53rd used to (in 1989) carry 52.6k pph inbound in the morning rush in one hour, and that's with 30 tph of older B division trains. That averages out to 175 people/car. Still quite a bit less than the AW4 8/m2 240-person capacity, but it is an average sustained for a whole hour every weekday, and a lot higher than 122. And depending on the methodology, some fare evasion might've meant it was a bit higher in practice.
53rd in 1989 is crazy crowded compared to today, and I think people's tolerance of such crowding has decreased, but it does mean that that many people can fit in these trains.
53rd used to (in 1989) carry 52.6k pph inbound in the morning rush in one hour, and that's with 30 tph of older B division trains. That averages out to 175 people/car. Still quite a bit less than the AW4 8/m2 240-person capacity, but it is an average sustained for a whole hour every weekday, and a lot higher than 122. And depending on the methodology, some fare evasion might've meant it was a bit higher in practice.
53rd in 1989 is crazy crowded compared to today, and I think people's tolerance of such crowding has decreased, but it does mean that that many people can fit in these trains.
My point is that the MTA should not plan for crowded, uncomfortable trains. Trains should be attractive, not tolerated.
> the same width as R211 and other NYC Transit A Division
Is this a typo? B division trains like the R211 are a lot wider than A division trains.
Thanks. It is a typo, which I will fix.