What would be the best way to improve weekend CPW service?

[GreatOne2k]

If you are a rider, what would you prefer:

 

8 car trains and 8 minute headways

or

10 car trains and 10 minute headways?

[Q10 Airport]

If you are a rider, what would you prefer:

 

8 car trains and 8 minute headways

or

10 car trains and 10 minute headways?

 

 

I would take choice B because that has 60 cars per hour (6TPHx10 car trains=60 cars per hour). The other solution would have 56 cars per hour (7TPHx8 car trains=56 cars per hour).

[AndrewJC]

I would take choice B because that has 60 cars per hour (6TPHx10 car trains=60 cars per hour). The other solution would have 56 cars per hour (7TPHx8 car trains=56 cars per hour).

 

 

8 minute headways is 7.5 tph. The number of cars per hour is the same in either scenario.

 

More frequent service is usually better for the rider, especially where the total capacity is the same. The average wait for the train is a minute shorter (4 minutes rather than 5).

[ACEVE14]

If you are a rider, what would you prefer:

 

8 car trains and 8 minute headways

or

10 car trains and 10 minute headways?

 

 

Definitely the 2nd choice.

[TheSubwayStation]

If you are a rider, what would you prefer:

 

8 car trains and 8 minute headways

or

10 car trains and 10 minute headways?

 

I would prefer #1. I don't see why any rider would want full-length trains if it means that they have to wait longer. The MTA, though, would prefer #2 (fewer conductors and T/Os).

[TwoTimer]

Well of course the best idea is both the 8 min headway and full length trains, but they in all likelyhood will leave the 480' trains until more cars come in.

[RollOver]

I would prefer #1. I don't see why any rider would want full-length trains if it means that they have to wait longer. The MTA, though, would prefer #2 (fewer conductors and T/Os).

 

 

The has a ten minute interval, regardless of car type and how many trains of 60 footers. As a high school student, I take the between Utica and Euclid normally. I'd rather have full length trains so that way I don't have to be in such a rush trying to catch the at the south end of the platform of Utica when the is not there. At least it uses R46s for the summer while the R32s are on the .

[CDTA]

If you are a rider, what would you prefer:

 

8 car trains and 8 minute headways

or

10 car trains and 10 minute headways?

 

 

Definitely the 1st choice. Because if I have to be some where in a hurry, I want a train sooner, i'll deal with the crowds.

[Guest MTA Bus]

I think that CPW should have a second service, like the QBL before 2001. I suggest running the train from 145th St to 2nd Avenue.That way, people have two choices to get to Midtown. Also, that helps out the 6th Av line with an extra service.

[Q10 Airport]

I think that CPW should have a second service, like the QBL before 2001. I suggest running the train from 145th St to 2nd Avenue.That way, people have two choices to get to Midtown. Also, that helps out the 6th Av line with an extra service.

 

 

If you think about it, CPW should have a second weekend service for the same reason that the QBL used to have a second weekend service. It's because both lines are full of major weekend destinations (malls on the QBL and tourist attractions on CPW).

[AndrewJC]

If you think about it, CPW should have a second weekend service for the same reason that the QBL used to have a second weekend service. It's because both lines are full of major weekend destinations (malls on the QBL and tourist attractions on CPW).

 

 

The QBL only had one actual weekend local service most of the time - the G only officially operated there because of community pressure, even though the MTA knew that it would almost never actually be able to run.

 

Like the QBL, CPW has neither the demand nor the capacity (during GO's) for four weekend services. The only way CPW is going to get a second local is if either the A or the D runs local (the D probably makes more sense, because it serves a different Midtown corridor than the C). Like on QBL, it's either two expresses and one local or one express and two locals.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the demand patterns to say which makes more sense, but if there's strong demand at local stops, running the D local might be worth considering.

[TheSubwayStation]

Like the QBL, CPW has neither the demand nor the capacity (during GO's) for four weekend services. The only way CPW is going to get a second local is if either the A or the D runs local (the D probably makes more sense, because it serves a different Midtown corridor than the C). Like on QBL, it's either two expresses and one local or one express and two locals.

Why will running the local affect capacity less than running the (or increased service or creating the or (P) or whatever )?

[Q10 Airport]

The QBL only had one actual weekend local service most of the time - the G only officially operated there because of community pressure, even though the MTA knew that it would almost never actually be able to run.

 

Like the QBL, CPW has neither the demand nor the capacity (during GO's) for four weekend services. The only way CPW is going to get a second local is if either the A or the D runs local (the D probably makes more sense, because it serves a different Midtown corridor than the C). Like on QBL, it's either two expresses and one local or one express and two locals.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the demand patterns to say which makes more sense, but if there's strong demand at local stops, running the D local might be worth considering.

 

 

I hear that there's strong demand at local stops on CPW, but the idea of a local has resulted in push-back from others in this thread. The ultimate solution might just be a slight increase in service, from 10-minute headways to 8-minute headways.

[AndrewJC]

Why will running the local affect capacity less than running the (or increased service or creating the or (P) or whatever )?

 

 

A+C+D = 18 tph

A+B+C+D = 24 tph

 

With work going on and all trains sharing a single track during GO's, 24 tph is too much. One of the services - presumably the B - would have to be canceled whenever there are GO's in the area. Most corridors are capped at about 18 tph on weekends to accommodate GO's.

 

I hear that there's strong demand at local stops on CPW, but the idea of a local has resulted in push-back from others in this thread. The ultimate solution might just be a slight increase in service, from 10-minute headways to 8-minute headways.

 

 

I'm not terribly concerned with push-back from posters. I'm not even terribly concerned with push-back from riders, as long as the net benefit is greater than the net loss. (Again, I don't know if it is - I don't know what the rider patterns are in the area - how many people on each line, where they're coming from, where they're going. All I'm suggesting is that it might be worth looking into.)

 

I don't think there's any need for an overall service increase on CPW. Increasing C service would be costly, would push up past the 18 tph cap (so C service would be trimmed back to 6 tph most weekends), and still wouldn't give local riders the benefit of direct access to 6th. Running the D local is inexpensive (it would probably require one extra train) and is quite beneficial to local riders - the obvious downside is that trips between the Bronx and Midtown (6th) take a few minutes longer, but I really don't see any other issues.

[TheSubwayStation]

A+C+D = 18 tph

A+B+C+D = 24 tph

 

With work going on and all trains sharing a single track during GO's, 24 tph is too much. One of the services - presumably the B - would have to be canceled whenever there are GO's in the area. Most corridors are capped at about 18 tph on weekends to accommodate GO's.

Well, then, isn't the solution to the capacity issue just to run the and cancel it when there's construction? And, there's another good solution called FASTRACK .

[AndrewJC]

Well, then, isn't the solution to the capacity issue just to run the and cancel it when there's construction? And, there's another good solution called FASTRACK .

 

 

Then the MTA has to pay to run four CPW services even though only three will run most weekends. That's pretty wasteful, especially considering that - for the third time(!) - CPW gets by just fine with only three weekend services.

 

FASTRACK is primarily for maintenance work that can be done in a few hours. Weekend GO's provide 53 hours of uninterrupted access to a track for larger projects. FASTRACK primarily takes the place of work done "under traffic" (between trains), not GO's.

[TheSubwayStation]

Then the MTA has to pay to run four CPW services even though only three will run most weekends. That's pretty wasteful, especially considering that - for the third time(!) - CPW gets by just fine with only three weekend services.

 

FASTRACK is primarily for maintenance work that can be done in a few hours. Weekend GO's provide 53 hours of uninterrupted access to a track for larger projects. FASTRACK primarily takes the place of work done "under traffic" (between trains), not GO's.

 

Wait, since when are there CPW G.O.s most weekends?

[Threxx]

Exactly. CPW almost never has G.O.'s, so that argument dosen't apply...

[AndrewJC]

Wait, since when are there CPW G.O.s most weekends?

 

 

I haven't taken a complete count, but I suspect that most weekends there's a GO either on CPW itself or on the Concourse line (knocking out the B's north terminal) or between 145th and 168th (in which case the C usually terminates at 145th) or in the Cranberry tube area (requiring the A to cross to the local track at 59th) or on 53rd (diverting the E down 2nd). Any of those would knock out the B.

 

For the fourth time, do you have any reason to believe that 18 tph is not adequate to handle the passenger loads along CPW on weekends? If 18 tph is adequate, then the MTA will not add another line and will not increase service on any of the existing lines. All the MTA can do is shift existing lines from one track to another if that would better serve the riders.

[Concourse Express]

 

 

A+C+D = 18 tph

A+B+C+D = 24 tph

 

With work going on and all trains sharing a single track during GO's, 24 tph is too much. One of the services - presumably the B - would have to be canceled whenever there are GO's in the area. Most corridors are capped at about 18 tph on weekends to accommodate GO's.

 

 

 

I'm not terribly concerned with push-back from posters. I'm not even terribly concerned with push-back from riders, as long as the net benefit is greater than the net loss. (Again, I don't know if it is - I don't know what the rider patterns are in the area - how many people on each line, where they're coming from, where they're going. All I'm suggesting is that it might be worth looking into.)

 

I don't think there's any need for an overall service increase on CPW. Increasing C service would be costly, would push up past the 18 tph cap (so C service would be trimmed back to 6 tph most weekends), and still wouldn't give local riders the benefit of direct access to 6th. Running the D local is inexpensive (it would probably require one extra train) and is quite beneficial to local riders - the obvious downside is that trips between the Bronx and Midtown (6th) take a few minutes longer, but I really don't see any other issues.

 

 

The net benefit is NOT greater than the deficit. Expected increase in travel time for riders traveling to Midtown (based on schedules) is 3 mins. Under the local, time between trains on the cpw lcl is reduced from every 10 mins (expected wait 5 mins) to every 5 mins (expected wait 2.5 mins), for an expected savings of 2.5 mins per CPW local rider. Hence, there is an expected net loss of 30 seconds for each pair of Concourse/CPW local riders.

 

As I showed earlier in this thread, not only is there insufficient demand for two local services on the CPW on weekends, but the CPW local's *weekday* ridership is also low for a line with *at least* 12 TPH worth of service (I showed that its average weekday ridership is comparable to that of the Concourse line which sees much less service overall). Hence, the potential for increased ridership due to a local is marginal at best - and even this is likely to be offset by ridership losses due to longer trips on the Concourse. So overall, you'd be spending more money for an expected net loss of ridership; that money's much better spent increasing service - and I'd say since Concourse ridership is higher on weekends, it'd be *more* worthwhile to increase weekend service. This reduces the expected wait for the for cpw lcl riders transferring at 59 and gives 6th Ave and Chinatown a much needed service boost.

[Concourse Express]

 

 

I haven't taken a complete count, but I suspect that most weekends there's a GO either on CPW itself or on the Concourse line (knocking out the B's north terminal) or between 145th and 168th (in which case the C usually terminates at 145th) or in the Cranberry tube area (requiring the A to cross to the local track at 59th) or on 53rd (diverting the E down 2nd). Any of those would knock out the B.

 

For the fourth time, do you have any reason to believe that 18 tph is not adequate to handle the passenger loads along CPW on weekends? If 18 tph is adequate, then the MTA will not add another line and will not increase service on any of the existing lines. All the MTA can do is shift existing lines from one track to another if that would better serve the riders.

 

 

I'll add by answering your question; the current pattern is fine as is. The 8-min weekend headway on the should be restored; any crowding issues on the CPW local can be resolved by 8-min headways on the or making the 10 cars permanently.

 

Also, regarding GOs, whenever CPW is affected, the usual result is the running local to replace the , so they're usually covered. I'd say the cpw local cats are the *least* affected by GOs relative to all other riders on weekends.

[AndrewJC]

The net benefit is NOT greater than the deficit. Expected increase in travel time for riders traveling to Midtown (based on schedules) is 3 mins. Under the local, time between trains on the cpw lcl is reduced from every 10 mins (expected wait 5 mins) to every 5 mins (expected wait 2.5 mins), for an expected savings of 2.5 mins per CPW local rider. Hence, there is an expected net loss of 30 seconds for each pair of Concourse/CPW local riders.

 

 

You're oversimplifying.

 

First, you're assuming that every CPW local rider is equally happy with a C or a D. Anybody going to 6th currently has to take two trains (average wait 5+5=10 minutes), but if the D ran local they'd only have to take one (average wait 5 minutes), for a savings of 5 minutes.

 

Second, you're assuming that every Concourse rider benefits from the express run. Any Concourse rider who transfers to the A can continue to do so at 145th and maintain the express run. Some Concourse riders are traveling within the Bronx or transferring to the 4 at 161st. And while I'm sure there aren't very many, some Concourse riders do go to CPW local stops. Anybody in those three categories neither gains nor loses from a D local.

 

Third, you're assuming that Concourse and CPW riders come in pairs!

 

We need more information before we can reach a conclusion.

 

As I showed earlier in this thread, not only is there insufficient demand for two local services on the CPW on weekends, but the CPW local's *weekday* ridership is also low for a line with *at least* 12 TPH worth of service (I showed that its average weekday ridership is comparable to that of the Concourse line which sees much less service overall).

 

 

Sorry, I don't see what weekdays have to do with it. Loading guidelines are much more stringent on weekdays than on weekends, and riders have different travel patterns on weekdays than on weekends. But to address the point I think you're making, the CPW line overall (local+express combined) is overserved on weekends, due to the need to serve two branches on the north and south. Which of the three services should run express and which should run local should be determined by how the riders would be served best.

 

Hence, the potential for increased ridership due to a local is marginal at best - and even this is likely to be offset by ridership losses due to longer trips on the Concourse.

 

 

I didn't say anything about increased ridership - I've been assuming that only current CPW riders would use a D local.

 

But since you bring it up, I think there is a very significant potential for increased CPW local ridership if the D ran local. Have you seen how crowded the 1/2/3 trains are on weekends? If some of that ridership were to be enticed over to CPW by direct service to 6th, I think it would be quite beneficial to the IRT.

 

So overall, you'd be spending more money for an expected net loss of ridership; that money's much better spent increasing service- and I'd say since Concourse ridership is higher on weekends, it'd be *more* worthwhile to increase weekend service. This reduces the expected wait for the for cpw lcl riders transferring at 59 and gives 6th Ave and Chinatown a much needed service boost.

 

 

For the fifth time, CPW trains on weekends are not, on average, overcrowded (defined as carrying over 125% of a seated load at the peak load point), and, therefore, service levels are not going to be increased. (Weekend ridership has been growing by leaps and bounds systemwide - it isn't something peculiar to the Concourse line.)

 

Running the D local would cost, at most, one train. Every other proposed solution - aside from just leaving things the way they are - would be far more costly. For CPW local riders going to 6th, increasing C service (which, again, will not happen regardless of what anybody here wants) would have a small fraction of the benefit of sending the D local, at much greater cost.

 

CPW service will not be increased beyond 18 tph. Within the current 18 tph - A, C, and D each at 6 tph - the only question is how much service to run on the express track and how much service to run on the local track.

[TwoTimer]

I think I'll leave this alone, got better things to do than to argue pointless things.

[Concourse Express]

 

 

You're oversimplifying.

 

First, you're assuming that every CPW local rider is equally happy with a C or a D. Anybody going to 6th currently has to take two trains (average wait 5+5=10 minutes), but if the D ran local they'd only have to take one (average wait 5 minutes), for a savings of 5 minutes.

 

Second, you're assuming that every Concourse rider benefits from the express run. Any Concourse rider who transfers to the A can continue to do so at 145th and maintain the express run. Some Concourse riders are traveling within the Bronx or transferring to the 4 at 161st. And while I'm sure there aren't very many, some Concourse riders do go to CPW local stops. Anybody in those three categories neither gains nor loses from a D local.

 

Third, you're assuming that Concourse and CPW riders come in pairs!

 

We need more information before we can reach a conclusion.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't see what weekdays have to do with it. Loading guidelines are much more stringent on weekdays than on weekends, and riders have different travel patterns on weekdays than on weekends. But to address the point I think you're making, the CPW line overall (local+express combined) is overserved on weekends, due to the need to serve two branches on the north and south. Which of the three services should run express and which should run local should be determined by how the riders would be served best.

 

 

 

I didn't say anything about increased ridership - I've been assuming that only current CPW riders would use a D local.

 

But since you bring it up, I think there is a very significant potential for increased CPW local ridership if the D ran local. Have you seen how crowded the 1/2/3 trains are on weekends? If some of that ridership were to be enticed over to CPW by direct service to 6th, I think it would be quite beneficial to the IRT.

 

 

 

For the fifth time, CPW trains on weekends are not, on average, overcrowded (defined as carrying over 125% of a seated load at the peak load point), and, therefore, service levels are not going to be increased. (Weekend ridership has been growing by leaps and bounds systemwide - it isn't something peculiar to the Concourse line.)

 

Running the D local would cost, at most, one train. Every other proposed solution - aside from just leaving things the way they are - would be far more costly. For CPW local riders going to 6th, increasing C service (which, again, will not happen regardless of what anybody here wants) would have a small fraction of the benefit of sending the D local, at much greater cost.

 

CPW service will not be increased beyond 18 tph. Within the current 18 tph - A, C, and D each at 6 tph - the only question is how much service to run on the express track and how much service to run on the local track.

 

 

Mayhap I am "oversimplifying." To be brutally honest with you (and everyone else)...while there are statistical analyses that may paint a more accurate picture, methinks effort is much better spent on other things. (Try not to laugh)...but whether the runs exp or lcl isn't the end of the world for me, despite how I argue for the exp time and again. Notwithstanding, I'll briefly address your counterpoints:

 

1) I didn't assume all Concourse riders use the express (that's why I said "traveling to Midtown" as opposed to "traveling"). I'm aware of the intraborough, Bronx-Harlem, Bronx-cpw lcl, etc. patterns (from my experiences, the Bronx-cpw lcl contingent is the smallest of these). Indeed, more info is needed; finding the proportion of riders of a line who use stations relative to total riders could be a starting point.

 

Also, what I meant by "pairs" is statistical - that is, a direct one-to-one comparison.

 

2) You mention the IRT. While you may attract some riders, you must remember two things:

-96 and 72 on the IRT are *express* stops and as such will remain more attractive than the corresponding cpw lcl stops even with the lcl (not only because of availability of exp service, but because IRT service at 96 & 72 will always be more frequent, barring GOs)

-The population density relative to IRT stops is greater than that of the cpw lcl so the IRT stops will retain a much higher share of the upper west side ridership.

 

3) I didn't ignore the point you made "five times;" I said in my next post the current pattern is fine as is - on this, we *agree.* But since this thread is about ideas for improvement, I offered mine. Things like this are bound to stimulate ideas which may be at odds, like ours. Also, since it is true that systemwide weekend ridership is on the rise, I'd say there are other corridors in greater need of more service (even moreso than Concourse); QB lcl quickly comes to mind and I'm sure it's not the only one.

 

4) The lcl idea may be inexpensive relative to the others (though methinks an 8-min headway on the can't be that much more costly), but it is the only one which introduces detriments (not to mention Concourse riders traveling to Midtown already have longer trip times than cpw lcl riders under the *current* pattern).

 

5) Never say never re: MTA deciding to run more , , and/or trains now or in the future.

 

BUT, as TwoTimer said, these arguments are kinda pointless. So why do I jump into the fray time and again on this? Simple - to express my opinion (supported by ridership data) that demand isn't there to warrant the lcl plan. Period. The current setup of / exp and lcl is fine.

 

Now, on to more important things...

[Eric B]

The local idea is too disruptive to too many people. Here's another idea: 145-Kings Hwy. While Brighton Beach would not be justified at this point, Kings Hwy would have more ridership, and also get the relay move out of the way of the .