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

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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

 

Correct, but in some cases convenience and necessity are of equal priority, as shown by some of the service restorations.

 

 

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.

 

Perhaps, but at same time you have the MTA introducing new services (i.e. new bus routes), so apparently the whole idea of what must be done and should be done isn't quite so cut and dry.

[TwoTimer]

Correct, but in some cases convenience and necessity are of equal priority, as shown by some of the service restorations.

Yup, its just a subjective argument of what and who, which differs depending on who you ask.

 

I remember the good ole Bx54 that used to run up through Parkchester, and connected Bruckner Plaza with Parkchester directly. It was more efficient going in the AM as its first stop was in Parkchester. However back then there were no transfers, so no one used it, and it was chopped up and replaced with the Bx14 (which replicated its ridership in Parkchester). By this time there was ridership as Metrocard transfers were introduced. When they got rid of the Bx14, they didn't ever think of splitting up the lightly used Bx4 (the portion above Parkchester is indeed light) until later on. However, Parkchester is dissatisfied with this service northbound being that it's near the end of its route and its reliability sucks. Southbound is ok (sometimes late due to residual delays north), but still not where it used to be with the Bx14 which ran on time both directions.

 

Back on topic I was always a piecemeal type of activist, favoring incremental increases instead of a total overhaul. In fact, I favor this:

 

Leaving the 600' trains on the even after Labor Day (whether it be R32 or R46). If the current service pattern and size can be maintained year-round with better performing R32 (because of SMS), why not? At the moment there are more cars out there than there would be after Labor Day. This is an improvement that can be done now, and doesn't have to wait for a new pick.

 

If crowding still existed, then look at the 8-min headways, and give it a whole pick (6 months). That's enough time to see if the problem was rectified. Only then should adding a 2nd line be considered...

 

...Instead of putting a second line in there in December just so CPW can sit down and get a one-seat ride to wherever in midtown/lower Manhattan they want to go, and off-peak Brighton gets their empty express trains (which leads me to another point that i will start an entirely separate thread for).

[Quill Depot]

The 8 minute headway's are a good start. I'm not sure if it will make a huge difference but it will be okay for now. If the ()' /> does this, I'd consider them taking a survey. They can see if it is any better and how much better it is.

 

Which leads me to another point that i will start an entirely separate thread for.

 

I'll make sure I pitch into that thread.

[AndrewJC]

It's the fact that many riders in the Bronx need a D express train to commute to and from work. I'm very sure that those commuters are not taking that express train to foam, because that ride from say 205th street, all the way to 6th avenue is enough of a long and time consuming ride. Lexington Avenue is maxed out as it is and we won't see a 2nd avenue extension to the Bronx let alone 125th street anytime soon. So I don't think running a D local will be a good idea. In fact it would be a disaster.

 

I ride that line Mondays through Friday. What I've noticed with rush hour local and express service on the Grand Concourse: The B train is relatively empty up until it reaches 167th street and then 161st street. On the PM rush, it's empty after it reaches 161st street. Meanwhile the D Concourse express train is packed all they way to at least Fordham Road. That shows in itself without even considering stats on headways and capacity how dependant Bronx riders are on express service on the Grand Concourse and CPW to midtown.

 

Making the D local won't work and will surely be very unpopular with riders who got to make it to where they must go, on time. That's like permanantly suspending 7 train express service to Main Street or Times Square on the weekdays to and from Manhattan. People got places to go to and must do so under a limited time frame. Not to mention the potential for serious overcrowding with decreased headways if something like that was to happen.

 

 

My suggestion is for weekends, not weekdays. Weekdays the B ably handles the CPW -> 6th market.

 

The 7 express only runs rush hours. It has never run weekends. It used to run middays; when it was cut back to rush hours only a few years ago, the world didn't come to an end - and the last stop on the line is the busiest station outside Manhattan, so if there's any line that has a substantial market for express service, it's the Flushing line!

 

What "serious overcrowding"? The D isn't crowded on weekends. I used to ride it pretty regularly when I lived in Washington Heights a few years ago - I rarely saw even half the seats filled on weekends.

 

This will also increase overcrowding on the D , those trains are already packed with Bronx goers leaving 59, and it will look very much like feeding CPW with a silver spoon (the idea of people being able to sit on a C to go a few stops) while shafting the Bronx (yet again). Just a reminder that 1 service on weekends also got cut, and the result may have pulled a few over to the C as well.

 

 

The 2010 service cut book acknowledged that, by reducing service on the 1, it would be over guidelines on both Saturdays and Sundays. If a D local could attract some people off the 1, that would help a lot.

 

Running B trains between 2nd Avenue and 145th Street on weekends will not be a waste. As you said yourself Andrew, the demand is for 6th, so why would riders not frequent a weekend B? We can probably agree, it will not get much ridership on Brighton, but it can be done in Manhattan.

 

 

Because, once again, overall CPW demand does not warrant four services on weekends. The current 18 tph on CPW accommodates the overall demand, according to the MTA's official loading guidelines. That means that the MTA isn't going to increase service on the line - all that can potentially happen is a rejiggering of existing service.

 

And why wouldn't it get much ridership in Brooklyn? Based on what? A few folks at the Town Hall Meeting in Sheepshead Bay complained about wanting direct access to 6th Av on weekends via the subway.

 

 

If you go around simply asking people what they want, they'll demand the kitchen sink.

 

Full-blown market research is a lot more involved than asking people who show up to a Town Hall Meeting. When the Manhattan Bridge service pattern was being devised in 2003, market research revealed a significant weekend preference for Broadway among Brighton riders. That's why the Q became the full-time Brighton service.

 

Q trains, from what I've seen, do have a slight overcrowding problem on Saturdays - like the 1, this was one of the 2010 cuts that created an overcrowding situation. The best we can hope for is 8 minute headways on Saturdays. On Sundays, I haven't seen a crowding issue.

 

The B won't run in addition to the Q - the demand certainly doesn't warrant a doubling of service.

 

A similar reach out to those people on those platforms from 81-116st as well to really see if they all want 6Av service (and when I say 6 Av, I mean specifically 14st up to 7Av, points below mostly requires a transfer anyway) instead of assuming at least half of them want 6Av.

 

 

Obviously, before any potential change is made, market research would have to be done to determine origins and destinations.

 

But who says you can't cut back on Q service a little to implement some B service?

 

 

The policy headway on Saturday is 10 minutes.

 

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 D express (which I've seen many times pass a C and arrive 59 ahead of it) remains the faster option for this market (not to mention the Concourse - Midtown market). Also, the D express benefits Concourse - west-side CBD riders as a whole (i.e. for those who opt for the 1 instead of the A or C).

 

 

My point is simply that D riders who transfer to the A retain their express service. If they transfer to the C or 1, then, you're right, they don't. But D -> A riders shouldn't be counted among those who lose out by sending the D local.

 

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 D 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 D either from the 1 or the C (unless they take the 2 or 3 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 D 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).

 

 

Yes, at an expected cost of 5 minutes, or a worst-case cost of 10 minutes, my hypothetical rider can transfer at 59th. But most will instead take the IRT and walk the extra block at each end.

 

I'm not saying there's an urgent need. I'm saying that running the D local might serve riders better than running it express.

 

3) Building on point 2, you also mentioned running times and compared time savings and deficits. Based on the C's current weekend schedule, round-trip times are just under 130 minutes, not 150. So based on your math, the current C 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 C 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 D rider; there might be a way to estimate it, but it'd take way too long.

 

 

You need to add in relay time at each end - the C doesn't instantly transport itself from one track to the other at Euclid and 168th. Each relay takes around 10 minutes.

 

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 D 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 4, though nearby, serves an entirely different market in Manhattan (the only real alternative, taking the 4 to the 2 at 149, takes longer than the D 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 C service as a compromise.

 

 

The MTA employees who post aren't the ones who do these analyses - I wouldn't assume that this has been considered. If I get a chance next week, I'll shoot them and email, and maybe I'll even get a response (stranger things have happened).

 

The only reason I'm proposing this is that the train is already there. By now I sound like a broken record in my repeated insistence that the MTA isn't going to actually increase service where loads don't warrant increased service.

 

Looking into whether a service change might be beneficial to the ridership as a whole isn't shafting anyone, as long as it's an honest analysis.

 

Increasing C service isn't a compromise at all. It's an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What "serious overcrowding"? The D isn't crowded on weekends. I used to ride it pretty regularly when I lived in Washington Heights a few years ago - I rarely saw even half the seats filled on weekends.

Well that was a few years ago... Things change... The could use help... The trains are quote crowded on the weekends.

 

If you go around simply asking people what they want, they'll demand the kitchen sink.

 

Full-blown market research is a lot more involved than asking people who show up to a Town Hall Meeting. When the Manhattan Bridge service pattern was being devised in 2003, market research revealed a significant weekend preference for Broadway among Brighton riders. That's why the Q became the full-time Brighton service.

Yeah well the point is Brighton riders have access to 6th Avenue during the week and they should have access to it on weekends too.

 

The policy headway on Saturday is 10 minutes.

 

Yeah and we know how good the MTA is at following their own policies....

[Concourse Express]

 

What "serious overcrowding"? The D isn't crowded on weekends. I used to ride it pretty regularly when I lived in Washington Heights a few years ago - I rarely saw even half the seats filled on weekends.

 

...except the weekend *is* crowded from my experiences - and I've seen more than my fair share of empty trains at various hours of the day on cpw.

 

The 2010 service cut book acknowledged that, by reducing service on the 1, it would be over guidelines on both Saturdays and Sundays. If a D local could attract some people off the 1, that would help a lot.

 

...or just reinstate 6-minute weekend headways on the . But then again, if MTA cut service on the busy IRT, what incentive do they have to run 12 TPH worth of service to a corridor that doesn't warrant it?

 

My point is simply that D riders who transfer to the A retain their express service. If they transfer to the C or 1, then, you're right, they don't. But D -> A riders shouldn't be counted among those who lose out by sending the D local.

 

That depends how far such to riders are going, however. If in the 8th Ave CBD the express still has the advantage because of the options at 59 and the transfer at W4. Perhaps there's little detriment to the - riders going to Brooklyn or Queens.

 

Yes, at an expected cost of 5 minutes, or a worst-case cost of 10 minutes, my hypothetical rider can transfer at 59th. But most will instead take the IRT and walk the extra block at each end.

 

How do you know this? You seem to overstate the value of the one-seat ride; are riders who intentionally detrain further from their stops to avoid transfers among the majority of riders?

 

I'm not saying there's an urgent need. I'm saying that running the D local might serve riders better than running it express.

 

I understand this. Again, I know you're throwing it out there...

 

You need to add in relay time at each end - the C doesn't instantly transport itself from one track to the other at Euclid and 168th. Each relay takes around 10 minutes.

 

Fair point...

 

The MTA employees who post aren't the ones who do these analyses - I wouldn't assume that this has been considered. If I get a chance next week, I'll shoot them and email, and maybe I'll even get a response (stranger things have happened).

 

The only reason I'm proposing this is that the train is already there. By now I sound like a broken record in my repeated insistence that the MTA isn't going to actually increase service where loads don't warrant increased service.

 

Looking into whether a service change might be beneficial to the ridership as a whole isn't shafting anyone, as long as it's an honest analysis.

 

Increasing C service isn't a compromise at all. It's an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

You say the MTA will not increase service where guidelines aren't being exceeded...well, the weekend certainly is nowhere near that level from my observations. That said, if the with its higher average loads on Concourse (not to mention 6th Ave and Brooklyn ridership) "doesn't merit" increases, then neither does the lesser-used cpw local. Just because there's no one-seat access to 6th Ave doesn't mean there's no access. Furthermore, if the cpw crowding problem is "a problem that doesn't exist," then you might as well leave well enough alone.

[GreatOne2k]

 

The 7 express only runs rush hours. It has never run weekends. It used to run middays; when it was cut back to rush hours only a few years ago, the world didn't come to an end - and the last stop on the line is the busiest station outside Manhattan, so if there's any line that has a substantial market for express service, it's the Flushing line!

 

 

also still runs during evenings (although ending earlier than before).

 

The does run on weekends after a Mets game as a Super Express, same as the weekend service after Yankee games.

 

The policy headway on Saturday is 10 minutes.

 

 

It is 12 minutes now, see the , , and service on weekends.

[Threxx]

The 7 express only runs rush hours. It has never run weekends. It used to run middays; when it was cut back to rush hours only a few years ago, the world didn't come to an end - and the last stop on the line is the busiest station outside Manhattan, so if there's any line that has a substantial market for express service, it's the Flushing line!

 

 

I'm pretty damn sure it used to run (some time ago) on Saturdays, but again, I could be wrong...

[GreatOne2k]

There may have been a test one Saturday, just like how the ran one Saturday in 2001 as a test to see if the , , and would all fit on the same track.

 

There was a Saturday rush hour until the 1940s, the last time any regular Saturday peak express service would have ran.

[Eric B]

That was the early 50's, actually. At least on the BMT.

[realizm]

I've read that there was a BMT "Sunny Summer Sunday Special," which actually also ran on Saturdays however the service provided was seasonal. It ran 1924 to September 1952. It's route was almost the same as the NX express in the late 60's. It came to Brooklyn from Chambers Street over the Manhattan Bridge running express it's along it's entire route, down 4th Avenue, and on the Sea Beach, through Coney Island, up the Brighton line to Prospect Park, then along the Franklin Ave ROW to Fulton Street where I think it terminated.

 

What merited the need for that type of service back then however I'm not too sure.

[Eric B]

Saturday was basically a work day at one point, especially during the war. Think of how "Saturday night" was the big hangout/party night, sort of what Friday is to us today. "SIX days shall you work..." the commandment said, but in the latter half of the century, it became part of a two day "weekend". Friday is slowly following in some workplaces.

 

The Summer Specials were just that-- specials, and wouldn't count for what I'm saying. They just happened to be axed around the same time. Perhaps as Saturdays as a day off spread out the crowds for whom Sunday was previously the only RDO.

[AndrewJC]

Well that was a few years ago... Things change... The could use help... The trains are quote crowded on the weekends.

 

The MTA has an objective definition of "quite crowded" - on weekends, it's 125% of a seated load. With 70 seats on an R68, an overcrowded D train is one with over 87 passengers per car. Are you seriously suggesting that the average car of the average D train, at any time of day on Saturday or Sunday, is carrying over 87 passengers? If so, then weekend ridership has more-than-doubled - a pretty incredible growth rate - since I last rode the D fairly regularly in 2010.

 

Yeah well the point is Brighton riders have access to 6th Avenue during the week and they should have access to it on weekends too.

 

The Brighton line doesn't have enough ridership on weekends to support two services. Since Broadway is the preferred destination for most weekend Brighton riders, that's where the weekend Brighton service runs. People who want to go to 6th Avenue can transfer (at Stillwell or West 8th or Atlantic or 34th) or walk to the F or walk from the nearest Q station.

 

Rush hour ridership is much stronger, strong enough to support 20 tph, which is more than enough to be split between two services.

 

Yeah and we know how good the MTA is at following their own policies....

 

Aside from the 2, 3, and 5, which run on corridors constrained by common GO's, every line on weekends runs every 10 minutes or better.

 

...except the weekend *is* crowded from my experiences - and I've seen more than my fair share of empty trains at various hours of the day on cpw.

 

As I asked Via Garibaldi 8: Are you seriously suggesting that the average car of the average D train, at any time of day on Saturday or Sunday, is carrying over 87 passengers?

 

I'll be in the Columbus Circle area later today - if I get a chance, I'll spend some time looking at loads on A, C, and D trains.

 

Sure, if you look at the C at 125th or 116th, it won't be very crowded. But if you focus on trains coming into and going out of 59th, you may see something different.

 

...or just reinstate 6-minute weekend headways on the .

 

Service was reduced on the 1 to accommodate GO's:

 

Weekend service is often reduced due to construction work. In some cases, train frequencies are reduced to every 12 minutes. This proposal would adjust scheduled train frequencies to match those typically required by construction work. Train frequencies would decrease from a train every 8 minutes to every 10 minutes on the routes on Saturdays and the routes on Sundays; and service would not be affected on Saturdays due to relatively high ridership on these routes. In addition, train frequencies on the would decrease from a train every 6 minutes to every 8 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays (weekend frequencies were revised on the other numbered lines in 2003).

 

There really is a serious crowding problem on the 1 and the 2 (probably not the 3), and there isn't much that can be done about it aside from attracting riders to other lines. Those trains are a lot more crowded than the D.

 

But then again, if MTA cut service on the busy IRT, what incentive do they have to run 12 TPH worth of service to a corridor that doesn't warrant it?

 

The CPW corridor has 18 tph on weekends (and I'm not suggesting that that be changed).

 

That depends how far such to riders are going, however. If in the 8th Ave CBD the express still has the advantage because of the options at 59 and the transfer at W4. Perhaps there's little detriment to the - riders going to Brooklyn or Queens.

 

I think you're overanalyzing what I said. All I said is that people who transfer from the D to the A keep their express run, since they can transfer at 145th. I'm not including transfers to the C or the 1 or anything else.

 

How do you know this? You seem to overstate the value of the one-seat ride; are riders who intentionally detrain further from their stops to avoid transfers among the majority of riders?

 

If the headway is 10 minutes, the average wait time is 5 minutes and the worst-case wait time is 10 minutes (assuming trains are spaced evenly). Taking the C to the D means being prepared for a likely wait of about 10 minutes and the possibility of a wait of 20 minutes. Given that the ride itself is pretty short (on weekdays, 96th to 34th on the B is 12 minutes), the wait time is a pretty big factor in the decision of which way to go, and the shorter headways on the IRT (even at local stops but especially at express stops) attract people to the IRT, even at the expense of longer walks. That contributes to the overcrowding on the IRT.

 

Shaving off an average of 5 minutes of wait time, and a worst case of 10 minutes of wait time, from the IND option would attract some of these people back to the IND, relieving some of the IRT overcrowding.

 

You say the MTA will not increase service where guidelines aren't being exceeded...well, the weekend certainly is nowhere near that level from my observations. That said, if the with its higher average loads on Concourse (not to mention 6th Ave and Brooklyn ridership) "doesn't merit" increases, then neither does the lesser-used cpw local. Just because there's no one-seat access to 6th Ave doesn't mean there's no access. Furthermore, if the cpw crowding problem is "a problem that doesn't exist," then you might as well leave well enough alone.

 

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm not proposing a service increase?

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct that CPW riders can transfer - and wait a second time for an average of 5 minutes, or up to 10 minutes - to get to 6th Avenue. But running the D local would impose only a 3 minute penalty on through riders. Which is the greater hardship, standing on a hot platform for an undetermined period of up to 10 minutes, or sitting on an air conditioned train for a reliable extra 3 minutes?

[realizm]

YBut running the D local would impose only a 3 minute penalty on through riders. Which is the greater hardship, standing on a hot platform for an undetermined period of up to 10 minutes, or sitting on an air conditioned train for a reliable extra 3 minutes?

 

 

Increases in TPH on the D line would alleviate both problems. I can't see that happening if all D trains were local on the CPW. One of the reasons the IND designed the CPW as a four track line I'm pretty sure, is to address the issue of capacity not just for the sake of speed, even though that needs to be considered. The Grand Concourse line being that it's the only line providing direct access to the IND system with the areas it serves, in itself, is the reason why it is so overcrowded on weekends, if not because of the budget cuts.

[Concourse Express]

As I asked Via Garibaldi 8: Are you seriously suggesting that the average car of the average D train, at any time of day on Saturday or Sunday, is carrying over 87 passengers?

 

I'll be in the Columbus Circle area later today - if I get a chance, I'll spend some time looking at loads on A, C, and D trains.

 

Sure, if you look at the C at 125th or 116th, it won't be very crowded. But if you focus on trains coming into and going out of 59th, you may see something different.

 

I've been on many trains with more than 17 standees per car through the cpw express on weekends. As for whether or not that's the average, I don't know. I'd say all my weekend rides in the span of over 20 years at various times of the day are a great enough sample, but then again ridership patterns change over time. Also, my observations of uncrowded 's weren't just at "125" and "116" but also past 96 and 86 St southbound and even past 59 northbound. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the never gets crowded...only that I've seen more than my fair share of trains with somewhat crowded end cars and the rest with many seats available.

 

Service was reduced on the 1 to accommodate GO's:

 

I'm aware of this. However, with MTA reports continuing to suggest record-breaking weekend subway ridership systemwide (even with the 125% loading guidelines), something's gonna have to give eventually...

 

There really is a serious crowding problem on the 1 and the 2 (probably not the 3), and there isn't much that can be done about it aside from attracting riders to other lines. Those trains are a lot more crowded than the D.

 

...which means that restoring pre-2010 service levels on the IRT becomes another option. Also, I never claimed that the was more crowded than the IRT on the average - only that it's crowded. FTR, the IRT lines are also more crowded than the ...

 

I think you're overanalyzing what I said. All I said is that people who transfer from the D to the A keep their express run, since they can transfer at 145th. I'm not including transfers to the C or the 1 or anything else.

 

Of course that contingent keeps the run, but you cannot discount said transferees; my point is once you take the transferees into account, the remaining cats who "benefit" even with a transfer to/from 145 shrinks (since they either stay on the for the longer ride or transfer where they otherwise didn't have to, losing some time compared to the exp).

 

If the headway is 10 minutes, the average wait time is 5 minutes and the worst-case wait time is 10 minutes (assuming trains are spaced evenly). Taking the C to the D means being prepared for a likely wait of about 10 minutes and the possibility of a wait of 20 minutes. Given that the ride itself is pretty short (on weekdays, 96th to 34th on the B is 12 minutes), the wait time is a pretty big factor in the decision of which way to go, and the shorter headways on the IRT (even at local stops but especially at express stops) attract people to the IRT, even at the expense of longer walks. That contributes to the overcrowding on the IRT.

 

Shaving off an average of 5 minutes of wait time, and a worst case of 10 minutes of wait time, from the IND option would attract some of these people back to the IND, relieving some of the IRT overcrowding.

 

Yes, shaving off wait times makes the cpw local more attractive; I'm not denying this. But increased travel times for Concourse through-riders would still discourage ridership; I'm still not convinced that there is sufficient demand on the cpw lcl to warrant this change, given current average ridership levels.

 

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm not proposing a service increase?

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct that CPW riders can transfer - and wait a second time for an average of 5 minutes, or up to 10 minutes - to get to 6th Avenue. But running the D local would impose only a 3 minute penalty on through riders. Which is the greater hardship, standing on a hot platform for an undetermined period of up to 10 minutes, or sitting on an air conditioned train for a reliable extra 3 minutes?

 

 

Shifting the to the local means 6 extra TPH for the cpw local - is that not a service increase for cpw local riders? And those "hardships" are hardly unique to the cpw local; "undetermined" wait times at hot stations approaching 10 minutes (or more) for trains is something many riders face, including Concourse riders - been there, done that.

[realizm]

A few people stated that increasing the length of C trains to ten cars along with increased TPHs on the D (as an express train in Manhattan) would be the best solution when taking into consideration the limitations of the projected budget.

 

B trains on weekends will cost too much money. Many people are'nt looking forward to a steep monster fare hike to accomidate it. Express service in the Bronx during the weekends for the same reasons. (Rush hours on weekdays, different story, be thankful the MTA preserved express service in the Bronx through the budget cuts) It's not even necessary. But derailing the D express in uptown Manhattan wont work either because it would deter ridership as Concourse Express said, one can only imagine how overcrowded the Lexington Ave line would be as a result. Jerome Ave on the 4 for that matter.

 

It's already been established that ten car C trains, and retaining D train express service in Manhattan with increased TPH, and scrapping the B weekend train idea would be the best bet.

[AndrewJC]

Increases in TPH on the D line would alleviate both problems. I can't see that happening if all D trains were local on the CPW. One of the reasons the IND designed the CPW as a four track line I'm pretty sure, is to address the issue of capacity not just for the sake of speed, even though that needs to be considered. The Grand Concourse line being that it's the only line providing direct access to the IND system with the areas it serves, in itself, is the reason why it is so overcrowded on weekends, if not because of the budget cuts.

 

 

The D is not "so overcrowded" on weekends. Sorry.

 

Your reasoning doesn't even make sense. The CPW line is the only line providing direct access to the IND within the areas it serves. And for those who don't need the IND, the IRT is farther away from CPW than it is from the Grand Concourse.

 

I've been on many trains with more than 17 standees per car through the cpw express on weekends.

 

 

And all seats occupied? Plenty of people stand, either because they simply prefer to stand or because they don't want to put up a fight with the people hogging two or three seats.

 

A seated load means that there are as many people in the car as there are seats. Whether they're all seated or not is irrelevant. On a car with 70 seats, 125% of a seated load means 87 people - it doesn't matter if 70 are sitting and 17 are standing, or if 17 are sitting and 70 are standing, or any other breakdown.

 

As for whether or not that's the average, I don't know. I'd say all my weekend rides in the span of over 20 years at various times of the day are a great enough sample, but then again ridership patterns change over time. Also, my observations of uncrowded 's weren't just at "125" and "116" but also past 96 and 86 St southbound and even past 59 northbound. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the never gets crowded...only that I've seen more than my fair share of trains with somewhat crowded end cars and the rest with many seats available.

 

 

The most crowded point on the C is between 72nd and 59th - if you're looking at 96th and 86th, you're not making a fair comparison.

 

Anyway, I didn't get a chance to compare A/C/D loads myself today - it was way too hot to be hanging out on a subway platform and I wanted to get home before the rain. But I did get a call from a friend who lives in Harlem, near 125th, and is a grad student at NYU - he's been riding the IND to school nearly every day, including weekends, since September - so I took the opportunity to ask him about his commute. He told me that he usually takes whichever train comes first, except that during rush hours he sometimes waits for an express. As for weekend crowding entering 59th, he said that, except on game days, the D is consistently less crowded than the A or C, which are pretty close. Regarding the D, he said that it always has "plenty of seats for all who want to sit." When I revealed why I asked - that I thought it might make sense for the D to run local on weekends - the words out of his mouth were "no-brainer." He thought it was a very good idea, even though it would lessen his chances of catching an express to West 4th.

 

I'm aware of this. However, with MTA reports continuing to suggest record-breaking weekend subway ridership systemwide (even with the 125% loading guidelines), something's gonna have to give eventually...

 

...which means that restoring pre-2010 service levels on the IRT becomes another option.

 

 

The 1 was already being cut to 8 minute headways most weekends for GO's - the 2010 cut only made it official for all weekends. Undo the cut and the 1 will still run every 8 minutes most weekends.

 

The only way I can think of to improve headways on the 1 and 2 is to cancel 3 service entirely, but I can imagine that would be very challenging politically.

 

Also, I never claimed that the was more crowded than the IRT on the average - only that it's crowded. FTR, the IRT lines are also more crowded than the ...

 

 

My NYU friend disagrees with you about the D, assuming you mean on weekends. (It's certainly crowded in rush hours.)

 

Of course that contingent keeps the run, but you cannot discount said transferees; my point is once you take the transferees into account, the remaining cats who "benefit" even with a transfer to/from 145 shrinks (since they either stay on the for the longer ride or transfer where they otherwise didn't have to, losing some time compared to the exp).

 

 

I'm specifically referring to transferrees from the D to the A! Yes, transferrees from the D to anything else would have a longer local ride to reach their transfer point - I never suggested otherwise.

 

Yes, shaving off wait times makes the cpw local more attractive; I'm not denying this. But increased travel times for Concourse through-riders would still discourage ridership; I'm still not convinced that there is sufficient demand on the cpw lcl to warrant this change, given current average ridership levels.

 

 

And, as you know, I disagree, because I don't think running the D local is a terrible hardship on current D riders - especially if my friend's observations that the C is more crowded than the D are accurate.

 

Shifting the to the local means 6 extra TPH for the cpw local - is that not a service increase for cpw local riders?

 

 

I wouldn't call it a service increase - it's just a change in stopping pattern. When 1/9 skip-stop was discontinued, there was no overall service increase, even though many stations saw more frequent service. It's a service improvement for some riders, but there's no actual increase.

 

Increasing C service is a service increase. Running the D local is not.

 

And those "hardships" are hardly unique to the cpw local; "undetermined" wait times at hot stations approaching 10 minutes (or more) for trains is something many riders face, including Concourse riders - been there, done that.

 

 

Of course they're not unique, but there's an easy, inexpensive way here to cut wait times in half for many people who are traveling relatively short distances (96/CPW to Herald Square is 3.5 miles), where riders currently have to allocate more time for their wait than to ride the train itself. If there were a way of doing that on the Concourse line, I'd be suggesting it there too!

 

I just don't understand why you consider 3 extra minutes on an air conditioned train to be such a great imposition while shrugging off the extra transfer that many CPW riders have to make, with its up-to-10-minute wait in a hot station.

[realizm]

The D is not "so overcrowded" on weekends. Sorry.

 

Your reasoning doesn't even make sense. The CPW line is the only line providing direct access to the IND within the areas it serves. And for those who don't need the IND, the IRT is farther away from CPW than it is from the Grand Concourse.

 

 

You need to live in the Bronx to understand the ridership needs there.

 

Most people commuting from the Bronx in my observations (Being a Bronx resident) are travelling to Midtown and the major destinations there. That includes the D and the 4. More people throughout the run downtown board on the D at 167th, 161st 125th Street and 59th street ultimately. To get to Midtown. Ridership patterns tend to be Manhattan-centric.

 

Increased D train express service in Manhattan with ten car C trains would be the obvious answer. Again actually ride the D train more often on the weekends Manhattan bound as I have to getting from my apartment on weekends and you will have to agree after all. Common sense, man.

[AndrewJC]

A few people stated that increasing the length of C trains to ten cars along with increased TPHs on the D (as an express train in Manhattan) would be the best solution when taking into consideration the limitations of the projected budget.

 

B trains on weekends will cost too much money. Many people are'nt looking forward to a steep monster fare hike to accomidate it. Express service in the Bronx during the weekends for the same reasons. (Rush hours on weekdays, different story, be thankful the MTA preserved express service in the Bronx through the budget cuts) It's not even necessary. But derailing the D express in uptown Manhattan wont work either because it would deter ridership as Concourse Express said, one can only imagine how overcrowded the Lexington Ave line would be as a result. Jerome Ave on the 4 for that matter.

 

It's already been established that ten car C trains, and retaining D train express service in Manhattan with increased TPH, and scrapping the B weekend train idea would be the best bet.

 

 

"It's already been established"? By whom? What problem do you think you're solving? Why would the MTA spend money to increase D service when D trains aren't overcrowded? (By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, increasing the D from a 10-minute headway to an 8-minute headway adds five trains to the requirements.)

[realizm]

Other people who posted in this thread many pages ago. Why the MTA spend money to increase D service? Again it's because there is a heavy demand.

 

It seems you don't see how heavily used the D is on weekends. It can get as heavy as say, the E and F on Queens Bvld on the weekends, as an IND equivalent. That's how busy it is. Where you are getting the notion that the D is a lightly used line I really have no idea.

 

Edit: Can I go now?

[Quill Depot]

Were not putting in a monster fare hike! Why charge the people in other areas for one upgrade in CPW. People need to deal with crowding.

 

The short turn option is the only viable solution. Otherwise more trains have to run or trains have to be extended. That equals MONEY! Short-turned trains are nothing. All you need is some edits to a weekend map.

[Mtatransit]

CPW is just as QBL during weekend. Also the is also like the which are both infrequent. Now back to topic I think run extra every other trip to end at 2 Av coming from both Fulton St and 168 St

[AndrewJC]

You need to live in the Bronx to understand the ridership needs there.

 

Most people commuting from the Bronx in my observations (Being a Bronx resident) are travelling to Midtown and the major destinations there. That includes the D and the 4. More people throughout the run downtown board on the D at 167th, 161st 125th Street and 59th street ultimately. To get to Midtown. Ridership patterns tend to be Manhattan-centric.

 

 

All of that is obvious, even to someone who doesn't live in the Bronx anymore. What does it have to do with the discussion at hand? I'm not suggesting that they not be allowed to make those trips, only that those trips take 3 minutes longer (so a ride from, e.g., Bedford Park to Herald Square would take 39 minutes rather than 36 - an increase of 7% including average wait time) so that their train can be useful to more people. The D isn't your private limo - it's a subway service that should be designed to meet the needs of all potential riders as best as possible. If running the D local meets those needs better than running it express, then it should run local.

 

Increased D train express service in Manhattan with ten car C trains would be the obvious answer. Again actually ride the D train more often on the weekends Manhattan bound as I have to getting from my apartment on weekends and you will have to agree after all. Common sense, man.

 

 

The obvious answer to what question?

 

 

Other people who posted in this thread many pages ago. Why the MTA spend money to increase D service? Again it's because there is a heavy demand.

 

 

According to the MTA's loading guidelines - the guidelines by which they decide whether service increases are warranted - the D is not overcrowded unless it carries over 87 riders per car on the average train. The D does not carry anywhere near 87 riders per car.

 

I'm not saying that you don't perceive it to be crowded. I'm sure it's more crowded than you would like, and I'm sure you'd love more frequent service. But everybody wants more frequent train service. Ridership guidelines are a consistent standard that can be applied systemwide, to the extent that track capacity constraints allow. When weekend service was cut on many lines in 2010, the MTA acknowledged that some would be overcrowded ("Loads on will exceed 10-18 standees per car, depending on car type, at the maximum load point (125% of off-peak loading guidelines) during certain hours on Saturdays. Loads on will exceed 10-18 standees per car during certain hours on Sundays"). Those lines are still overcrowded. The D is not. Why would the MTA add D service when other lines really are overcrowded?

 

It seems you don't see how heavily used the D is on weekends. It can get as heavy as say, the E and F on Queens Bvld on the weekends, as an IND equivalent. That's how busy it is. Where you are getting the notion that the D is a lightly used line I really have no idea.

 

 

I didn't say that the D is lightly used. Trains can occasionally get very crowded, but that's the case anywhere - scheduled frequencies are based on typical loads, not extreme cases, and typical loads on the D are still well under 87 per car (i.e., 700 per train). In absolute terms, the D still carries a lot of people, but it isn't carrying 4200 people per hour in either direction, and that's the threshold for adding more service.

 

Edit: Can I go now?

 

 

Were you kidnapped? Should I call the police?

[realizm]

............................................________

....................................,.-'"...................``~.,

.............................,.-"..................................."-.,

.........................,/...............................................":,

.....................,?......................................................,

.................../...........................................................,}

................./......................................................,:`^`..}

.............../...................................................,:"........./

..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../

............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../

.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/

..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}

...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../

...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../

............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"

............/.`~,......`-...................................../

.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__

,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,

.....`=~-,__......`,.................................

...................`=~-,,.,...............................

................................`:,,...........................`..............__

.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``

........................................_..........._,-%.......`

...................................,

[AndrewJC]

............................................________

....................................,.-'"...................``~.,

.............................,.-"..................................."-.,

.........................,/...............................................":,

.....................,?......................................................,

.................../...........................................................,}

................./......................................................,:`^`..}

.............../...................................................,:"........./

..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../

............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../

.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/

..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}

...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../

...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../

............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"

............/.`~,......`-...................................../

.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__

,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,

.....`=~-,__......`,.................................

...................`=~-,,.,...............................

................................`:,,...........................`..............__

.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``

........................................_..........._,-%.......`

...................................,

 

 

Nice self-portrait!