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

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm sure the local riders would be glad to see their service cut to every 12-15 minutes just so they can see the fly by on weekends. Remember, after the reconstruction was over the local communities had wanted to keep the local on weekdays as well, so cutting the isn't going to happen.

 

If the goes local on weekends, then they'd probably be okay with it.

 

 

Well these are all big IFs. As I said before, I plan on writing to elected officials down the road when the MTA's finances improve about the idea. By then that could be several years from now.

[TheSubwayStation]

Well these are all big IFs. As I said before, I plan on writing to elected officials down the road when the MTA's finances improve about the idea. By then that could be several years from now.

 

What are all big ifs?

 

 

Anyway, from ridership data (I'm using 2010, since VG8 believes that the 2011 data is skewed by the construction project), Brighton express stations between 7 Av and Brighton Beach have a higher total weekend ridership than CPW local stations. Therefore, it could be said that increasing Brighton Line service is more important than increasing CPW service:

 

Brighton Express stations (if I counted local stations, too, this number would be much higher of course):

92,785

CPW Local stations:

68, 221

 

Still, though, does ridership on either line warrant nearly doubling service? And, VG8, cutting service as NX Express said is going to make Brighton Local riders MAD...If you had lived at those stations instead of Sheepshead Bay, I expect that you'd have a very different position on this issue; if service was cut, you'd be yelling about how the MTA was trying to ruin your commute.

 

What's wrong with just increasing and service?

[Quill Depot]

I'm sure the local riders would be glad to see their service cut to every 12-15 minutes just so they can see the fly by on weekends. Remember, after the reconstruction was over the local communities had wanted to keep the local on weekdays as well, so cutting the isn't going to happen.

 

If the goes local on weekends, then they'd probably be okay with it.

 

 

20 minute intervals for the on weekends would be good. Also, local is necessary. I don't know why you can't just increase service. Is direct access to 6th Avenue necessary. The stops on Broadway are a block or two away from 6th Avenue.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What are all big ifs?

 

 

Anyway, from ridership data (I'm using 2010, since VG8 believes that the 2011 data is skewed by the construction project), Brighton express stations between 7 Av and Brighton Beach have a higher total weekend ridership than CPW local stations. Therefore, it could be said that increasing Brighton Line service is more important than increasing CPW service:

 

Brighton Express stations:

92,785

CPW Local stations:

68, 221

 

Still, though, does ridership on either line warrant nearly doubling service? And, VG8, cutting service as NX Express said is going to make Brighton Local riders MAD...If you had lived at those stations instead of Sheepshead Bay, I expect that you'd have a very different position on this issue; if service was cut, you'd be yelling about how the MTA was trying to ruin your commute.

 

What's wrong with just increasing and service?

 

 

It's simple... We're talking hypothetically... None of this is happening right now anyway because the MTA can't afford it so it is all big IFs. Furthermore, I wouldn't be yelling at all because I lived at the express stop at Sheepshead Bay Rd and also used two local stops in Midwood (Avenue J/Avenue M) when I lived there. I personally think the runs fine as it does on the weekends, but I would consider bumping up the if at all possible. 10 mins for the isn't bad at all but the trains IMO have been more crowded when I've been on them this year on weekends which leads me to believe that ridership is up.

 

My personal opinion is that ridership on the will increase further once all of this damn track work finishes. I can tell you that I myself avoid using it myself at times for that very reason and I'm certain others do too if they can.

[Quill Depot]

We're getting off the CPW topic...

 

Maybe the short turned or my routing, was a good idea. You can run that via 6th Avenue from 168th St to WTC. Then what would it be called. It wouldn't be a or a .

[TheSubwayStation]

It's simple... We're talking hypothetically... None of this is happening right now anyway because the MTA can't afford it so it is all big IFs. Furthermore, I wouldn't be yelling at all because I lived at the express stop at Sheepshead Bay Rd and also used two local stops in Midwood (Avenue J/Avenue M) when I lived there. I personally think the runs fine as it does on the weekends, but I would consider bumping up the if at all possible. 10 mins for the isn't bad at all but the trains IMO have been more crowded when I've been on them this year on weekends which leads me to believe that ridership is up.

 

Well, you just suggested cutting the . Remember, the runs just as frequently as the , and let's not get into an argument about the MTA "secretly" cutting service because you've waited more than 10 minutes before...

My personal opinion is that ridership on the will increase further once all of this damn track work finishes. I can tell you that I myself avoid using it myself at times for that very reason and I'm certain others do too if they can.

 

Why would you avoid it if it still stops at Sheepshead Bay? That doesn't make sense.

We're getting off the CPW topic...

 

Maybe the short turned or my routing, was a good idea. You can run that via 6th Avenue from 168th St to WTC. Then what would it be called. It wouldn't be a or a .

 

Problem: uneven intervals (as some people said), unless you decide to run trains as frequently as trains, which would overserve CPW in my opinion. Just run trains every 8 minutes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, you just suggested cutting the . Remember, the runs just as frequently as the , and let's not get into an argument about the MTA "secretly" cutting service because you've waited more than 10 minutes before...

Uh I never said anything about them secretly cutting service, so I don't know why you're even bringing that up for. One situation has NOTHING to do with the other. Talk about "staying on topic"... I'm not as gullible as you are when it comes to the MTA.

 

Why would you avoid it if it still stops at Sheepshead Bay? That doesn't make sense.

 

Makes perfect sense. Why would I want to take the half way, then get off and take a shuttle bus so far to connect to the again further up the line? That is what has happened in some cases or you're forced to double back so far because one side of station is closed. I don't always use the at Sheepshead Bay Road.

[TheSubwayStation]

Uh I never said anything about them secretly cutting service, so I don't know why you're even bringing that up for.

Come on...I know that you believe that the MTA might be secretly cutting subway service, so I thought that's what you might be about to say (something along the lines of, "Yeah, I know they supposedly run every 10 minutes, but it always seems to take forever for the to come. It makes me wonder sometimes."

One situation has NOTHING to do with the other.

Yeah, right...It's still the same MTA.

 

Talk about "staying on topic"...

! I was responding to an argument that I thought you might make about THIS topic (the train). I don't know why you're so mad that I expected you to make an argument that you've made before.

I'm not as gullible as you are when it comes to the MTA.

 

What does this have to do with anything? You just said that you're not arguing that they're cutting service...

Makes perfect sense. Why would I want to take the half way, then get off and take a shuttle bus so far to connect to the again further up the line? That is what has happened in some cases or you're forced to double back so far because one side of station is closed. I don't always use the at Sheepshead Bay Road.

 

Okay. Makes sense; I didn't know that you were using stations that were skipped during track work. I understand why ridership would drop.

[Threxx]

^Why screw up service like that at West 4th? Trains would be held up waiting for this line to pass over the switches there. Bad idea, IMO...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Come on...I know that you believe that the MTA might be secretly cutting subway service, so I thought that's what you might be about to say (something along the lines of, "Yeah, I know they supposedly run every 10 minutes, but it always seems to take forever for the to come. It makes me wonder sometimes."Yeah, right...It's still the same MTA.

The other situations were ones in which they were secretly cutting service. They even admitted it themselves by saying that they simply wouldn't replace bus drivers that were out sick (which they would normally do hence why they have guys on stand by) which would save them millions this way. That is indeed a secret cut.

 

! I was responding to an argument that I thought you might make about THIS topic (the train). I don't know why you're so mad that I expected you to make an argument that you've made before.What does this have to do with anything? You just said that you're not arguing that they're cutting service...

It's pretty simple... One situation has nothing to do with the other. Bus service is one thing. Subway service is another thing.

[TheSubwayStation]

It's pretty simple... One situation has nothing to do with the other. Bus service is one thing. Subway service is another thing.

 

I don't feel like starting a big argument over this, but I'll post what you said in a previous thread (which made me say what I said):

 

It's simple... If they quietly pulled one or two trains during the morning and evening rush, there is nothing that says they don't pull any weekend trains... Who or what would stop them?? I never even thought about that until now because that is more common with buses, but who knows.

 

[Threxx]

Let's see:

 

1. weekend service b/w 2nd Avenue-145th Street.

2. weekend service via Brighton Local

3. weekend service via Brighton Express

4. Restore service.

5. New line via 6th Avenue b/w WTC and 145th/168th Street.

 

That's what i've seen in this thread so far...

[Concourse Express]

Before responding to anybody in particular, I'm seeing a lot of proposed solutions, but it's not clear what problem they're aiming to solve. Let's start by identifying the problem. I'll list a few possibilities; feel free to add on others if you think I've left anything out:

1. 1. The CPW corridor (A/C/D) is overcrowded on weekends (over 125% of a seated load in the average car on the average train).

    

2. 2. The C train specifically is overcrowded on weekends, but the corridor as a whole is not.

    

3. 3. There's no overcrowding issue, but CPW local riders would like shorter headways.

    

4. 4. There's a significant market for direct service between CPW local stations and 6th Avenue. That market is met on weekdays with the B but only with a transfer on weekends - a transfer which costs 5 minutes on average and 10 minutes in the worst case (assuming trains are perfectly spaced).

 

Remember that the agency operating these services has guidelines that dictate frequencies, largely based on loading. Running extra services not warranted by guidelines is costly - not only on CPW, but as soon as word gets out that the MTA added service that weren't called for according to the guidelines, politicians across the city will demand that their subway and bus lines get the same treatment!

 

With that in mind, let's go one by one.

 

If #1 is the problem, then the only solution is to add service. Which of the three lines should get the additional service is based on line-by-line loadings. But I'm fairly confident that #1 is not the problem.

 

If #2 is the problem, then the solution is to rebalance the existing CPW service - that is, provide more local and less express service. I don't think this is the problem, but I may be wrong.

 

If #3 is the problem, too bad. Everybody wants shorter headways. CPW riders aren't more important than anybody else in the city. Politely tell them that their headways meet systemwide standards. The end.

 

If #4 is the problem - and I personally think this is the most significant problem with CPW service on weekends - then the solution is to run the D local (which, incidentally, also solves #2, if that is also a problem). The only other solution that anybody here has proposed, to run some form of B on weekends, is not warranted by guidelines. It's a waste of money and it won't happen.

 

Getting on to the responses...

 

 

 

In response to your responses to my points, I'll say this:

 

1) Regarding the Concourse - 8th Ave contingent: sure, Concourse - 8th Ave could "retain" express service by transferring, but the resulting wait time negates any time saved (expected 4 min wait to save an expected 3 = expected loss of 1 min). If we're talking about the 8th Ave CBD, where there are all of three local stops, then the express (which I've seen many times pass a and arrive 59 ahead of it) remains the faster option for this market (not to mention the Concourse - Midtown market). Also, the express benefits Concourse - west-side CBD riders as a whole (i.e. for those who opt for the instead of the or ).

 

2) Regarding population density and ridership patterns: Yes, frequent services are more attractive than infrequent services - I understand this; for a long time I've griped about infrequent Concourse service (both on weekdays and weekends). Indeed, there may be some UWS cats that'd view a lcl as more attractive than the IRT. However, your scenario isn't exactly illustrative of this; the hypothetical 96/Columbus to Herald Sq rider could also transfer to the either from the or the (unless they take the or exp, of course). While the expected wait is 5 extra minutes in either case, it saves some walking. Also note that the expected wait for a local from CPW would also be 5 mins even though there'd be a combined 12 TPH in that corridor (don't think I'm ignoring the time saved by not having to transfer; I'll get to that shortly). It also seems like the point is to introduce a one-seat ride. While such is desirable, there's no subway pattern possible that guarantees everyone a one-seat ride (for instance, Concourse - West Side CBD cats also have to transfer), nor is the CPW corridor most urgently in need of such relative to busier corridors with similarly infrequent services and transfers needed (i.e. QB).

 

3) Building on point 2, you also mentioned running times and compared time savings and deficits. Based on the 's current weekend schedule, round-trip times are just under 130 minutes, not 150. So based on your math, the current runs about 13 trains, and an 8-min headway would require 16 (so 3 extra trains, not 4). But both your analysis and mine may be somewhat off; IIRC the weekday requires 18 trains and runs only 7 TPH peak. While your percentages are correct, it goes back to exactly how many riders benefit from the change compared to the amount who don't. You're right that the numbers MTA makes public don't tell the whole story and that there are other statistics that remain internal. I can only go by what I have and my personal experiences as a regular rider; there might be a way to estimate it, but it'd take way too long.

 

4) Somehow I think MTA might have already considered this (I could be wrong), given that MTA employees also post and I hear management read the fora also (perhaps others suggested it to MTA). You are not the first one to put this idea on the table. I've been posting on transit fora (Strappies, SubChat, the defunct TransitSpot, and here) for over 7 years and the local thing was argued and debated even then (and yes, I jumped into the fray time and again - guilty as charged). But my thinking is, given that average weekend CPW ridership isn't high, MTA may feel it's not worth it due to insufficient demand, nearby alternatives (including *express* Manhattan service at 96 and 72), relatively effortless transfers, and the prospect of discouraged arrivals (i.e. the change generates a net loss financially even though it benefits some). Compare to the Concourse line which has fewer alternatives; the , though nearby, serves an entirely different market in Manhattan (the only real alternative, taking the to the at 149, takes longer than the to Midtown, plus the IRT is very crowded). I don't think it's fair for Concourse riders (who already get less frequent service that CPW overall) to get the shaft to improve service for a corridor with less ridership on average that's closer to the CBD; hence why I offered increasing service as a compromise.

[TheSubwayStation]

Let's see:

 

1. weekend service b/w 2nd Avenue-145th Street.

2. weekend service via Brighton Local

3. weekend service via Brighton Express

4. Restore service.

5. New line via 6th Avenue b/w WTC and 145th/168th Street.

 

That's what i've seen in this thread so far...

 

And increasing service, which is my favorite so far.

[Threxx]

And increasing service, which is my favorite so far.

 

 

It's not that simple though, and if you reread everything that has been said, it's explained why. I didn't add that because that isn't a solution...

[Concourse Express]

It's not that simple though, and if you reread everything that has been said, it's explained why. I didn't add that because that isn't a solution...

 

 

Doesn't mean it's not a solution. More frequent service and/or making 600' trains permanent each address the purported crowding problem.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't feel like starting a big argument over this, but I'll post what you said in a previous thread (which made me say what I said):

 

 

Well then don't. I didn't mention it here so no need to bring it up.

[Threxx]

Doesn't mean it's not a solution. More frequent service and/or making 600' trains permanent each address the purported crowding problem.

 

 

It's not just crowding, if you're going to solve one problem, why not fix them all at once?? The problem is also direct access to 6th Avenue, that's why running the on weekends is a good option.

[TheSubwayStation]

It's not just crowding, if you're going to solve one problem, why not fix them all at once?? The problem is also direct access to 6th Avenue, that's why running the on weekends is a good option.

 

Then, won't you have relatively empty and trains on CPW? That's my concern; CPW doesn't need double the service.

[Threxx]

Then, won't you have relatively empty and trains on CPW? That's my concern; CPW doesn't need double the service.

 

 

You don't need to run trains that often, maybe 4-5 TPH could do. I do think that they need double the service from what I've seen, but I could be wrong...

[TwoTimer]

No big long explanation needed, actually.

 

Southbound: When I worked weekends I worked the on a weekend, and those trains are already full by time they get to 145, there arent any seats left for CPW. What a local actually does is eliminate local transfers at 125, while possibly increasing ridership and crowding on the not-that-often . The end result is trains doesn't gain any ridership at 125 from transfers, while the either remains full (if the customers saw an leaving, or empties out). The is still generally empty at 125 (actually more people getting off then on), the only people are the few hagglers that didn't see an at 168 or 145 and got on the instead, hoping to find an express at 125. It fills up only along CPW.

 

Northbound: trains do leave full, however trains empty out as it goes further uptown.

 

Its funny when a railfan thinks they know more than they actually do. Go out to 72/81/86/96/103/110/116 and ask all of them - at all times of the year - if they want 6Av or 8Av (and 6Av would have to constitute an significant majority - at least 2/3 - to warrant a change). I do not wish to hear there aren't enough trains, which is false because a railfan doesn't know what's laid up in 174 yard and to a point Pitkin, they can only go by what they can see looking at 207 yard.

 

It just very much looks like the whole "give CPW a choice of 6Av or *av" is all about convenience than necessity, and is an entirely different argument. The whole thread reeks of a convenience argument (give CPW a seat on the instead of SRO, and give them a conveneint choice of destinations by having the there too). Llota's argument sounded more like restore "necessary" service (mostly buses, but of course we're banned from discussing buses here) and not "restore necessary service and add convenient service".

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No big long explanation needed, actually.

 

Southbound: When I worked weekends I worked the on a weekend, and those trains are already full by time they get to 145, there arent any seats left for CPW. What a local actually does is eliminate local transfers at 125, while possibly increasing ridership and crowding on the not-that-often . The end result is trains doesn't gain any ridership at 125 from transfers, while the either remains full (if the customers saw an leaving, or empties out). The is still generally empty at 125 (actually more people getting off then on), the only people are the few hagglers that didn't see an at 168 or 145 and got on the instead, hoping to find an express at 125. It fills up only along CPW.

 

Northbound: trains do leave full, however trains empty out as it goes further uptown.

 

Its funny when a railfan thinks they know more than they actually do. Go out to 72/81/86/96/103/110/116 and ask all of them - at all times of the year - if they want 6Av or 8Av (and 6Av would have to constitute an significant majority - at least 2/3 - to warrant a change). I do not wish to hear there aren't enough trains, which is false because a railfan doesn't know what's laid up in 174 yard and to a point Pitkin, they can only go by what they can see looking at 207 yard.

 

It just very much looks like the whole "give CPW a choice of 6Av or *av" is all about convenience than necessity, and is an entirely different argument. The whole thread reeks of a convenience argument (give CPW a seat on the instead of SRO, and give them a conveneint choice of destinations by having the there too). Llota's argument sounded more like restore "necessary" service (mostly buses, but of course we're banned from discussing buses here) and not "restore necessary service and add convenient service".

 

Well transportation is a combination of both convenience and necessity. The two go hand and hand. For someone who doesn't need or use the service then they don't see the need for it most of the time.

[NX Express]

Well transportation is a combination of both convenience and necessity. The two go hand and hand. For someone who doesn't need or use the service then they don't see the need for it most of the time.

I thought necessity would be first priority over convenience, as you said during the Co-op City bus restoration arguments.

 

Back on topic...

The consensus seems to be that the cheapest way to improve CPW service would be to make all trains 600 feet. When the MTA gets the funds, it can explore , , or some other type of extra service.

 

EDIT: MTA smiley doesn't work.

 

()' />

[Concourse Express]

It's not just crowding, if you're going to solve one problem, why not fix them all at once?? The problem is also direct access to 6th Avenue, that's why running the on weekends is a good option.

 

The 6th Avenue "problem" is not as big a problem as many on this thread think. Transfer to/from 59 - problem solved. The real "issue" is more of a convenience / time saving thing; hence ideas like a weekend or a local are tossed around. However, the former is very costly and the latter introduces a detriment. The increased service idea also involves cost but much less than the and introduces no detriments to riders, unlike the local idea.

 

No big long explanation needed, actually.

 

Southbound: When I worked weekends I worked the on a weekend, and those trains are already full by time they get to 145, there arent any seats left for CPW. What a local actually does is eliminate local transfers at 125, while possibly increasing ridership and crowding on the not-that-often . The end result is trains doesn't gain any ridership at 125 from transfers, while the either remains full (if the customers saw an leaving, or empties out). The is still generally empty at 125 (actually more people getting off then on), the only people are the few hagglers that didn't see an at 168 or 145 and got on the instead, hoping to find an express at 125. It fills up only along CPW.

 

Northbound: trains do leave full, however trains empty out as it goes further uptown.

 

Its funny when a railfan thinks they know more than they actually do. Go out to 72/81/86/96/103/110/116 and ask all of them - at all times of the year - if they want 6Av or 8Av (and 6Av would have to constitute an significant majority - at least 2/3 - to warrant a change). I do not wish to hear there aren't enough trains, which is false because a railfan doesn't know what's laid up in 174 yard and to a point Pitkin, they can only go by what they can see looking at 207 yard.

 

It just very much looks like the whole "give CPW a choice of 6Av or *av" is all about convenience than necessity, and is an entirely different argument. The whole thread reeks of a convenience argument (give CPW a seat on the instead of SRO, and give them a conveneint choice of destinations by having the there too). Llota's argument sounded more like restore "necessary" service (mostly buses, but of course we're banned from discussing buses here) and not "restore necessary service and add convenient service".

 

Excellent post. Thanks for being a witness to what I've personally experienced on those weekend Deltas!

[TwoTimer]

Well transportation is a combination of both convenience and necessity. The two go hand and hand. For someone who doesn't need or use the service then they don't see the need for it most of the time.

Of course, to a point. Necessity is what must be done, Convenience is what should be done, and (put applicable word here) is what can be done. Llota emphasized what "must" be done will return, along with some of what "should" be done. But what "can" be done is a whole another story. I'm not a historian, just a train operator, but its not like CPW always had 6Av/8Av options on weekends and that was taken away and should be restored. Restoring service frequencies of existing services is what is gonna take priority.