Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Roadcruiser1]

There is an interesting point I would like to bring up. The IND foresaw this problem. Back in 1929 they proposed a Morningside Avenue Line which would have ran ride alongside the . This would have solved the congestion problems on the . The proposal was to have a Broadway Line service run from 57th Street, through Central Park West, and run up Morningside Avenue to 145th Street. Sadly it never happened so..........

[realizm]

There is an interesting point I would like to bring up. The IND foresaw this problem. Back in 1929 they proposed a Morningside Avenue Line which would have ran ride alongside the . This would have solved the congestion problems on the . The proposal was to have a Broadway Line service run from 57th Street, through Central Park West, and run up Morningside Avenue to 145th Street. Sadly it never happened so..........

That was actually the Morningside line to continue from the spur north of 57th Street on the BMT Broadway line. That was a post Dual Contact proposal that never came to light. The BMT built that spur north of 57th Street in a politically aimed attempt to convince the City Of New York to award them the contract. Then the IND came up with the 8th Avenue and Central Park West line which killed that project as the BMT was losing revenue gained from profits gained from fare collection revenue.

Edited September 15, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

service has always been limited, in one form or another. The loop terminal limited capacity due to high dwell times - then, new SF limited capacity because of the lack of tail tracks.

 

If the had done something instead like extending the platforms past the loop and walling off the curved sections, we'd have the best of both worlds - a loop is theoretically the most efficient way to terminate a line, so long as there is no platform on the line.

[Roadcruiser1]

service has always been limited, in one form or another. The loop terminal limited capacity due to high dwell times - then, new SF limited capacity because of the lack of tail tracks.

 

If the had done something instead like extending the platforms past the loop and walling off the curved sections, we'd have the best of both worlds - a loop is theoretically the most efficient way to terminate a line, so long as there is no platform on the line.

We do have that. It's called the new South Ferry platform. It was flooded out due to Hurricane Sandy so it won't be coming back for a while..........

[realizm]

Dude, that was what bobtehpanda just said......

[AndrewJC]

How about we determine where the students of aforementioned local stops are heading and based on that make the a true express service for students up to the station where many students are heading? That way students have a fast express ride and the becomes less crowded.

 

Because the overwhelming majority of 1 riders are not students. What you propose would save a minute or so for a small number of lucky riders and make everybody else cram onto the next train.

 

Part of the reason for that is that you can only board the at 238th going Downtown.  There is no way to board the at 238th going towards 242nd and the reason is that supposedly 242nd is close enough that the doesn't feel the need to allow people to board going Northbound. Also, that area is not very dense.  When I have taken the I've gotten on there a few times to avoid 231st. It's a bit more civilized since it's mainly people from Riverdale or the Riverdale boarder getting on there.

 

Who would board a northbound train at 238th?

 

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.

 

I've made that trip many, many times, and I've never found it painful. For a local, it's pretty brisk. Sometimes I get off for the express at 96th; sometimes I stay on and grab a seat as the masses get off. (I certainly prefer a reliable 25 minute trip over an express bus that's subject to the whims of the traffic gods!)

 

Regardless of the track layout, express service would not make sense on this line, simply because the stations closer to 96th are much busier than the stations at the north end. While 231 is the busiest station north of 181, every single station between 181 and 103, aside from 125, is busier than 231. If there were an express, there'd be a tremendous rider imbalance, with locals much more crowded than expresses.

 

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!!!!!!!!!!)

 

Sorry to be the dissenter, but the 1 isn't overcrowded. It's crowded, and occasional trains are certainly overcrowded, but the line is not carrying more than 110 people per car, on average, during rush hours. Like on any other line, people tend to clump up by the doors even when there's plenty of room in the middle of the car, but that doesn't make it overcrowded.

 

That said, ridership has been growing, so even if it isn't overcrowded yet...

 

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.

 

It's hard (virtually impossible) to find a seat on any line at the peak load point during rush hour. The MTA doesn't schedule for a seated load.

 

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?)

 

Source?

 

In the morning rush, the 1 runs 19 tph (ask Trip Planner for the schedule and count the number of trains between 7:50 and 8:49), and it's been that way for years. Middays, 10 tph. Weekends, 7.5 tph (reduced from 10 tph in 2010).

 

The 6 runs 23 tph in the morning rush (again, ask Trip Planner), 15 tph middays, 7.5 tph weekends.

 

service has always been limited, in one form or another. The loop terminal limited capacity due to high dwell times - then, new SF limited capacity because of the lack of tail tracks.

 

If the had done something instead like extending the platforms past the loop and walling off the curved sections, we'd have the best of both worlds - a loop is theoretically the most efficient way to terminate a line, so long as there is no platform on the line.

 

In recent years, the 1 has never run more than 19 tph. South Ferry loop can handle 21 tph, and the "new" terminal 24 tph. The north terminal may be the greater constraint, although of course there are alternative north terminals like 137th.

 

Your comment about loops depends on the geometry and on the signaling. If the loop is sharp enough that trains have to crawl through it, it can constrain capacity even without a station.

[realizm]

Source?

 

 

 

Source:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-slashes-trains-1-6-lines-warning-claims-impact-small-multiple-benefits-article-1.158805

 

 

Under the schedule change, the number of rush-hour trains on the No. 6 line have dropped from 23 to 21. Off peak, there are 13 trains per hour, down from 15.

 

On the No. 1 line, the authority now runs 16 trains during the morning rush hours, down from 18. Off-peak, it was running 10 to 12 trains an hour but now operates between nine and 11.

 

A morning commuter should see a No.1 train every 3.8 minutes instead of every 3.3 minutes under the previous schedule, the authority said.

 

[AndrewJC]

Source:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-slashes-trains-1-6-lines-warning-claims-impact-small-multiple-benefits-article-1.158805

 

"The authority said the changes were seasonal schedule adjustments because ridership is lighter during the summer, a spokeswoman said."

 

It's no longer Summer 2011. (As far as I know, the summer-light-riding schedules weren't implemented in 2012 or 2013 - and even if they were, summer's over now. Summer-light-riding schedules, by the way, were routine on the subway through the 90's, and they're still in place on buses, so it's not like this is a foreign concept.)

[realizm]

"The authority said the changes were seasonal schedule adjustments because ridership is lighter during the summer, a spokeswoman said."

 

It's no longer Summer 2011. (As far as I know, the summer-light-riding schedules weren't implemented in 2012 or 2013 - and even if they were, summer's over now. Summer-light-riding schedules, by the way, were routine on the subway through the 90's, and they're still in place on buses, so it's not like this is a foreign concept.)

 

And the date of this thread is 9/16/2013 as of this post, not officially the fall season as of yet if you think about it - technically we are still in the summer if you think about it. And you are guessing the MTA has not implemented summer seasonal changes for this year? Perhaps you may need to check your sources because I am not convinced that you are correct. Keep in mind that you cannot depend on the timetables to accurately calculate the TPH of any route, the times are estimates and subject to obvious change. 

 

Aside from that you just stated that this was the pattern for years, 19 TPH. 2011 to 2013 does not equate to years and years of absolute static train patterns. Contradictory statement made there.

 

You say the trains are not overcrowded? Quite the contrary. Many more trains on the IRT are more late then even the B division in general by 7% according to a study done in 2007. This was when the trains was running at your 19 and my 18 TPH before service was reduced as we can clearly see. Guidelines requires that standees have at least 3 square feet of space in a train. Trains during rush hours exceeds that loading capacity limit by square area per standee. Crowded trains will increase passenger load times resulting in delays. Train frequency is therefore not static. Impossible, therefore your tripplanner data will not match up with real situations in the subway on a day by day basis.

 

Here's an additional source (keep in mind again these are estimates!):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html?_r=0

 

 

 

Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.

 

What Mr. Roberts discovered was that most of the A division lines are being stretched to their limit in two ways: no additional trains can be added to the schedule during rush hours because the tracks they use are already handling the maximum number possible, and most of the rush hour trains are already crammed with an overflow of riders.

 

Crowding is so bad that on the 4, 5, 6 and L lines, trains during the morning rush exceed the transit agency’s loading guidelines, which posit that every rider should have at least a three-square-foot space to stand in (that translates to a square patch of car floor 20 inches on each side).

 

Crowded trains can lead to delays because it takes people more time to get in and out of the cars.

 

But the real squeeze results from the crowded tracks. Trains must operate with enough space between them so they have room to stop to avoid a collision. That limits the number of trains that can fit on a stretch of track. And when a track is operating at full capacity, even small delays —like those caused by a passenger who is ill or someone holding a door open while a friend races down the stairs — can have a big impact.

Edited September 16, 2013 by realizm

[Trainmaster5]

Because the overwhelming majority of 1 riders are not students. What you propose would save a minute or so for a small number of lucky riders and make everybody else cram onto the next train.

 

 

Who would board a northbound train at 238th?

 

 

I've made that trip many, many times, and I've never found it painful. For a local, it's pretty brisk. Sometimes I get off for the express at 96th; sometimes I stay on and grab a seat as the masses get off. (I certainly prefer a reliable 25 minute trip over an express bus that's subject to the whims of the traffic gods!)

 

Regardless of the track layout, express service would not make sense on this line, simply because the stations closer to 96th are much busier than the stations at the north end. While 231 is the busiest station north of 181, every single station between 181 and 103, aside from 125, is busier than 231. If there were an express, there'd be a tremendous rider imbalance, with locals much more crowded than expresses.

 

 

In recent years, the 1 has never run more than 19 tph. South Ferry loop can handle 21 tph, and the "new" terminal 24 tph. The north terminal may be the greater constraint, although of course there are alternative north terminals like 137th.

 

Your comment about loops depends on the geometry and on the signaling. If the loop is sharp enough that trains have to crawl through it, it can constrain capacity even without a station.

That mention of alternative north terminals brings up a point overlooked so far in this thread. Before the advent of the train 137th St was a weekday north terminal that turned alternate trains thereby avoiding terminal capacity issues at 242nd St for the most part. Trains were also sent up to Dyckman St and turned south for service. To those who question why there were no express tracks built originally put on your thinking caps. How much ridership was there between 242nd St and 137th St when the line was built? Outside of peak (rush hour) service I really don't see the need for express and local service above 137th St back then and when the IND was built up to 207th St I doubt either line was crushloaded . Another point overlooked was that trains from 242nd St ran express from 96th St to New Lots Ave while trains from 137th St and those from 145th St-Lenox ran local to South Ferry. Even with the crappy equipment we ran in the early '80s a M/M/ T/O could make it from 242nd St to 96th and Broadway in 25 minutes or so. There were many times when I was riding the from VC Park back to Brooklyn that I would stay on the to 72nd St or Times Square before transferring to the to New Lots just to avoid the crowd at 96th St. With the population changes on the line above 96th St I think it would make more sense to re-open 137th St as an alternative weekday terminal for the and leave the in the history books. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[realizm]

That mention of alternative north terminals brings up a point overlooked so far in this thread. Before the advent of the train 137th St was a weekday north terminal that turned alternate trains thereby avoiding terminal capacity issues at 242nd St for the most part. Trains were also sent up to Dyckman St and turned south for service. To those who question why there were no express tracks built originally put on your thinking caps. How much ridership was there between 242nd St and 137th St when the line was built? Outside of peak (rush hour) service I really don't see the need for express and local service above 137th St back then and when the IND was built up to 207th St I doubt either line was crushloaded . Another point overlooked was that trains from 242nd St ran express from 96th St to New Lots Ave while trains from 137th St and those from 145th St-Lenox ran local to South Ferry. Even with the crappy equipment we ran in the early '80s a M/M/ T/O could make it from 242nd St to 96th and Broadway in 25 minutes or so. There were many times when I was riding the from VC Park back to Brooklyn that I would stay on the to 72nd St or Times Square before transferring to the to New Lots just to avoid the crowd at 96th St. With the population changes on the line above 96th St I think it would make more sense to re-open 137th St as an alternative weekday terminal for the and leave the in the history books. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

 

Thank you for the confirmation from a credible source, which is your experience in the field. Gives food for thought. I can take a breather from this debate now and muse on the points reflected in your post.

[bobtehpanda]

We do have that. It's called the new South Ferry platform. It was flooded out due to Hurricane Sandy so it won't be coming back for a while..........

 

New South Ferry still has limited capacity, because trains must slow down entering the station so that they don't risk ramming into bumper blocks at full speed.

[itmaybeokay]

No. The express of any kind will not work on the 1. It's been explained already. Why have special bus service for them? If they need faster service, then their campus should provide it for them.

 

For what it's worth, Columbia University DOES run it's own special bus service between the Morningside, Manhattanville and Washington Heights/CUMC campuses. Plenty of my co workers would opt for the shuttle bus up to CUMC when traveling up there but I usually toughed it out and took the 1. It's a remarkably short trip between 116 and 168, it's the getting out of the station at 168 that slows you down...

[itmaybeokay]

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.

 

To be honest, rush hours I find the 1 to be one of the better lines to ride. The trains usually come about as frequently as they can run them, and to avoid the crowds at times square I get off the R at 49th st and walk over to 50th street. Can almost always get a seat at any time in the AM there, as a boatload of LIRR commuters who got on at penn are getting off at 50th. 

 

In any event, I find the really, really gets hammered during what the MTA would consider to be "Off peak" hours. Mid-days and post-rush evenings the line is really overcrowded. They could certainly use a few more trains then. Weekends are also painful. 

 

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...

 

I have to agree with your last point, Starting too many trains at 137 would cut service levels north of the station such that crowding would probably just become worse. 

 

t I think it would make more sense to re-open 137th St as an alternative weekday terminal for the and leave the in the history books. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

 

I often find myself on an uptown 1 train terminating at 137 in the mornings. I'm getting off at 110 or 116 so it's a non-issue for me - but I feel like while not turning alternate trains, A fair number of trains do turn there in the AM. Again though cutting service too much north of 137 and there's a new crowding problem on your hands. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1. Because the overwhelming majority of 1 riders are not students. What you propose would save a minute or so for a small number of lucky riders and make everybody else cram onto the next train.

 

 

2. Who would board a northbound train at 238th?

 

 

3. I've made that trip many, many times, and I've never found it painful. For a local, it's pretty brisk. Sometimes I get off for the express at 96th; sometimes I stay on and grab a seat as the masses get off. (I certainly prefer a reliable 25 minute trip over an express bus that's subject to the whims of the traffic gods!)

 

Regardless of the track layout, express service would not make sense on this line, simply because the stations closer to 96th are much busier than the stations at the north end. While 231 is the busiest station north of 181, every single station between 181 and 103, aside from 125, is busier than 231. If there were an express, there'd be a tremendous rider imbalance, with locals much more crowded than expresses.

 

 

4. Sorry to be the dissenter, but the 1 isn't overcrowded. It's crowded, and occasional trains are certainly overcrowded, but the line is not carrying more than 110 people per car, on average, during rush hours. Like on any other line, people tend to clump up by the doors even when there's plenty of room in the middle of the car, but that doesn't make it overcrowded.

 

That said, ridership has been growing, so even if it isn't overcrowded yet...

 

 

It's hard (virtually impossible) to find a seat on any line at the peak load point during rush hour. The MTA doesn't schedule for a seated load.

1.That has nothing to do with whether or not the should have more trains short turned at 137th street.  Do students not take up space on the train?  Last I checked they do.

 

2. I didn't say anyone would want to.  I just stated that that's one reason why ridership at 238th is low.

 

3. You're just looking at that portion of the trip.  For someone who works on the East Side in lives deeper into Riverdale and is not near the line, it's a painful commute.  For me I would have either do a long walk up and down hills and so on or a bus ride to the , then the to 96th then a transfer to the express, another transfer to the and then a nice walk after that.  That's a considerable amount of walking and transferring that one express bus eliminates, so yeah I'll take being stuck in traffic over that any day, especially since that isn't an issue if you give yourself an extra 20 minutes or so for those occasions.  For what it's worth, the subways don't have the greatest track record either when it comes to being on time (in fact on time stats paint a pretty poor performance rating for the system overall) and when you factor in numerous transfers involved, more times than not you can expect to be delayed to some degree as well with that many transfers, as I found trying out that set up.

 

4. I think most people agree that the subways are like rush hour trains these days even outside of rush hour, so I'm not sure what trains you're riding.

 

As I said earlier, even someone from management with the  confirmed that some trains are indeed operating overcapacity, but that at the time more service couldn't be added due to track work, etc., so the line is indeed experiencing overcrowding.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Vistausss]

New South Ferry still has limited capacity, because trains must slow down entering the station so that they don't risk ramming into bumper blocks at full speed.

 

Like AndrewJC pointed out: the new SF can handle 24 tph. That's 3 more than the old loop could handle. And I wouldn't call 24 tph limited per se especially given the fact that the isn't even running 24 tph at any time of the day to begin with.

 

As I said earlier, even someone from management with the  confirmed that some trains are indeed operating overcapacity, but that at the time more service couldn't be added due to track work, etc., so the line is indeed experiencing overcrowding.

 

Impossible that someone from management has said that. If he/she did, AndrewJC would've mentioned it in his post. He's one of the most credible guys on this forum when it comes to facts so...

Edited September 16, 2013 by Vistausss

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Impossible that someone from management has said that. If he/she did, AndrewJC would've mentioned it in his post. He's one of the most credible guys on this forum when it comes to facts so...

Oh really? Peter Cafiero wrote to me personally about the issue since I contacted Governor Cuomo's office about me disagreeing with allocating monies to re-open the old South Ferry station.  I added that I thought the monies would be better spent on addressing overcrowding on the line.  Cuomo's office then forwarded my communication to the which then wrote to me about the issue.  I may even still have the letter at home.  Mr. Cafiero gave me a breakdown of various parts of the weekday and weekend of how train service is and explained when the line was overcrowded and when it wasn't, which I partially agreed with. He said that on average, during rush hours, according to their statistics, the is not overcrowded. Meanwhile, I've been on quite a few mobbed trains after 09:00 in the morning that were most certainly overcrowded, so I suppose those times were just mere flukes.  Either that or their definition of overcrowded is different from mine. 

 

I also don't know how they go about looking at service during rush hours.  He gave me some breakdowns but I can't remember them off hand and IIRC, it didn't make that much sense at that time anyway as to how they came up with their figures.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[realizm]

What? VG8 debating in the subway subforum ?!

 

Props my man, props. Good job.

Edited September 16, 2013 by realizm

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What? VG8 debating in the subway subforum ?!

 

Props my man, props. Good job.

lol... I may not be wild about the subway but I do use it and have been for many years now, so I'm not completely foreign to it.  

[realizm]

Like AndrewJC pointed out: the new SF can handle 24 tph. That's 3 more than the old loop could handle. And I wouldn't call 24 tph limited per se especially given the fact that the isn't even running 24 tph at any time of the day to begin with.

 

 

Impossible that someone from management has said that. If he/she did, AndrewJC would've mentioned it in his post. He's one of the most credible guys on this forum when it comes to facts so...

 

Yes 24 TPH many of us knows that, I agree too, no question about it. Regardless the new SF station is out for the count so that's a moot point, no insult. The old South Fery Station as we all well know can only produce approximately 19 TPH pre- 2011 apparently as that is the TPH, actuaol capacity . All of these points are factors in why the IRT Seventh Ave line is overcrowded.

 

Approximately 30,000 of the 70,000 people who ride the Staten Island Ferry on a weekday needs to access the to get anywhere in Manhattan. Customers can only fit in the first five cars. That adds alot of time in terms of passenger load times.

 

The and runs into the busiest station in New York if not the entire United States at a whopping 62,069,437 straphangers annually. Also the 5th busiest station, Penn Station/34th at 27,010,176 passengers annually. On top of that 59th Street on the at 21,599,586 straphangers annually respectively which includes of cource the IND CPW in the stats, yes but nethertheless that is significant, in seeing that the 7th Avenue line is indeed very heavily used by passengers of you look at ridership.

 

The and again, from a study, is jampacked and has reaced over the limit from a recent study. It is over 100% load capacity on weekdays (less than 3 sqaure feet of space per passenger and a heck of alot higher now in 2013 I'm sure). So it's easy to determine how that puts strain on the as a result as it gets so ridiculous that passengers cannot even squeeze into the or by 96th Street either direction at rush hour.

 

AndrewJC and myself are questioning each other on our stats for TPH that are both from credible sources( page 7). We can debate this for pages, it would'nt matter as our numbers are pretty much dead on with very subtle differences but the fact remains that the TPH on the needs to be upped back to my caculated 18 TPH and his number which is 19 nat the very least. The fact that again the new SF station is out for the count from my first point is impacting service even further.

 

VG8 has quoted sources from MTA management. So did I. (Scroll up also refer to page 7 in this thread) That further confirms that the IRT 7th Ave line all three routes are over couded. The proof is in the pudding sort of speak, as this came straight from upper management in the public benefits corp, they fully realize this is a growing problem that must be addressed. However they are prioritizing the IRT Lex (busiest line in the nation) and the IND QBL as well as the 14th St/Carnarsie lines at the moment as far as implementing solutions to all these extermely heavily used lines. (It's going to take CBTC to fix Queens Bvld and the Second Ave subway to deal with the IRT Lex.) Meanwhile the IRT Seventh Ave is growing rapidly in ridership against growing pains with a line that is not getting any younger.

 

Finnaly it is my experience as a New Yorker that the IRT 7th Ave line is crammed. Honestly, I commute on the line every day from the BMT. Believe me it can get bad.

 

All this I am considering in why the is indeed getting to over 100% capacity, and something must be done about it. As for the 137th Street turnarounds, makes sense....

 

Forget the that will never work, so scratch that, already discussed.

 

Guys feel free to make corrections on my take on it if I did not cover anything.

Edited September 16, 2013 by realizm

[Around the Horn]

the one thing I see that the could help with is a Faster way uptown(yes Faster with a capital F).Id have to see numbers from 1/9 ridership or a poll of current riders before wiping it off the table completly

[Via Garibaldi 8]

the one thing I see that the could help with is a Faster way uptown(yes Faster with a capital F).Id have to see numbers from 1/9 ridership or a poll of current riders before wiping it off the table completly

And how exactly?? 

[Around the Horn]

One example off the top of my head

local SF-215 or Dyckman

express SF-242

only riders to the bronx would take the and only riders to upper manhattan would take the

effectively speeding up commutes and distributing riders to avoid crowded trains

[Via Garibaldi 8]

One example off the top of my head

local SF-215 or Dyckman

express SF-242

only riders to the bronx would take the and only riders to upper manhattan would take the

effectively speeding up commutes and distributing riders to avoid crowded trains

lol.... And how would that work since there is no continuous express track above 96th street?

[Roadcruiser1]

At this rate the only option is to build a new West Side Subway Line. Preferably along Ninth Avenue..........