Comments on: Transit extends Bronx 4 express pilot

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:50 +0000

Well? Anybody ride it? How was it?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:44:29 +0000

I have no problem with reexamining things. I just object to the assumption, before the pilot even begins, that it will be beneficial. It very well may not be.

As far as I know, the track has always been usable. Until recently, I don’t think it was signaled for frequent service (by design, not by neglect) – but it certainly could have accommodated the 20-minute headway being piloted now.

Remember, this is a corridor that can’t be served by more than 14 tph or so – local and express combined. Are there any other lines that split 14 tph (or less) between local and express? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. (Does the Concourse line a few blocks over qualify? The B and D are fairly infrequent. Of course, the trains are larger and the express stops are arguably better located.)

Don’t forget that there’s a major employment center near 161st St. (I’m referring to the courts, not the stadium). So even some people who live near express stops will have to wait for the local.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:34:24 +0000

It skips a number of busy stations. According to this spreadsheet, all of the stations between 103rd St. and 137th St., with one exception, had over 12,000 weekday riders in 2005. Aside from 168th St., the only station north of that point to even come close is 181st St., with 10,425 riders.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:25:00 +0000

On average systemwide, I agree. On average for this line in particular (which is what counts when evaluating a service pattern on this line), absolutely not. Trains bypassing platforms are required to slow down to 15(?) mph to maintain the integrity of the signal system. Total running time savings due to skip-stop, from top to bottom, was on the order of 2 minutes at best. Of course, most people riding the train don’t ride from top to bottom, so they see less than 2 minutes of savings.

Unless the all-stop stations are MUCH busier than the skip-stop stations, my point stands.

(Of course, it’s not my point – it’s presumably NYCT’s point. I’m not the one who did away with skip-stop service.)

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:38:59 +0000

Have commuting patterns changed over time?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:30:09 +0000

Yes, there’s another unused track, which strategically skips one of the busiest stations on the north-of-96th 1, 116th.

Not every track has to be used.

By: Duke87

Duke87 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:40:38 +0000

If the switch configuration was going to be modified, the MTA would have to do the free shuttle bus thing while doing so. Bypassing uptown trains onto the center track wouldn't be sufficient because the switch involves both of those tracks. So no, that wasn't happening right then. Replacing the current single |\| switch with a double |X| switch (and modifying the signals in the area accordingly) would be a solution, though.

By: Woody

Woody — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:59:09 +0000

Mark isn’t proposing the same “skip stop” that was 1/9. Didn’t those trains run through the stations on the local track but simply not stop? For me standing on the platform that would have been ever so annoying.

But Mark is saying, there’s another unused track from 96th up to 137 iirc. It was used for Express service from 137th to 96th when I first came to NYC. I’m an old-timer now, as this memory will reveal. ha ha ha ha.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:43:06 +0000

There’s a reason that middle track hasn’t been used for regular service until now.

By that argument, no service change would ever be introduced, on the grounds that “there’s a reason” for it to stay the way it was.

Commuting patterns and ridership levels change over time, which means that settled assumptions need to be re-examined periodically. Subway service had gone through a long period of decline, and until recently the middle track wasn’t even usable in revenue service. The track was renovated recently, and coupled with demographic changes in the area, it made sense to put it back in use.

You are correct that express service on this line is a trade-off between speeding up some people’s commutes at the expense of others. If you help enough people, then the trade-off is worthwhile. The same trade-off is made on many other lines.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:28:18 +0000

Andrew, your common sense is wrong. I’ve timed the trains, and I’ve looked at local and express schedules. On average, skipping a stop saves 40 seconds. This means that skipping 3 stops saves 2 minutes for people boarding at Van Cortlandt, while increasing wait times by 2.5 minutes on average and 5 minutes at worst for people boarding at the skipped stops.