|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 16 |
||
|
| (1423284) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:50:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 17:38:08 2017. The A is exactly the express variant of the C since both terminals of the C are within the total envelope of the entire A Line route. Between168 St and Euclid the C serves all the stations served by the A between those 2 terminal points with a few extra local stations added. Both lines operate on the same physical subway infrastructure. |
|
|
| (1423285) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:53:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 20:13:27 2017. As I alluded to in my other post, Astoria doesn’t need any more Ns and actually 96 St doesn’t need them either. The problem is that due to poor planning, 57/7 can no longer be used to turn trains without blocking the mainline so Ns that formerly turned at 57 St have to go somewhere so 96 St is the obvious choice. |
|
|
| (1423287) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 22:06:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:53:43 2017. Queensboro Plaza perhaps? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1423288) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 7 22:07:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:50:31 2017. Basically, the C is the A local.The A/C NEEDS better simplification. Divide the lines into different letter codes. A 8th ave Fulton express to Far Rockaway all times except late nights. Local during the overnight hours. C remains the same with and extension to Lefferts. H will take over the Rockaway Park service at all times 207th st to Rockaway Pk via 8th avenue Fulton st express ..all times except late nights. Nights,shuttle from Rockaway Blvd to Rockaway Pk. |
|
|
| (1423291) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 22:23:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 22:06:27 2017. Even if feasible, not a good idea.You only want to merge those Ns into the R/W stream that you need for Astoria service. Any N not bound for Astoria should be turned in a way that doesn't muck up the crowded local track from 42nd to Lex/60th. |
|
|
| (1423293) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 23:03:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Jan 7 19:06:41 2017. You did a good deed and thanks! That proves my point. |
|
|
| (1423294) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 23:16:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:42:34 2017. Exactly. Calling 96 St-bound N trains as Q via Sea Beach leads to the assumption that 5 Av, Lex/60, or Astoria-bound N riders are stupider than 5 Dyre Av. riders, J/Z riders, or Brooklyn-bound 2, 4, 5 riders, or Bronx-bound 6 riders, E riders or A riders. Riders for these stations may make the mistake once, but they can easily double back. They are New Yorkers. They won't make the mistake again. To me, a much more major concern is with tourists getting on the wrong A or E train for JFK than a New Yorker getting on a 2nd Av instead of Astoria train..As for the S/B 96 St Ns, well, they could originate from Coney Island as Ns if a too long an interval between (these reverse-peak) Ns would occur without them. Otherwise, send them as Qs via Brighton Express and at 96 St turn them into Ns. |
|
|
| (1423295) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 23:22:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 20:45:05 2017. No people are going to be stranded. They are New Yorkers. They will know to double back. They will make the mistake once, lose 15 minutes, and learn not to make it again. |
|
|
| (1423296) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 23:53:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jan 7 21:28:45 2017. LOL. Then why does it mention how to get to LGA using Metro-North or LIRR and buses? Why is it called "Airport Service with MTA Buses, Subways and Commuter Rail"? Why is it linked to on the MTA (not NYCT) home page under the heading "Travel to LaGuardia andKennedy Airports"? Why does it contain this info: "Buy Before Boarding for the Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road"? |
|
|
| (1423302) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 8 02:12:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 23:53:21 2017. Why are you asking me? Ask the MTA. Like I said, it is under the NYCT part of the website so of course it doesn't mention the LIRR. |
|
|
| (1423305) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jan 8 05:34:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:53:43 2017. Poor planning? You can't use the same tracks for thru trains and as a terminal at the same time. (Yes, I know there are exceptions like Bowling Green, but not during hours of heavy use on weekdays.) What kind of "planning" could have changed that. |
|
|
| (1423309) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 07:45:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 20:45:05 2017. If they are confused, it is because of their poor reading comprehension skills. That is not a valid reason to mis-label trains. If they wind up at 63rd/Lex, which is not "stranded on the 2nd Avenue line", they;ll double back to 57th and get on the right train. Then they'll learn to read next time.Why isn't you bleeding heart crying out for people winding up in Howard Beach when they wanted to go to Lefferts ? Other routes have multiple terminals. So can this one. |
|
|
| (1423310) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 08:15:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 07:45:21 2017. The split A is probably the biggest problem in the entirety of the system for customer confusion. That is the problem which needs to be fixed, not the correctly labeled N/Qs. |
|
|
| (1423313) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 08:52:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 08:15:15 2017. And the 5, and the E, and they are not going to get fixed.So pay attention to short turns and multiple destinations. |
|
|
| (1423314) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 08:55:24 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 7 22:07:07 2017. Rockaway Park branch has 25% of the ridership of the Lefferts Branch.You can't serve the far stronger branch with a local. |
|
|
| (1423315) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 09:01:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 08:52:39 2017. Why create another major problem when you don't have to? |
|
|
| (1423326) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 8 09:40:02 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 08:55:24 2017. My first thought on improving the Rockaways access was to extend the shuttle to Lefferts and re-tune the schedule to meet the Lefferts As. But you gave me a better idea, one from the history books:Eliminate the Rock Park shuttle and run the C down there. If there's not enough cars, continue to turn half the Cs at Euclid. This pattern would provide a one-seat ride to/from an underground station, as opposed to the current situation where they have to freeze/melt waiting to transfer at Broad Channel. |
|
|
| (1423336) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 8 10:00:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jan 8 05:34:52 2017. Connecting the local tracks to the 63st line, which the BMT already provided trackways for. MTA never bothered to finish out this connection (likely because they would have to relocate some structures they built in the southbound trackway). If they had, while an N is turning at 57st (on either express track) a Q could be routed around via the corresponding local track. |
|
|
| (1423339) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Sun Jan 8 10:13:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 22:23:29 2017. They can relay north of QBP using the middle track. |
|
|
| (1423340) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 10:15:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 8 10:00:29 2017. a Q could be routed around via the corresponding local trackThere are already significant delays for northbound trains due to N trains merging from the express track onto the local. Any change that adds to the number of those trains would just be more grief. It's much more efficient to leave a few Ns and all Qs on the express track and turn them all at 96th. |
|
|
| (1423342) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 10:16:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Sun Jan 8 10:13:25 2017. Yes, but to get to QBP, the N train needed to merge from the express to the local track at 34th or at 57th. To turn at 96th, it doesn't need to merge anywhere. And QBP is just as far in time from 57th as 96th is. |
|
|
| (1423346) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 10:39:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 07:45:21 2017. So you guys ARE fine with wasting people's time. Shows how much you value passengers over trains. |
|
|
| (1423350) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 10:55:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 23:16:22 2017. This has nothing to do with stupidity. I don't know why people keep bringing that up. Notice I have said nothing about the downtown (N) 96th Street trains, which should be kept as such. People are just more likely to see (N) and make their minds up. They don't expect anything out of the ordinary.Put it this way. Go to Canal Street, 14th Street, 34th Street, 42nd Street, or 57th Street when these uptown short-turns run. See how many (N) people are getting on those trains. You know how many will be getting on thinking it's going to Astoria? Zero. Because it's a (Q). If ANY hassles can be removed for people, then it should be done as so. |
|
|
| (1423365) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 8 12:05:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 10:19:28 2017. I don't understand why this is necessary in the first place. They should be layed up on the Astoria line express track. I know it would cost $$$, but switches should be installed south of Astoria Blvd so that the middle track can be used to terminate trains so as to not overwhelm Ditmars. |
|
|
| (1423374) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:45:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 10:19:28 2017. I remember at one time in 1980 they would sometimes run what then was the (QB) (today's Q) from Astoria rather than 57th for its rush hour runs and actually rode one from QB Plaza to Lexington-60th.The rule of thumb is always to pay attention. |
|
|
| (1423376) | |
Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:50:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 8 12:05:41 2017. Exactly. Astoria Boulevard should be turned into a second terminal. You could then have some (N) trains in rush hours run express even between there and Queensboro Plaza.Long-term, I still think the (N) should be extended to The Bronx with a new stop at 20th Avenue in Queens before going over a new rail bridge with a stop at Food Service Drive in The Bronx before going underground and connecting with the 2/5 at East 180 and (6) at Westchester/Elder Avenue, possibly to Jacobi Medical Center. |
|
|
| (1423377) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:54:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 07:47:35 2017. LOL!! |
|
|
| (1423378) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:57:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:34:36 2017. Right.And that would be a "Brown K" that used to be the "Brown R" or more commonly known as the old Bankers Special, trying to solve the problems with the R in Brooklyn that are well known (with this version of the old Bankers Special 24/7, replacing the late-night R shuttle since except for Whitehall it serves all stops the late-night shuttle does and the Fulton Transportation Center the current R does not). |
|
|
| (1423379) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:59:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 7 21:53:43 2017. Exactly. If we had three tracks at 72nd, those (N) trains could turn there. |
|
|
| (1423380) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 8 13:08:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 08:55:24 2017. Lefferts would no longer be a Branch line service if C trains operated there.Every 8 to 10 minutes is far better headways than every 20 waiting for an express. In effect, the C extension would be an improvement over A service... Besides, the A was once the Fulton Local for a number of years, and it worked. |
|
|
| (1423382) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 13:30:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 8 12:05:41 2017. Not sure if the hump between the stations prevents that. |
|
|
| (1423383) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:38:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 09:01:43 2017. It's not a major problem - that's just it. It's next to nothing. |
|
|
| (1423384) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:44:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 10:39:23 2017. We are not going with your global assumption that people's time is wasted, while you cannot grasp the fact that short turns and multiple destination exist elsewhere on the system, always have, and always will.In summary: - You are fine with contradictory schedules, whether they be pdf, Trip Planner or Google transit - You are fine with mislabeled trains on the Sea Beach line northbound (and on the SAS southbound) after the TA has spent 58 years calling it in the N line and all but erradidating BMT branch names, especially from its reroute notices. |
|
|
| (1423385) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:46:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 8 09:40:02 2017. Running the C down there was not popular. They got off at Broad Channel and Rockaway Blvd and caught the A. |
|
|
| (1423387) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:48:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 8 13:08:41 2017. The Rockaway Park branch simply is not worth the train miles you are calling for, nor should be be given the same status as the Far Rockaway Branch. |
|
|
| (1423388) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:49:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 10:16:58 2017. Then you have to take time to fumigate it when they kick everyone off at QBP, and hold up whatever is behind it. |
|
|
| (1423393) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 14:07:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:39:23 2017. The Qs that stop at DeKalb stop on the other platform at Atlantic-Barclays on the Brighton Line. Those that come in on the 4th Avenue line (whether (N) or (Q) ) should not matter in that regard since those skip DeKalb. |
|
|
| (1423394) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 8 14:18:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:48:06 2017. Yet,as a Service improvement,for all involved, it would be "worthwhile ".There is no way the MTA os going to boost Lefferts headways, without damaging Far Rockaways. Because the 3 A services are so hardwired interlined...improvement is almost impossible. Direct C service to Lefferts Blvd will change that. Not only will they have Better headways to and from Ozone Park...Rock Park would have direct midtown service 19/7. |
|
|
| (1423396) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 8 14:42:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:47:01 2017. The whole debate is moot.A customer will either choose to ride this mock Q train,or they won't. Pull your face up from whatever device your using at the moment and take a look around...meaning Riders are so Socially tuned out to whats going on Around them by plugging into social media While traveling, how do you manage to Get where you want to go when your Not paying attention? |
|
|
| (1423400) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jan 8 15:33:24 2017, in response to Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:50:46 2017. Some how I do not think that something like this wouyld ever happen. Indeed.... I think the Myrtle-Fifth Avenue Subway stands a far better chance.ROAR |
|
|
| (1423402) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 15:37:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 8 14:18:15 2017. To improve service east of Rockaway Blvd, I'd send all A's to Far Rock and all C's to Lefferts.Rock Park isn't worth it, except run the shuttle more often - it is OPTO, which ought to be cheap. |
|
|
| (1423404) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 15:39:51 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 8 14:42:41 2017. Yes, they is what it comes down to, if only they would pull their mug out of their I-phone for 15 seconds and interpret more than the letter Q - we can teach dogs to do that. |
|
|
| (1423406) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jan 8 15:53:35 2017, in response to Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:50:46 2017. I guess Wally doesn't like Lion's plans for extending the "N" to LaGuardia, via 31st St, the ConEd property, and 19th Ave. |
|
|
| (1423407) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Snarf368 on Sun Jan 8 15:55:14 2017, in response to Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 12:50:46 2017. If anything , the N would be extended to LGA rather than the Bronx. There is a much greater need for service to LGA than thru to Bronx. But we already know even that won't happen. |
|
|
| (1423412) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 16:28:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:38:49 2017. It isn't because they solved it! |
|
|
| (1423413) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 16:35:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 14:07:55 2017. Yes. I said this about 3 times. |
|
|
| (1423414) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 16:37:04 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jan 8 15:53:35 2017. I like those plans, but the NIMBYs shot this down 20 years ago. |
|
|
| (1423416) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 16:41:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 16:28:16 2017. But it wasn't even before they solved it either.The Ns to 57/7 did not cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth, even though they skipped 49th, which is a major destination. |
|
|
| (1423417) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 16:58:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 16:41:59 2017. Overshooting 49th by one stop is a substantially less big problem than going up the wrong line. It could easily delay somebody an hour if they intend to go to Astoria and end up at 96/6. It would delay a person without mobility impairment about 5 minutes if they miss 49 and simply walk from 57. |
|
|
| (1423420) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 18:15:51 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 16:58:49 2017. It could easily delay somebody an hour if they intend to go to Astoria and end up at 96/6Only if that someone is really paralyzed. It's 10 minutes from 57/7 to 96/2. But yes, ending up at 96/2 instead of Astoria is worse than ending up at 57/7 instead of 49th. My point was that not many people got confused about 57/7 vs 49, and not many people would get confused about 96/2 vs. Astoria. I am saying this is an unimportant issue. But I do agree that there is lesser confusion for this unimportant issue if the 96/2-bound trains are labeled as Qs. My opinion is that the best solution for this unimportant issue would be to start them off as 96/2-bound Ns, and then suddenly on the Manhattan Bridge they get re-signed as Qs with an announcement to that effect. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 16 |
||
