|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1423165) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Jan 7 13:02:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 09:12:50 2017. There has been debate earlier on this topic. (I admit I'm long winded.)My point is simple - those N-trains should be labeled as N-trains in both directions. They are N-trains that happen to go to/from 96th Street, in constrast to N and W trains that go to/from Astoria. For decades other train routes have variations that are noted on the train signage, on the maps, in the time-tables, etc. That is just simpler for everybody, as well as honest. It makes learning and using the subways easier. Previously I suggested conductors make announcements if there are signage issues. One forum member that said he works for the MTA said that having conductors make annoucements would be against the rules according to a new memo sent out by MTA line management. The line management folks were enforcing this "N-train as Q-train uptown" practice - so as "not to confuse the riders." On the NY Transit Forum it was reported that N-train conductors often simply used the usual Coney Island To 57th Street FIND program, and at 57th Street simply made announcements that those N-trains are headed to 96th Street. That forum member suggested that TSS folks would be cracking down on this. I wondered why the MTA ON PURPOSE would create and use a Q-train FIND program for the 96th Street Manhattan bound-direction via Sea Beach/Fourth Avenue - but not a similar program for an N-train to 96th Street. I'm told - don't worry about that - one can not question MTA policy and practice. Since the MTA could create this Q-train really N-train program - they could just as easily create the basic N-train program. They have one for 96th Street to Coney Island for the N-train downtown direction. Then it becomes an "does the ends justify the means" issue. This whole thing is based on the idea of "not confusing the riders." That "we" are doing this for the good of the riders - and how can anyone object. The issues with the FIND program are just a diversion since simpler solutions are present. According to NYTF there is a simpler solution actually in practice! It is the promotion of a dis-honest practice, and dressing it up as "doing good for the riders!" That is the part about these Q-labeled N-trains running up Fourth Avenue - that is the dis-honesty. In the "old days" with the variable sign displays many combinations of terminal and route could be chosen reflecting the direction and path a particular train. Most people could read the signs. The idea of disguising E-trains going to/from 179th Street as F-trains is mind boggling. 179th Street terminal was the traditional home terminal of the E-train for decades! Only since 1988 has the Archer Avenue segment existed. How is that not known especially on a transit forum? Yes, there should be "truth in labeling" on the subways, in the time-tables and schedules, and other documents. No - this is not just "transit foamer stuff." These are N-trains that happen to terminate at 96th Street-2nd Avenue, while other N and W trains go to/from Astoria. Big frigging deal. Plenty of other subway routes have alternative terminals - they are listed on the maps, in the time-tables, etc. Why treat the "96th Street N-trains" differently? To not "confuse the riders" - as the main reason or goal. Are Upper Eastside train riders some kind of different brand of human? People change trains every day - every year on the subways! How is this situation different? If the N-trains are labeled properly (as in what they actually are) the riders will figure out how to get where they need to go via the subway maps, the timetables, the schedules, etc. Mike |
|
|
|