Governor Hochul seeks ‘alternatives’ to LaGuardia AirTrain

[R10 2952]

Time will tell; until then, who knows...

[TMC]

On 10/9/2021 at 11:04 PM, Eric B said:

But with Chrystie St, lines were changed because they were directly affected by the new construction. Not "well, you have to change this line, of a necessity to accommodate that line, that was changed by some construction somewhere else, and not even in the subway system.

It seems like you're really afraid of change here. Providing 30 trains per hour of service on the 2nd Ave Line with the N and Q would be a boon for people on the UES and Harlem, especially if we extend them both across 125th Street. The R would have exclusive use of the local tracks, meaning that the LGA Extension would be provided by faster and much more frequent service than a LIRR Connection and the overcrowded 7 train. The BMT Southern Division plan mentioned here also addresses the yard access issue and gives much better service to people in South Brooklyn with better one-seat options.

[mrsman]

To the extent that a dedicated yard is needed for the Astoria line, the vanschnookenraggen plan of routing Astoria-Broadway local- West End is great because that  train that is envisioned is completely separated from other trains.  This means it will be more reliable.  It is true that West End customers will lose out on express service, but their overall travel time will be reduced due to the increased frequency of train on the West End line, even factoring in a transfer at 36th.

However, if a dedicated yard is not needed, perhaps the MTA can run an Astoria-Broadway local- Bay Ridge service  like what was done prior to 1987.  If this were done, in-service would still be separated from other trains, but will need to merge with either West End or Sea Beach (most likely) out of service for access to CI yard.  At this point, one can leave  alone, but suffering delays around DeKalb, or deinterline those lines so that  service Brighton and  sevice 4th Ave express (or vice versa).  To further increase train frequencies,  and  would both run up 2nd Ave, so that they don't interfere with  services.

[Lawrence St]

On 10/5/2021 at 5:44 PM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Actually... The folks up there will want Ditmars to remain. 

 

Ditmars was build in a bad spot.

What you could instead do is have a flat Junction similar to Myrtle-Bway and have the LGA branch split off after the repositioned Astoria Blvd station.

Have the continue to serve Ditmars Blvd and the to LGA 24/7.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Ditmars was build in a bad spot.

What you could instead do is have a flat Junction similar to Myrtle-Bway and have the LGA branch split off after the repositioned Astoria Blvd station.

Have the continue to serve Ditmars Blvd and the to LGA 24/7.

The only bad thing about Ditmars Boulevard's position is that it's not closer to its namesake (it's between there and 23rd Avenue in the latter's favor).

Saying to build a flat junction strongly implies you've learned nothing from the flat junction at Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (or, for that matter, 142nd Street). Also, you only have about 300 feet to work with in a possible station relocation because of a (mostly curved) slope that begins immediately outside of 30th Avenue and continues to just a bit shy of 300 feet south of Astoria Boulevard, which is about half the distance between stations. Bear in mind that the theoretical relocation project would require anyone on Astoria Boulevard/Hoyt Avenue's north side to have to cross the overpass just to reach the station.

[Eric B]

On 11/3/2021 at 4:59 PM, TMC said:

It seems like you're really afraid of change here. Providing 30 trains per hour of service on the 2nd Ave Line with the N and Q would be a boon for people on the UES and Harlem, especially if we extend them both across 125th Street. The R would have exclusive use of the local tracks, meaning that the LGA Extension would be provided by faster and much more frequent service than a LIRR Connection and the overcrowded 7 train. The BMT Southern Division plan mentioned here also addresses the yard access issue and gives much better service to people in South Brooklyn with better one-seat options.

It's not being afraid of change, but on the other hand, it looks like I'm dealing with wild ideas of change just for the sake of change, as this just fits right in with everyone talking about "deinterlining" everywhere which seems to be the new fad. There's a cost-benefit ratio, and deinterlining might just move the problem of traffic convergence somewhere else. If they thought it would really solve delays much they would have done it. They already deinterlined the  and  uptown, because the extended  was only a rush hour service anyway, and historically, the local to 168 was always 8th Av. with it turning into the  rush hours; so they could get away with complete deinterlining, and apparentely, not many people complained. It also helped consolidate the districts, since they regrouped it "North" and  "South", and the equipment is to some extent shared on both pairs of lines.

All this other deinterlining people talk about, like the lines going into Coney Island won't have that benefit since the lines are already sharing a terminal and yard. And more people want direct access to more than one trunk line. Remember when they "deinterlined" local/express service on Hillside Ave. by sending the  to 179 so the  could stay on the express with the (which looked like it made sense on paper). The people on four local stations were loud enough to get the service pattern changed back. 
So using the subway for LGA access as another occasion for these deinterlining schemes I don't think is worth the trouble. With the Cuomo plan, most people leaving the airport wouldn't be thinking "Oh, we're heading east instead of west"; they would hear on the train that the next stop is the transfer to the  and LIRR (and the latter would still be faster into the city than a local subway route), and I liked the idea because it made it possible to connect LGA to JFK, eventually.

[R10 2952]

14 hours ago, Eric B said:

It's not being afraid of change, but on the other hand, it looks like I'm dealing with wild ideas of change just for the sake of change, as this just fits right in with everyone talking about "deinterlining" everywhere which seems to be the new fad. There's a cost-benefit ratio, and deinterlining might just move the problem of traffic convergence somewhere else. If they thought it would really solve delays much they would have done it. They already deinterlined the  and  uptown, because the extended  was only a rush hour service anyway, and historically, the local to 168 was always 8th Av. with it turning into the  rush hours; so they could get away with complete deinterlining, and apparentely, not many people complained. It also helped consolidate the districts, since they regrouped it "North" and  "South", and the equipment is to some extent shared on both pairs of lines.

All this other deinterlining people talk about, like the lines going into Coney Island won't have that benefit since the lines are already sharing a terminal and yard. And more people want direct access to more than one trunk line. Remember when they "deinterlined" local/express service on Hillside Ave. by sending the  to 179 so the  could stay on the express with the (which looked like it made sense on paper). The people on four local stations were loud enough to get the service pattern changed back. 
So using the subway for LGA access as another occasion for these deinterlining schemes I don't think is worth the trouble. With the Cuomo plan, most people leaving the airport wouldn't be thinking "Oh, we're heading east instead of west"; they would hear on the train that the next stop is the transfer to the  and LIRR (and the latter would still be faster into the city than a local subway route), and I liked the idea because it made it possible to connect LGA to JFK, eventually.

Agree 100 percent with your take on the whole deinterlining thing.  It's really refreshing to see actual transit personnel provide solid counterpoints to the transit-planning wannabes on these boards.

[GojiMet86]

36 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Agree 100 percent with your take on the whole deinterlining thing.  It's really refreshing to see actual transit personnel provide solid counterpoints to the transit-planning wannabes on these boards.

 

What's wrong with wanting to be a transit planner? Why the hate? It doesn't even have to be implented fully. Some places yes, some places no.

In real life, there are clearly some instances where it sucks to interline. Even before the TA started going nose-diving to the bottom in 2018, it was already a PITA waiting for the N and W. It's a problem when my parents, who know nothing trains, used to notice that they had to wait for two  trains to pass before an Astoria train would show up.

It is a big problem going back decades that one little problem at the DeKalb and Nostrand junctions screws up everything.

Even the bus people know that bus interlining runs can screw with a bus line's frequencies.

 

 

Just as people want to interline for the sake of de-interlining everything, there are also people who hate the "fad" for the sake of hating the fad.

[R32 3838]

1 hour ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

What's wrong with wanting to be a transit planner? Why the hate? It doesn't even have to be implented fully. Some places yes, some places no.

In real life, there are clearly some instances where it sucks to interline. Even before the TA started going nose-diving to the bottom in 2018, it was already a PITA waiting for the N and W. It's a problem when my parents, who know nothing trains, used to notice that they had to wait for two  trains to pass before an Astoria train would show up.

It is a big problem going back decades that one little problem at the DeKalb and Nostrand junctions screws up everything.

Even the bus people know that bus interlining runs can screw with a bus line's frequencies.

 

 

Just as people want to interline for the sake of de-interlining everything, there are also people who hate the "fad" for the sake of hating the fad.

 

 

IMO having 2 lines serve Astoria is dumb. IMO the Broadway Locals should go to Queens while the Expresses should go to to 96th and 2nd ave. having 3 services in the 60th st tube sucks. You could increase the service on the by having some trains ether short turn at canal or some go to Brooklyn during the rush hours.  Plus this would keep the / on one track while the is on the express tracks with no switching involved (34th st).

The would serve Astoria Weekends and late nights when the isn't running.

 

 

 

 

[R32 3838]

2 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Agree 100 percent with your take on the whole deinterlining thing.  It's really refreshing to see actual transit personnel provide solid counterpoints to the transit-planning wannabes on these boards.

I hate to be that guy but people in Ops Planning now a days aren't that great.

 

For the past year, Nothing but dumb GO's happening at the same time.

For example:

All Trains express between 71st and Queens Plaza

Also Forest Hills Bound trains Via 63rd st skipping Queens plaza forcing people to take the to go back to stations between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt. 

 

Who comes up with shit like that knowing the majority of people who ride the local between Grand ave and Queens Plaza don't speak English and would get confused.

 

 

But Things are starting to change for the better, The future is going to look bright in terms of car assignments in the B division and the planning in mind when it comes to CBTC.

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by R32 3838

[GojiMet86]

7 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

IMO having 2 lines serve Astoria is dumb. IMO the Broadway Locals should go to Queens while the Expresses should go to to 96th and 2nd ave. having 3 services in the 60th st tube sucks. You could increase the service on the by having some trains ether short turn at canal or some go to Brooklyn during the rush hours.  Plus this would keep the / on one track while the is on the express tracks with no switching involved (34th st).

The would serve Astoria Weekends and late nights when the isn't running.

 

As long as lines can have reliable, frequent service, like waiting every 3 minutes instead of having 3 minutes followed by long 8 minute gaps I'm good. Yeah, having the expresses only go to 96th Street and having all the locals use the tunnel is good.

 

On a separate note, I wonder if the 63rd Street line could ever be hooked to the local tracks via those abandoned trackways at 57th Street.

[R32 3838]

5 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

As long as lines can have reliable, frequent service, like waiting every 3 minutes instead of having 3 minutes followed by long 8 minute gaps I'm good. Yeah, having the expresses only go to 96th Street and having all the locals use the tunnel is good.

 

On a separate note, I wonder if the 63rd Street line could ever be hooked to the local tracks via those abandoned trackways at 57th Street.

I always thought that was a Missed opportunity, That's something they should have done a long time ago. It's Possible but they probably have to do a few modifications as that (main BMT tunnel) curves west   

Edited November 12, 2021 by R32 3838

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Agree 100 percent with your take on the whole deinterlining thing.  It's really refreshing to see actual transit personnel provide solid counterpoints to the transit-planning wannabes on these boards.

I don't...at least not 100 percent. I don't disagree that there are areas where deinterlining might not work, like the  in The Bronx. If CPW is deinterlined below 145th, they shouldn't send just 6th Ave trains to Concourse and just 8th Ave trains to Wash Heights.

But Broadway (Manhattan), Astoria, DeKalb and QBL are shitshows damn near every day. We can blame it on the signals, the old tracks and switches. Or the slow work trains that don't (or can't) return back to 38th St Yard in time for the morning rush. We can blame it on riders who don't let the doors close so the trains can leave when they're supposed to. But what are the solutions, then? Every option we brainstorm will require both money and enforcement (especially door holding), so we’ll need both of those no matter what solutions are chosen for dealing with the problems.

18 hours ago, Eric B said:

It's not being afraid of change, but on the other hand, it looks like I'm dealing with wild ideas of change just for the sake of change, as this just fits right in with everyone talking about "deinterlining" everywhere which seems to be the new fad. There's a cost-benefit ratio, and deinterlining might just move the problem of traffic convergence somewhere else. If they thought it would really solve delays much they would have done it. They already deinterlined the  and  uptown, because the extended  was only a rush hour service anyway, and historically, the local to 168 was always 8th Av. with it turning into the  rush hours; so they could get away with complete deinterlining, and apparentely, not many people complained. It also helped consolidate the districts, since they regrouped it "North" and  "South", and the equipment is to some extent shared on both pairs of lines.

All this other deinterlining people talk about, like the lines going into Coney Island won't have that benefit since the lines are already sharing a terminal and yard. And more people want direct access to more than one trunk line. Remember when they "deinterlined" local/express service on Hillside Ave. by sending the  to 179 so the  could stay on the express with the (which looked like it made sense on paper). The people on four local stations were loud enough to get the service pattern changed back. 
So using the subway for LGA access as another occasion for these deinterlining schemes I don't think is worth the trouble. With the Cuomo plan, most people leaving the airport wouldn't be thinking "Oh, we're heading east instead of west"; they would hear on the train that the next stop is the transfer to the  and LIRR (and the latter would still be faster into the city than a local subway route), and I liked the idea because it made it possible to connect LGA to JFK, eventually.

It's not necessarily "wild ideas" or "change just for the sake of change." It's regular riders, like me, who are tired of missing trains only to have wait 10+ minutes in rush hour because the train I missed at Canal or 34th came just two minutes after its leader left. You get trains coming in bunches of two and then long gaps before the next two. It shouldn't be that way, at least not always like it is. If you didn't have so many trains switching, like at DeKalb, 34th and 36th/Queens Plaza, service could be a bit more predictable, and it will result in less wear and tear on the signals and switches. It will also permit trains to run more frequently. I fail to see the negative in that.

And they didn't exactly deinterline the  and  uptown in 1998. Deinterlining them would have been switching them south of 145th. What they did do was cut back on deadheading  trains from Concourse to 174th Yard and made it easier to switch cars between the  and  since the  also ran with R32/38 "salad trains" at the time. As well as made it easier for the  and  to use each other's similar equipment if need be (shortly before the B/C terminal swap, the  had its R40s swapped out for the R68As on the ). But, then as now, the  and  still merged at 59th and delayed each other or delayed northbound  and  trains while diverging. So it wasn't exactly a complete deinterlining. I'll agree with you that running the  to 179th and keeping the  on the express tracks was a flop. But I've seen posters on here and other message boards theorize that it's because Hillside riders already had fairly long commutes (including their connecting bus trips) and because it was the , which let's be honest, is a very unreliable long local train. In fact, it seems like many of the proposed deinterlinings on here and in other forums are trying to address the long local problem that is the . I give them a lot of credit for trying.

The "cost-benefit ratio" that the MTA uses may be why they don't entertain deinterlining solutions. Not to mention good old, "This is the way we've always done it!" showing its ugly head.

Edited November 12, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

"This is the way we've always done it!" showing its ugly head.

This. Something didn't work 4 decades ago. Some conclude, it will never work and never make sense (despite demographics and ridership patterns changing throughout the whole 4 decades). Testing the waters periodically never hurts.

[Lawrence St]

21 hours ago, Eric B said:

It's not being afraid of change, but on the other hand, it looks like I'm dealing with wild ideas of change just for the sake of change, as this just fits right in with everyone talking about "deinterlining" everywhere which seems to be the new fad. There's a cost-benefit ratio, and deinterlining might just move the problem of traffic convergence somewhere else. If they thought it would really solve delays much they would have done it. They already deinterlined the  and  uptown, because the extended  was only a rush hour service anyway, and historically, the local to 168 was always 8th Av. with it turning into the  rush hours; so they could get away with complete deinterlining, and apparentely, not many people complained. It also helped consolidate the districts, since they regrouped it "North" and  "South", and the equipment is to some extent shared on both pairs of lines.

All this other deinterlining people talk about, like the lines going into Coney Island won't have that benefit since the lines are already sharing a terminal and yard. And more people want direct access to more than one trunk line. Remember when they "deinterlined" local/express service on Hillside Ave. by sending the  to 179 so the  could stay on the express with the (which looked like it made sense on paper). The people on four local stations were loud enough to get the service pattern changed back. 
So using the subway for LGA access as another occasion for these deinterlining schemes I don't think is worth the trouble. With the Cuomo plan, most people leaving the airport wouldn't be thinking "Oh, we're heading east instead of west"; they would hear on the train that the next stop is the transfer to the  and LIRR (and the latter would still be faster into the city than a local subway route), and I liked the idea because it made it possible to connect LGA to JFK, eventually.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on some parts. The  to 179th St and  via Hillside Express was going to be a problem from the start since, let's face it-it's the . Today, you could get away with de-interlining by extending the  instead to 179th St in place of the . Which actually would have made more sense when the  was around.

To the  &  swap, I don't know who's smart idea it was to have them grouped like that in the first place, especially being that they share the same CPW corridor.

Going to the extension of the Astoria Line to LGA, the extension would work yes, but you make the problem along Broadway even worse with way how the  is designed to operate by crossing in front of 's and 's. This is where deinterlining comes into play. You can waste all that money extending it to LGA but forget to fix the major problem that plagues the  today.

[R32 3838]

The issue is going to be politics, People aren't going to want their routes changing and etc. This is why the system sucks. If WWII didn't happen, The IND would have been way better than it is now. Even if you guys want deinterlined service, Politics and dumb people will get in the way and on certain lines it won't be possible due to how the certain lines were built or under built..

 

 

Also The issue at Dekalb sucks but the fact that they still don't want to build a replacement tunnel to take trains off that piece of shit bridge is really concerning. I bet in a few years we are going to go through ether the north side or south side of the bridge closing again. That Bridge has a major flaw and the fact that trains run on the edges of it vs. the middle like the Williamsburg. from 1988-2001 trains only ran on one side of the bridge and even before then causing it to tilt uneven which made the condition worse. I have a gut feeling we are going to go back to those days in a few years.

 

Just build a replacement tunnel and reconfigure Dekalb and you'll have better service.

[GojiMet86]

10 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

The issue is going to be politics, People aren't going to want their routes changing and etc. This is why the system sucks. If WWII didn't happen, The IND would have been way better than it is now. Even if you guys want deinterlined service, Politics and dumb people will get in the way and on certain lines it won't be possible due to how the certain lines were built or under built..

 

 

Also The issue at Dekalb sucks but the fact that they still don't want to build a replacement tunnel to take trains off that piece of shit bridge is really concerning. I bet in a few years we are going to go through ether the north side or south side of the bridge closing again. That Bridge has a major flaw and the fact that trains run on the edges of it vs. the middle like the Williamsburg. from 1988-2001 trains only ran on one side of the bridge and even before then causing it to tilt uneven which made the condition worse. I have a gut feeling we are going to go back to those days in a few years.

 

Just build a replacement tunnel and reconfigure Dekalb and you'll have better service.

 

My understanding is that before COVID, the MTA had been seriously planning on swapping the and the on 63rd/53rd. Maybe it still is. Back when the started, people complained through the roof about the running on 53rd Street. But after a while, ridership on the picked up and the complaints went away. How funny would it be if people complained again.

[R32 3838]

32 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

My understanding is that before COVID, the MTA had been seriously planning on swapping the and the on 63rd/53rd. Maybe it still is. Back when the started, people complained through the roof about the running on 53rd Street. But after a while, ridership on the picked up and the complaints went away. How funny would it be if people complained again.

 

The reasoning behind that was because of the switching at queens plaza kinda delaying service and now with CBTC, the going via 53rsd wouldn't be an issue. Plus With ESA opening, That chunk of people who ride the train between 23rd/Ely (from the hunters point LIRR station) and Lexington would be on LIRR trains anyway. By doing this, service would be improved. The only reason why they did this swap near 20 years ago was because of the overcrowding at lexington 53rd st and to give local riders a one seat ride to 53rd st.

 

I wonder if they would allow the to run via 6th ave 24/7 by having it terminate at 21st Queens bridge late nights and weekends which is needed. This would benefit the   riders who want weekend 6th ave service to midtown.

Edited November 13, 2021 by R32 3838

[Eric B]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:58 PM, Lawrence St said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you on some parts. The  to 179th St and  via Hillside Express was going to be a problem from the start since, let's face it-it's the . Today, you could get away with de-interlining by extending the  instead to 179th St in place of the . Which actually would have made more sense when the  was around.

To the  &  swap, I don't know who's smart idea it was to have them grouped like that in the first place, especially being that they share the same CPW corridor.

Going to the extension of the Astoria Line to LGA, the extension would work yes, but you make the problem along Broadway even worse with way how the  is designed to operate by crossing in front of 's and 's. This is where deinterlining comes into play. You can waste all that money extending it to LGA but forget to fix the major problem that plagues the  today.

They still wouldn't accept the , because they want direct express service (local on Hillside switching to the express at Continental).

For the  and  when you say "grouped like that", do you mean the original pattern, or the current one?
The original pattern was the way the IND was set up, so that every branch could have direct access to both trunk lines, at eleast in rush hours (and also the Crosstown service on the Queens and Smith St. branches. Don't know why they never did that for Fulton St. though, with two 6th Ave. services that ended in Mahnattan. That was the sole "deinterlined from the start" line).

The extension of Astoria was't what I was arguing for, it was what I was arguing against. Others pushing for that then threw in deinterlining to accommodate it.

But Astoria insists on having two services, one local and one express, and the express must also stop at 49th before crossing over. (If the people in these places who demand all these little extras only knew what it was like getting around in northeast Brooklyn (the "cipherzone"); especially before the was sent to midtown, and began running past Myrtle on weekends!)  So losing that to "deinterlining" they probably won't settle on. They'd probably have whatever delays from crossing over, than to have two locals (which si what deinterlining would do, there. So my point was rearding an extension, and this would be just another strike against it, to them).

[Lawrence St]

45 minutes ago, Eric B said:

They still wouldn't accept the , because they want direct express service (local on Hillside switching to the express at Continental).

For the  and  when you say "grouped like that", do you mean the original pattern, or the current one?
The original pattern was the way the IND was set up, so that every branch could have direct access to both trunk lines, at eleast in rush hours (and also the Crosstown service on the Queens and Smith St. branches. Don't know why they never did that for Fulton St. though, with two 6th Ave. services that ended in Mahnattan. That was the sole "deinterlined from the start" line).

The extension of Astoria was't what I was arguing for, it was what I was arguing against. Others pushing for that then threw in deinterlining to accommodate it.

But Astoria insists on having two services, one local and one express, and the express must also stop at 49th before crossing over. (If the people in these places who demand all these little extras only knew what it was like getting around in northeast Brooklyn (the "cipherzone"); especially before the was sent to midtown, and began running past Myrtle on weekends!)  So losing that to "deinterlining" they probably won't settle on. They'd probably have whatever delays from crossing over, than to have two locals (which si what deinterlining would do, there. So my point was rearding an extension, and this would be just another strike against it, to them).

And this is where I tell to stop getting scared and just do it. Why are we going to inconvenience everyone else for the few amount of people that use 49th St?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

And this is where I tell to stop getting scared and just do it. Why are we going to inconvenience everyone else for the few amount of people that use 49th St?

Pre-COVID, the station in question saw over 7 million users annually. Where do you come up with the idea that there's "a few amount of people that use 49th St"?

https://new.mta.info/document/37036

Edited November 14, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Pre-COVID, the station in question saw over 7 million users annually. Where do you come up with the idea that there's "a few amount of people that use 49th St"?

https://new.mta.info/document/37036

Because that's a combination of riders most of which come from the and . The dosent have to stop there.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Because that's a combination of riders most of which come from the and . The dosent have to stop there.

But your argument is that not many people will be inconvenienced. How can you come to that conclusion without any actual data of how many people use the  and would be negatively impacted if it didn't serve that stop? That's the way these sorts of things are determined.

[Lawrence St]

4 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

But your argument is that not many people will be inconvenienced. How can you come to that conclusion without any actual data of how many people use the  and would be negatively impacted if it didn't serve that stop? That's the way these sorts of things are determined.

Because I've used the  a LOT pre-pandemic when I lived in Astoria. It's not many people getting off at 49th St. The on the other hand have a lot.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

27 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Because I've used the  a LOT pre-pandemic when I lived in Astoria. It's not many people getting off at 49th St. The on the other hand have a lot.

You would have to be using it all hours to come to a such conclusion, given the ridership numbers at that station, and with the pandemic here, ridership patterns are changing.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Via Garibaldi 8