|
|
| Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. (882716) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 12 |
||
|
| (882984) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 00:12:11 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 00:04:38 2010. LOL!!!!Not that I'm loving it, it's just something that to me makes complete sense (and I used to ride that way when I was younger and living in New York). |
|
|
| (882985) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 00:15:27 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 6 19:48:54 2010. Me:I would have the V in this format run 24/7: 19/7 to 71st-Continental and late nights to Essex Street or Broadway-Lafayette instead of Myrtle (Midnight-5:00 AM weeknights, perhaps extended to 9:00 AM on Sunday mornings). |
|
|
| (882986) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 7 00:16:44 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:04:10 2010. The V is not overcrowded, so this will not cause any extra crowding on the QB line.Broadway Brooklyn riders DO want 6th ave service, which is why they DO transfer at Essex. With this modification, they dont have to! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (882987) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 7 00:17:53 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:00:41 2010. 7 years in the east village is enough for me to know that such really wouldnt hurt anyone at all. |
|
|
| (882990) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Jan 7 00:21:26 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by R30A on Thu Jan 7 00:16:44 2010. Exactly. I've worked both the (F) and the (J), and it's an extremely crowded transfer point. |
|
|
| (882992) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 00:24:15 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 00:12:11 2010. Yeah baby, yeah!!!Where do you live now? |
|
|
| (882993) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:24:28 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 00:12:11 2010. Not that I'm loving it, it's just something that to me makes complete sense (and I used to ride that way when I was younger and living in New York).FALSE!!! Combining the M and V lines wouldn't make any sense. In the end, you don't want this post to turn into a 33rd Street pwns thread. |
|
|
| (882994) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:24:45 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 6 23:30:31 2010. I don't see any reason why the C and V should swap terminals. It seems like it would be just for the sake of change. There doesn't seem any need for utilize the switches S/O W 4 St since anyone can simply transfer there if needed. Best case scenario, the V is extended to Church Av or Kings Hwy for limited additional rush hr trains. Whether or not there is need for an express on the Smith St Line, I'm not sure, but I would tend to think it's about as practical as the Astoria W Exp was a few years ago. |
|
|
| (882995) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:25:49 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 7 00:17:53 2010. Seven years isn't enough. Try living in the East Village for as long as I have. |
|
|
| (882996) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 00:25:57 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by G1Ravage on Thu Jan 7 00:21:26 2010. It's unfathomable that 33rd Street could be this wrong. Surely R30A and yourself and Wally are in cahoots specifically to fool everyone into thinking that 33rd Street is wrong. Surely. |
|
|
| (882998) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:29:11 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:24:45 2010. The best case senario would be to extend the V line to Avenue C & East Houston Street. That is so much needed to releve the overcrowded M14 and provide direct subway access without needing to take a bus. |
|
|
| (882999) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:30:48 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:25:49 2010. Has the East Village changed a lot in 20 years? I think it has, but so has Park Slope and quite frankly most of the Smith St section of the F in Brooklyn. Service patterns sometimes need to be changed to accommodate these changes. The 3 now runs late nights along Lenox when it previously didn't ... no reason why not to explore the possibility of providing more service to areas that may warrant it. |
|
|
| (883000) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:40:47 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:29:11 2010. But we know that won't happen given how difficult it is to build new lines. Not to mention I'm sure there would be some East Village NIMBYs protesting various aspects of the project. They can walk to 2 Av if they don't want to take the bus. |
|
|
| (883001) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 00:40:55 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:24:45 2010. Not to mention the C/V swap would also back up service at W4 when some of those S/B trains would inevitably get held in the station to let the train on the other level go ahead of it before getting a lineup and following. That could easily cause bunching of trains. The same issue would be had N/B, except the trains would get held at the homeballs outside the station instead (ie C train pulls up to the switch and has to be held because an E is already in the W4 station upstairs, therefore delaying any F train waiting behind the C) |
|
|
| (883002) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:43:01 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:30:48 2010. Yes it has. Hell, the M21 is increasing in ridership. Why? The lack of direct subway access in the East Village. Go and ride the M9 and M14 during rush hours and you'll see that area needs a lot more help than Park Slope. Park Slope residents should be thankful that they have more options than the East Village. I sometimes feel isolated because of where I've resided at since October 22nd, MCMLXXXVIII. |
|
|
| (883003) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:45:10 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 00:40:55 2010. I'm sure it would. I actually don't think that there was ever any regular service pattern through those switches with exception of the JFK Express. Maybe the K or KK at some point? Not to mention what a nightmare it would be if they ever bring ATS to there. |
|
|
| (883004) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:46:48 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:40:47 2010. I seriously doubt people would be against such plan. Even though I refuse to take the M14 (personal reasons), I'm starting to feel sorry for those who take it daily. Suppose you live on 6th Street and Avenue C for a second and you have to take the F train. Mind you its the Winter. What is your options? Take the M14 to 6th Avenue or take the M21 to 1st Avenue. Believe me, my area is VERY dependent on buses. |
|
|
| (883005) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Jan 7 00:52:29 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:29:11 2010. Correct me if I am wrong, but your alternative to a proposal which will ultimately reduce the number of cars operated by NYCT and in doing so will decrease the operational cost is to propose a subway extension which will in no way decrease operational costs? Exactly how is this a viable solution? Fine, it gives you and your neighbors a subway station, but you, or whatever relatives you live with knew your domicile was not within close proximity to the subway before moving in. Everyone else is eating service decreases at the moment, so why should the East Village get a half billion dollar subway station which eliminates a potential source of operational savings while everyone else suffers? |
|
|
| (883006) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 00:54:56 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by WillD on Thu Jan 7 00:52:29 2010. Why are you taking him seriously? |
|
|
| (883007) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 00:56:31 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:45:10 2010. If you're referring to the 1980's blue K service pattern from 168-WTC, that used exclusively tracks A1 and A2 (8th ave local) for the entire length of its run. As for the KK and the older K patterns, perhaps one of the posters here who is more familiar with those service patterns could speak to them. |
|
|
| (883008) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:57:39 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by WillD on Thu Jan 7 00:52:29 2010. Easy, the TA could cut service on the bus lines that serve the East Village. Also, how will everyone else suffer? Explain that to me. |
|
|
| (883009) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 7 01:06:42 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:57:39 2010. Leave him alone. He's full of social engineering thought experiments . . . |
|
|
| (883010) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GrandAvenue on Thu Jan 7 01:22:24 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jan 6 20:50:59 2010. True but not every possible combination...remember the whole "J to Metropolitan Av" hype lmao |
|
|
| (883015) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 02:58:09 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 00:56:31 2010. The K of the 1980's had previously been the AA train, which in turn was replaced by the present C train. |
|
|
| (883016) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 02:58:58 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 00:25:57 2010. LOL!!! |
|
|
| (883017) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 03:01:33 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 6 17:49:38 2010. It not only is a cost saving measure, but it also works very well on other fronts that have been well discussed in the past. |
|
|
| (883018) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 03:02:33 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Kriston Lewis on Wed Jan 6 18:12:53 2010. LOL!!!Nah, not celebrating, it just simply makes sense! |
|
|
| (883019) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 03:05:27 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:45:10 2010. During the course of IND service history, E trains operated via Houston St from 8 Av to Church Av, CC locals and E trains operated to 2 Av and Bway/Laff and D trains prior to 1954 operated full time to Chambers/Hudson Terminal. Immediately prior to the Chrystie St changes there were 2 S/B AM F intervals that also operated into Chambers St/Hudson Term so the switches at W 4 St were used for normal service quite frequently before the JFK EXP came into existence. |
|
|
| (883020) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 03:13:40 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Dupont Circle Station on Wed Jan 6 18:14:22 2010. When the EE was still running, the N was still 8 cars regardless of the car length and by the time the N was being sent to CTL, the EE was eliminated anyhow. In the early 1980s, when the R-10s were assigned to the GG, we often made "full service" by supplying the GG with 7 car trains of R-10s and having 8 car trains on the N regardless of car type. Midday service was supposed to be supplied by cutting 8 car trains of R-46s on the N and making 4 car GG and N trains from the cut 8 car N trains and laying up the R-10 GG trains. Unfortunately, all the 8 car N trains were cut to make 4 car trains regardless of car type and many times heavily overcrowded 4 car N trains of R-32s operated down the road. |
|
|
| (883022) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by R32 B Train on Thu Jan 7 03:30:45 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:31:36 2010. Nothing makes sense with Wally. |
|
|
| (883028) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 06:25:21 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 02:58:58 2010. :):) :) |
|
|
| (883029) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 06:26:05 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by R32 B Train on Thu Jan 7 03:30:45 2010. You're incorrect. |
|
|
| (883030) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:34:46 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:31:36 2010. It would definitely alleviate the L train a bit, as many of the people that get off at Wyckoff do so because of the incovenience of the Nassau St line's connections to the Midtown routes. The Nassau line's connections are just about all roundabout. |
|
|
| (883031) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:41:23 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:32:13 2010. Why should he shut up? First off he is correct. And second off, he has the right to his opinion even if he wasn't correct (which he is). |
|
|
| (883032) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:42:32 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:33:31 2010. But that post is false. It doesn't make it less false by linking to it a second time. |
|
|
| (883034) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:44:45 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:00:41 2010. Explain how. The V route isn't changing at all, except for taking a line that dead ends in Manhattan, by connecting it to another line. One station is different, that's all. |
|
|
| (883035) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:47:58 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:43:01 2010. And that wouldn't change if the M train went from Essex to Bway-Lafayette.And living in the East Village since 1988 is irrelevant, as it was a different neighborhood in "1988". |
|
|
| (883036) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 07:47:59 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:15:26 2010. Exactly what it means. |
|
|
| (883038) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:50:48 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:29:11 2010. How does spending billions on a subway extension (that doesn't have a chance in hell of happening) make more sense than a cost saving measure, which happens to ease convenience for a lot of people at the same time, make sense?The M/V combo saves money where it's needed now, and has the added bonus of alleviating a very over crowded line, the L. |
|
|
| (883039) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:52:18 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:46:48 2010. seriously doubt people would be against such plan.LOL....and where do you get that insight from. Can you post some stats please? And the best parallel would be 2nd Ave, where subway service is needed WAY more than "the East Village", yet NIMBY opposition has been quite extreme. |
|
|
| (883041) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:54:30 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:57:39 2010. So let me get this straight....everyone is suffering service cuts at the moment, yet "the East Village" deserves a few billion for a questionable need subway extension, and their trade off will be some "bus cuts". Oh yes, that will fall into billions of savings that would make up for the billions spent on this new "subway extension". |
|
|
| (883042) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 07:55:39 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:00:41 2010. Whats the problem?You'd still have the F...And the V one stop west of Second avenue. J riders would only have ONE line serving stations west and south of ESSEX ST IF the Z is removed,no Downtown Brooklyn service rush hours unless the J is extended[which would make a heck of a lot of sense].... So who's really losing out here..YOU or Nassau st riders? |
|
|
| (883043) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:56:34 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Broadway Buffer on Thu Jan 7 00:45:10 2010. The K train of the 1980's was the replacement for the double lettered AA train, when they abolished double letters. At that time, the C only ran rush hours. Once the C became a full day line, there was no need for the K (former AA) train anymore, as the C did exactly what the K did. |
|
|
| (883044) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:01:33 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 6 18:56:38 2010. You are also forgetting that the V would be shorter by the equivilent of of two 60 foot cars...that will also add a trainset or two.Anything the M used from Essex to Bay Parkway is automatically bonus, and then you have the cars left over from the shortening. This isn't an extension, it's the connecting of one line (that already ends right at the connection point) to the middle of another line, but it severs the other half of that other line off. The M is already handled between Essex and Metro, and the V is intact from Bway Laf to 71st, it's current route. You ONLY have left over cars, you don't have to add any for this plan. |
|
|
| (883045) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 08:02:19 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:31:36 2010. that would involve building a new station...If you have the 500 million it would cost to build it,I'm all for it. |
|
|
| (883047) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jan 7 08:04:53 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Jan 6 14:36:04 2010. Nrrrrmmmmmppphhhhhhh!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (883048) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:06:08 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 6 18:28:53 2010. Of course it was a problem with the G...I used the G regularly from Lorimer St for quite a few years....you used to have to run all the way down the platform to get it (but I am thinking when they were REALLY short, for a while they only used the equivalent of 4 75 foot cars).But that all said, the G wasn't even a Manhattan train, people are already way ahead with the V even being there, it's a completely clean slate extra Manhattan train, whereas before, the line was handled with only ONE Manhattan local. |
|
|
| (883049) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jan 7 08:06:35 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 00:43:01 2010. My sister got married on 10-22-88. |
|
|
| (883050) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Thu Jan 7 08:08:16 2010, in response to ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chipper10 on Wed Jan 6 09:16:26 2010. It will never happen. It makes too much sense. |
|
|
| (883052) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:09:47 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 6 19:00:32 2010. Exactly, that's why this combination makes so much sense. The V doesn't need it's 10 car trains, and it just dead ends in Manhattan. It would save money, but at the same time make use of the equipment so much better by extending that to Metropolitan. At the same time, they get rid of an ENTIRE line and crew set. And it's almost a marriage made in heaven, as the V is a weekday only line, and the M only runs past Myrtle-Bway on the weekdays, weekends all is normal.It would also ease congestion on the L, as more people would feel the need to stay on at Wyckoff. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 12 |
||
