Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Actually a better question is why it was built with no express line option?  It's really a painful trip from 242nd... The train moves and you're at 96th in about 25 minutes but still.  It would be a lot faster with an express train because then you have to switch at 96th.  Too much of a hassle.

[realizm]

As Grand Concourse mentioned, the middle track merges back into the local track with no express stations. Against the high rate of frequency required for the to handle the high passenger ridership at each station, it would not be feasible or beneficial. As to why it was built in the first place, I threw out some ideas, but I will have to research it further to find a concrete answer, which I haven't as of yet conclusively as of this post. 

[R62AR33]

Does anyone think the  service should make a comeback? Maybe when Cordlandt WTC Reopens, should the  restore the   line? I think they should make a comeback.

Why have everyone go through the trouble of remembering again wether the or will go to their stop in the Bronx during skip stop hrs , the has been local for about 8 yrs now and it should stay as it is .

[Roadcruiser1]

As someone that has used the Seventh Avenue Line for almost 2 years my opinion is no. I don't see the point in the coming back. It won't address the current issues which is overcrowding on the . It would skip too much popular stations, and it would be a terrible pain on the butt on the local stations on the entire line which is why it was killed in the first place. So no the won't be coming back.

 

A more realistic idea would be to add more trains during rush hour which will solve the overcrowding on the . This would work better and if communications based train control (CBTC) was brought to the Seventh Avenue Line it will help address the issues on the even more. There is no reason to use the 3rd track anyway since it's used for yard moves anyway. (Really I don't see this point brought up by foamers to use tracks that are unused for services that are not needed!!!!!!!!!!)

[Vistausss]

Extra trains will help a bit but not entirely. For one thing, ridership continues to grow so you can't keep adding trains. And for another thing, it's already painfully long as is. Some faster option needs to be explored. I don't see why no one is thinking of that. Do you want to still have this hell slow ride in 50 years from now? If so, then why not remove the from service? Because it shouldn't matter to only ride locals, apparently.

[RollOver]

I think the is fine as is. It already runs every 4-6 minutes on weekdays though weekend service is 8 minutes. I'll say to make the run every 4-6 minutes every day of the week if there are any overcrowding issues on Saturday and Sunday. If not, then we are just going to have to put up with low weekend service on that line.

[Priincenene]

Now I think it's best not to because the is fine as it is. runs local and express and comes every minute and no waiting for long time.

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

Now I think it's best not to because the is fine as it is. runs local and express and comes every minute and no waiting for long time.

may need some more trains... It's always jam packed with people. From 103 street station it's hard to find a seat if any.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Airplanepilotgod8888

[realizm]

As someone that has used the Seventh Avenue Line for almost 2 years my opinion is no. I don't see the point in the coming back. It won't address the current issues which is overcrowding on the . It would skip too much popular stations, and it would be a terrible pain on the butt on the local stations on the entire line which is why it was killed in the first place. So no the won't be coming back.

 

A more realistic idea would be to add more trains during rush hour which will solve the overcrowding on the . This would work better and if communications based train control (CBTC) was brought to the Seventh Avenue Line it will help address the issues on the even more. There is no reason to use the 3rd track anyway since it's used for yard moves anyway. (Really I don't see this point brought up by foamers to use tracks that are unused for services that are not needed!!!!!!!!!!)

 

You know I love it when people throw the word foamer around when it comes to logically bringing up certain points. Expressing a comment that may be in the realm of unpopular opinion is one thing, but I wouldn't call it a subway enthusiast fetish as a blanket statement. VG8 for example is not a foamer, he is a straphanger with a legitimate question as he does not frequent the subway subforum. I'm sure that was why you said that.

 

FYI: We know already that the 3rd track is a feeder line built for put ins or OOS train maneuvers. We already know that an express service will not work on the IRT West Side Line for many reasons. But nevertheless thanks anyway for confirming that with your valuable insight.

 

The reason we are not seeing as much frequency on train service on the is because the TPH was cut back from 18 TPH to 16 TPH rush hours, then from 10-12 TPH to 9-11 TPH off peak. They did the same thing on the , from 23 TPH to 21 TPH, rush hours. This was never officially announced to the public until the NY Daily News announced it after the fact. They never restored the original frequency because they are more focused right now on the B division ( i.e IND, BMT ) , increasing service on those lines with the obvious exception being the  . (CBTC anyone?)

 

Yes the answer is obviously to increase service and leave it at that. But now we are talking about monetary related issues due budget constraints. Which is why we are faced with fare hikes. See where I am going with this realistically as you put it......

Edited September 15, 2013 by realizm

[realizm]

Yes.

 

Hey what's up mtattrain ? Ely or whoever you are. Trolling again ?

Edited September 15, 2013 by realizm

[Broadway Local]

Hey what's up mtattrain ? Ely or whoever you are. Trolling again ?

 

or probably he's just answering the question on the topic. 

[realizm]

The persons in the chatroom as well as the mods for that matter knows troll accounts are being set up. I will PM you on the rest of the details.

Edited September 15, 2013 by realizm

[Priincenene]

may need some more trains... It's always jam packed with people. From 103 street station it's hard to find a seat if any.

 

 

that's why I brought up this topic but people dislike the fact and give a thumbs down but maybe instead the should move some 62A's from Corona to 130th Yard

[Vistausss]

that's why I brought up this topic but people dislike the fact and give a thumbs down but maybe instead the should move some 62A's from Corona to 130th Yard

 

They're probably gonna do that after the R188's roll in.

[Grand Concourse]

that's why I brought up this topic but people dislike the fact and give a thumbs down but maybe instead the should move some 62A's from Corona to 130th Yard

well those extra trains will have to go somewhere, it will happen anyway. And what 130th yard? Edited September 15, 2013 by Grand Concourse

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think the is fine as is. It already runs every 4-6 minutes on weekdays though weekend service is 8 minutes. I'll say to make the run every 4-6 minutes every day of the week if there are any overcrowding issues on Saturday and Sunday. If not, then we are just going to have to put up with low weekend service on that line.

The is not fine as is and as a matter of fact, I raised the level of frequency with Governor Cuomo's office after his big announcement about what he was doing with that line by reopening the old South Ferry station. He forwarded my letter to the and Mr. Cafiero (a big wig from the planning department) wrote to me and stated that there times in which the needed more service and that at that time more service couldn't be added until track work was completed, but just because it already runs every 4-6 minutes at times doesn't mean that there is no overcrowding during those times because that is simply not the case.   It gets particularly bad from 137th street down and really bad at 96th on down to 42nd street.  All it takes is for the and to screw up and everyone comes running to the so there's a few problems with the 7th Avenue line that need to be addressed sooner rather than later because the and are apparently running at capacity due to the way the lines are set up and the is just about at capacity as well.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[RollOver]

The is not fine as is and as a matter of fact, I raised the level of frequency with Governor Cuomo's office after his big announcement about what he was doing with that line by reopening the old South Ferry station. He forwarded my letter to the and Mr. Cafiero (a big wig from the planning department) wrote to me and stated that there times in which the needed more service and that at that time more service couldn't be added until track work was completed, but just because it already runs every 4-6 minutes at times doesn't mean that there is no overcrowding during those times because that is simply not the case.   It gets particularly bad from 137th street down and really bad at 96th on down to 42nd street.  All it takes is for the and to screw up and everyone comes running to the so there's a few problems with the 7th Avenue line that need to be addressed sooner rather than later because the and are apparently running at capacity due to the way the lines are set up and the is just about at capacity as well.

 

Since I don't ride the on regular basis, I'll take your word. Maybe a 3 minute headway could relieve the crowding? I mean I'm sure of that since some rush hour northbound trains terminate at 137th Street and reverse back southbound to maintain headways of 3 minutes, just like how some northbound rush hour trains terminate at 3rd Avenue-138th Street and reverse back southbound to maintain 3 minute waiting times. So thats 3 trains within 10 minutes or 18 trains per hour.

 

And about the and , the former of which is the longest IRT line in the system so the longer the line, the more problems they'll be along the way. In my experiences riding these two, I find them to be a bit more reliable and faster than the and which are prone to delays because of the aforementioned reasons in the past threads. The 12 minute headway IMO should be decreased to 10 minutes or 8 minutes. I do understand that they are not very frequent during the peak compared to the . It's just that keeping trains crowded means the saves money. I still do want them running at 8 or 10 minute intervals during weekends though.

Edited September 15, 2013 by RollOverMyHead

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Since I don't ride the on regular basis, I'll take your word. Maybe a 3 minute headway could relieve the crowding? I mean I'm sure of that since some rush hour northbound trains terminate at 137th Street and reverse back southbound to maintain headways of 3 minutes, just like how some northbound rush hour trains terminate at 3rd Avenue-138th Street and reverse back southbound to maintain 3 minute waiting times. So thats 3 trains within 10 minutes or 18 trains per hour.

 

And about the and , the former of which is the longest IRT line in the system so the longer the line, the more problems they'll be along the way. In my experiences riding these two, I find them to be a bit more reliable and faster than the and which are prone to delays because of the aforementioned reasons in the past threads. The 12 minute headway IMO should be decreased to 10 minutes or 8 minutes. I do understand that they are not very frequent during the peak compared to the . It's just that keeping trains crowded means the saves money. I still do want them running at 8 or 10 minute intervals during weekends though.

Actually the headways aren't the problem IMO, but more like they don't have enough trains starting at certain points.  I've wondered about why for example, they can't start more trains at 137th street? I'm sure that some trains have been short turned there so why not have more of them start there in the morning?  Have an empty train come in there and then it's not so bad coming down to 125th, 116th, 110th and 103rd.  The issue is that the train is constantly picking up at all of these stations but rarely does anyone get off, then at 137th the train really starts to fill up and at 125th a few folks may get off but not enough to avoid the inevitable crowding at the stations that follow.  By 103rd there's barely enough room to keep people from being left behind.

 

I've taken the outside the real heart of rush hour and they're still pretty crowded coming from uptown and we're talking after 09:00 in the morning.  With that said, maybe they think that by having some trains start at 137th that crowding at the stations further north would become worse...

Edited September 15, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

True to form, someone mentions the J/Z.... That is the exact argument for bringing the 9 back that I was waiting for someone to make a mention of....

 

I never really liked the idea/implementation of intentional skip-stop local subway services.... Serve this local stop, but not that local stop....

You have your trains that run local along some corridors/trunc lines/whatever & you have those that run express in certain parts of the route.... Keep it simple, local & express subway service and that's it - None of this super local (or bastardized express) subway service business... lol...

 

So Bringing back the 9.... Bah.... The way I see it, add more service to the 1 & call it a day....

This is what happens when you have those that are simply too attached to a route number.

[realizm]

I'm going to have to agree on the fact that the is a seriously congested line during rush hours and daylight hours on weekends. The definitely needs increase in service but it needs to stay local for consistency in service patterns and preventing delays.

 

Now here's another reason (Grand Concourse highlighted this and I'm building on it because this would be the major factor in why T/Ds will have a hard time with a hypothetical implementation of a express ): The switch north of 96th Street where the third track starts and the second switch south of 145th Street - If we have trains simultaneously on all three tracks it would cause certain congestion. It takes time for a T/O at the punchbox or a T/D at the control center to make the line up for any potential express train traveling on the West Side on the middle track. More trains up the 'express' track squeezing into two tracks on either end, along the time wasted from switch line up to make it happen will cause certain delays and congestion along the entire route. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

True to form, someone mentions the J/Z.... That is the exact argument for bringing the 9 back that I was waiting for someone to make a mention of....

 

I never really liked the idea/implementation of intentional skip-stop local subway services.... Serve this local stop, but not that local stop....

You have your trains that run local along some corridors/trunc lines/whatever & you have those that run express in certain parts of the route.... Keep it simple, local & express subway service and that's it - None of this super local (or bastardized express) subway service business... lol...

 

So Bringing back the 9.... Bah.... The way I see it, add more service to the 1 & call it a day....

This is what happens when you have those that are simply too attached to a route number.

That's the thing though... My understanding is that in some cases, the is at capacity, so I'm not sure how many more trains could be squeezed in.  The frequencies have always been good on the but from the time that I started using it when I worked in Chelsea to now, the only difference is more people are using it and so those "good" frequencies are now not enough.  Even on the weekends now that train is pretty crowded, just like a rush hour train, though I wonder if part of that stems from the poor service with weekend work and such.

 

Part of it I would also blame on gentrification with the hipsters moving further uptown as well.  I see a lot of them getting off at 145th and 157th for example.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[realizm]

The reason I believe is because it serves major universities, private and CUNY, and densely populated residential areas along the Upper West Side. During rush hours though the and the are just as packed, in fact the is even worse as it serves more stations in the Bronx. But that train indeed is insane on on any given day into the night, particularly past or beforeTimes Square, crushloaded. It's worse then an or an past or before Jackson Heights, another one on rush hours.

 

The MTA knows that they can technically increase frequency on the , but they dismiss it due to cost, which is always their punchline from the upper management and committee level.

[RollOver]

Perhaps running the every 3 minutes rather than every 4-6 minutes would relieve the crowding at the busier stations where people are coming to or from the most populated areas in Manhattan. I do agree that more trains should start at 137th Street rather than some of them. That way, everybody can fit onto the train rather than leaving a few left behind on the platforms.

Edited September 15, 2013 by RollOverMyHead

[B35 via Church]

That's the thing though... My understanding is that in some cases, the is at capacity, so I'm not sure how many more trains could be squeezed in.  The frequencies have always been good on the but from the time that I started using it when I worked in Chelsea to now, the only difference is more people are using it and so those "good" frequencies are now not enough.  Even on the weekends now that train is pretty crowded, just like a rush hour train, though I wonder if part of that stems from the poor service with weekend work and such.

 

Part of it I would also blame on gentrification with the hipsters moving further uptown as well.  I see a lot of them getting off at 145th and 157th for example.

Guess I should've made my point a little more clear.... What I'm saying is, instead of calling said additional service the 9, just add 1 service.... It's the same shit, sans the stupid skipping of certain stops...

[the alliteration in that last statement was unintentional]

 

Now if the question is, should there be more 7th av local service, I would be inclined to agree w/ your point of view....

(which I was never really against.... I saw your posts before I replied)

 

I got the sense that the thread was asking about bringing back the 9 because the route number was missed, instead of really caring about the 7th av local (i.e, the ) as a whole.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Guess I should've made my point a little more clear.... What I'm saying is, instead of calling said additional service the 9, just add 1 service.... It's the same shit, sans the stupid skipping of certain stops...

[the alliteration in that last statement was unintentional]

 

Now if the question is, should there be more 7th av local service, I would be inclined to agree w/ your point of view....

(which I was never really against.... I saw your posts before I replied)

 

I got the sense that the thread was asking about bringing back the 9 because the route number was missed, instead of really caring about the 7th av local (i.e, the ) as a whole.....

Well I certainly agree with you about the whole set up.  I have used the skip stop service and didn't really recall any benefit from it.