as I already said about the (1), when trains have to merge back, you just hold up the locals even more and delaying more riders. If people are in that much of a hurry, MNRR stops under 225th or even take whatever express buses are in the area.

 

Yep. And there is no island stations north of 96th Street on Broadway IRT. So pretty much if a middle track from 96th to 242nd St existed(Unlike how it is now), an express train would not help out along the line, since there isn't at least one local/express station. After 96th, 242nd last stop.

 

It might benefit those who come from Westchester County off bee-line, with direct express to 96th and below, but not much for those in between.

 

Ideally, if they had an express track the whole length, they could have had a [2 island platform] stop at 137th, 168th, and maybe 207th. Then I could see a possible express service being used.

But then you'd have complaints below 137th because of the heavily used stops such as for Colombia college. So even then, I can't say an express service would be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, like people have said before: just because there are express tracks, it doesn't mean the MUST be used.

I think what he means is there needs to be an express track made to enable express service (like the Flushing line), not to use the express track that is there. Likewise, the (L) needs an express track (if not two of them). That's not the same as saying there's an express track and we should use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know the runtime is 25 mins from 96-242. The Pelham line (local) (125-PBP) clocks in at 28, the Jerome is 19 (Woodlawn-149 GC). The real issue is that there's no direct link from 103 M track to the express tracks at 96 anymore (without going through either local track). If there was, then a service could go express from 137, merge directly into the express tracks, and continue south into Brooklyn. But that is pure fantasy, and unless you cut service on the (3), would create a bottleneck at 96.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, like people have said before: just because there are express tracks, it doesn't mean the MUST be used. Look at the Jerome, West End, Sea Beach and Culver lines - those have express tracks, but why don't they use them? = People want more service for their stations. Plus as I already said about the (1), when trains have to merge back, you just hold up the locals even more and delaying more riders. If people are in that much of a hurry, MNRR stops under 225th or even take whatever express buses are in the area.

 

 

 

Ideally, if they had an express track the whole length, they could have had a [2 island platform] stop at 137th, 168th, and maybe 207th. Then I could see a possible express service being used.

But then you'd have complaints below 137th because of the heavily used stops such as for Colombia college. So even then, I can't say an express service would be used.

 

I know they don't have to be used, but it could benefit at least during rush hours to get people who live in Westchester (Nassau, they got express trains) to use them, even those who lives in an area with no Subway service, for a faster commute alternative to MNCRR.

 

For 137st College complaints, the (Q) express doesn't stop at 8th Street/NYU, so why is that a problem for the (1) but not the (Q)?

 

Besides, if 125th was made as a Local/Express Stop, CCNY can easily add its own bus <> college buses there and connect them, just like they do at 137th in the IRT and 145th on the IND.

 

You do know the runtime is 25 mins from 96-242. The Pelham line (local) (125-PBP) clocks in at 28, the Jerome is 19 (Woodlawn-149 GC). The real issue is that there's no direct link from 103 M track to the express tracks at 96 anymore (without going through either local track). If there was, then a service could go express from 137, merge directly into the express tracks, and continue south into Brooklyn. But that is pure fantasy, and unless you cut service on the (3), would create a bottleneck at 96.

 

Going back to the the original IRT, are you saying that after 96th Street(NB), the Express tracks would merge into the current M track? Or the Express linking to the Lenox/WPR Lines would create a gap and forming the M Express track for Bway?

 

I think what he means is there needs to be an express track made to enable express service (like the Flushing line), not to use the express track that is there. Likewise, the (L) needs an express track (if not two of them). That's not the same as saying there's an express track and we should use it.

 

The (L)s express alternative would be the (A), or the (J)/(Z) Skip-stop Express. However, maybe at least 1 express track could be used on the (L), with peak express service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (Z) works [somewhat] for the same reason the <7> works and didn't for the Broadway (1)/(9) line; a center track, it's shortcoming is length, The Williamsburg Bridge and the (M).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going back to the the original IRT, are you saying that after 96th Street(NB), the Express tracks would merge into the current M track? Or the Express linking to the Lenox/WPR Lines would create a gap and forming the M Express track for Bway?

I think he meant something like this:

Current

16kvus7.png

 

Change

2yoyfrq.png

 

I haven't been anywhere above the 96 Street station on the 7 Avenue line, so I don't know how accurate the track map is, but there appears to be ample length of track for such a switch from 97 Street to 102 Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a previous message: "Besides, if 125th was made as a Local/Express Stop, CCNY can easily add its own bus <> college buses there and connect them, just like they do at 137th in the IRT and 145th on the IND."

 

As a former student at CCNY, all that I have to say is that the person who wrote the above message simply has NO CLUE about the geography of the City College area. The 125th Street station on the #1 line just simply very far away from the CCNY campus so as to be "out of the picture". Enough said. It is completely unlike the IND's stations at 145th Street, or 135th Street, or the northern exist at the 125th Street - which all are in decent enough walking distance to/from the CCNY campus. When I attended CCNY I used all of those stations.

 

----------------

 

On a second note - I would have kept the #9. Not as a skip-stop express or for express runs, but as a supplemental service. Where #1 trains run the full length of the line from end to end. That is what-ever run is not the full length of the route would be a #9. I would have some #9 trains run from 137th Street to South Ferry - making all stops. I would have some #9 trains as put-in's from 215th Street, or Dyckman Street, making all stops. I'd use the #9 designation as a way to be "creative".

 

That's just my thoughts.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, what they should have done was have the 9 run express between Chambers and 96th, and again from Dyckman to 242nd St., but there may be problems that I haven't thought of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, what they should have done was have the 9 run express between Chambers and 96th, and again from Dyckman to 242nd St., but there may be problems that I haven't thought of yet.

 

It would cause massive traffic problems on the express tracks. The (9) would affect the (2) and (3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, until the mid-1950's - trains from 242nd Street ran express along the Broadway line as well as the trains from the Bronx, to either Flatbush Avenue or New Lots Avenue. Trains from 137th Street, and from 145th Street-Lenox Terminal ran local both to South Ferry.

 

Basically that meant that at the north of the 96th Street station, trains were crossing over from the local tracks to the express tracks, at the same time trains were crossing over from the express tracks to the local tracks, while at the same time there were "through" trains that did not cross over any tracks. Meaning that the 96th Street station was a mad-house with trains switching from track to track in both directions all day, night, weekend, evening long.

 

That is why the current #1, #2 and #3 lines were created - to completely eliminate the switching and traffic tie-ups that used to occur at 96th Street for several decades. They tried playing with the schedules, the signals, etc. but no amount of effort could get rid of the fact that the switching of trains from track to track was the cause of the tie-ups. When the TA finally put an end to the nonsense the traffic and speed on the IRT-Broadway-Seventh AVenue line increased. Folks from upper Broadway just have to get used to the idea that they have to get up and transfer to the express at 96th Street.

 

So when folks here ask if the #9 could be express south of 96th Street, they are showing that they never learned the lessons of NYC transit history.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.