|
|
| 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 4 of 12 |
||
|
| (883053) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:09:49 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. |
|
|
| (883055) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:10:59 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by R30A on Wed Jan 6 19:08:49 2010. Yes, so these trains would still be longer than the G was. |
|
|
| (883057) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:12:07 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 6 23:42:45 2010. Perhaps with this combo, it also will warrant having the V become a seven-day-a-week route.That could come from this too.... I don't know if they would do that, but you never know. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (883060) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:15:30 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. So you would rather have the Queens Boulevard line overcrowded than to ease over crowding along the L line?HOW is this "overcrowding the Queens Blvd line"? It does no such thing, the same amount of trains will run there as now. So you would rather have the Queens Boulevard line overcrowded than to ease over crowding along the L line? This goes WAY beyond Essex/Delancy...I guess it's time for the paste again: But first off, you only need to stand at Myrtle-Wyckoff or Essex-Delancy to see that there is a really demand for midtown service. The transfer at Delancy is obvious, but as an M rider for 20 years, I can tell you that the only reason anyone uses all those stairs at Myrtle-Wyckoff is because they want MIDTOWN. Currently, the L is bursting at it's seams, and is the fastest growing line in the system each year for the last decade. The MTA needs to be looking at ways to keep M riders off the L, and on their own line, which would be done if it went where many of them want to go. This goes way beyond the transfer at Essex Delancey. The reason M riders abandon their train at Wyckoff (more than half of them, and there are even people that reverse ride from Knickerbocker and Central to Wyckoff to transfer too) is because the THREE seat ride with the M/L/and some other L transfer line on 14th St is faster than taking the M all the way down to Nassau for the M's corresponding transfer. The Nassau line connects to just about every line, however, you have to go all the way down just to come back up again, and that's where people avoid it. 6th Ave Line - M riders destined for the 6th Ave line have the obvious improvement, but let me tell you, it goes way beyond the Essex Delancey transfer. 8th Ave Line - M riders currently get off at Wyckoff, for the L, (and a three seat Ride) and transfer at 8th Ave, as opposed to takint the M all the way down to Fulton St to get the A/C there. With the M/V combo line, they would have a very attractive, and easy transfer at West 4th St instead, thus making a convenient 2 train ride, as opposed to a three seat ride with the L, or the roundabout route all the way down to Fulton just to come back up. Lexington Ave Line - M riders currently get off at Wyckoff, for the L (three seat ride) and transfer for the Lex at Union Square, as opposed to the M all the way down to Chambers to get the Lex, and then have to take it all the way up agaian. However, with an M/V combo train, and once the Broadway-Lafayette-Bleecker connection is completely finished, they will have an attractive 2 seat ride option right there, thus making it more attractive than the 3 seat L/Wyckoff and Union Square option, and certainly more attractive than going all the way down to Chambers just to go back up again. Broadway Line - M riders currently get off the M at Wyckoff (for the L and a three seat ride), and transfer for the Bway line at Union Square, which is faster than going all the way down to Canal St just to go back up again.... But with the M/V combo train, in a one seat ride going to the 6th Ave line, many of those riders will stay on the M, as the Bway Line's destinations in Midtown are very similar to the 6th Ave line's destinations, and a 1 seat ride is certainly superior to the current 3 seat ride set up they use with the L involved. 7th Ave Line - M riders currently get off the M at Wyckoff for a three seat ride with the L to transfer at 6th Ave/14th for the 7th Ave line, as opposed to taking the roundabout Nassau line all the way down to Fulton (and a PITA transfer there). And they will still have to trabsfer at 6th Ave/14th to get the 7th Ave line, however, they will be able to do it in a 2 seat ride instead of the L's three seat ride. And this is GOOD for everyone, as the L is bursting at it's seams, and anything that keeps M train transplants on their own line, instead of abandoning for the already overtaxed L is a good thing. So you see, you are wrong. This goes WAY beyond Essex-Delancey |
|
|
| (883061) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 08:18:25 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 00:40:55 2010. I just want you cats to understand something...The W4th junction is operated just the opposite of the way it was designed.. 6th avenue local lower level tracks run directly to the Church st/ WTC....while the 8th avenue local upper level tracks run directly to Houston st... In the past..some trains actually used this routing[E,F,D,CC and JFK EXPRESS].. There is NO SWITCHING INVOLVED. The MTA operates the current service because it WANTS TO. Nothing more..nothing less. |
|
|
| (883063) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 08:26:56 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. wow..you are so wrong..even when the truth is in your face...I understand...its personal for you...you don't want to lose your one seat ride...less crowded train...to a service that would actually help thousands of riders... To heck with THEM..it's all about You... Like I said..I understand. |
|
|
| (883065) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 08:52:41 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 07:55:39 2010. And the lost service on Nassau Street to South Brooklyn can EASILY be replaced by restoring the connection from the Nassau Street Line to the Manny B in the Brooklyn bound direction only. That would allow for the Nassau Street Loop Line that I have previously suggested with a single terminal at Bay Parkway that can become the new M train.This would operate via the existing rush hour M route EXCEPT for that it would ONLY stop on the northbound track at Lawrence/Metrotech and Court Street in Brooklyn and then after going through the tunnel at Broad Street, Fulton Street and Chambers Street before returning to Brooklyn via the Manny B, operating both to and from Manhattan as a 4th Avenue/West End local in Brooklyn otherwise. |
|
|
| (883067) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 09:00:11 2010, in response to 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. And as noted elsewhere, the combined line could actually become a 24/7 line, running to 71st-Continental from 5:00 AM-Midnight Monday-Saturday and 9:00 AM-Midnight on Sundays, and to either Essex or Broadway-Lafayette during overnights and early Sunday mornings. |
|
|
| (883069) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by znufrii on Thu Jan 7 09:09:39 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. Better yet, extend it all the way to the existing station shell at S 4th to connect with the G line, would alleviate much of the congestion of transferring at Metropolitan/Lorimer. |
|
|
| (883072) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 09:31:09 2010, in response to 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. Damn, ÜBER pwn3d! |
|
|
| (883073) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 09:31:23 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:42:32 2010. sweet |
|
|
| (883074) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by znufrii on Thu Jan 7 09:32:24 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. Just curious. How would the MTA handle a train with both terminals in the same borough. A "Queens-bound V train" would apply to trains going in both directions, no? |
|
|
| (883076) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Jan 7 09:37:01 2010, in response to 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. "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."You can say that again! Nothing like coming in to Lex/60 at 2 pm with a 4-car R32 and a 600-foot platform full of people. I had a seat in the cab up front, but I pitied the poor C/R who had his hands full. |
|
|
| (883077) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 09:42:11 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:52:18 2010. Why do you take him seriously? |
|
|
| (883079) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 09:52:05 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. Perhaps, but it would probably be easier just to make it a "V shuttle", such as the "M Shuttle" runs today. No one is confused about the "M" only going to Myrtle-Bway on nights and weekends, the same would be true with the V only to Myrtle-Bway nights and weekends. Probably less confusing than if they called it a totally different line weekends. |
|
|
| (883082) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 10:16:28 2010, in response to 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. It's one of the few service cut plans that make too much sense to do. |
|
|
| (883083) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 10:19:19 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 08:26:56 2010. And even if he used the V at Second Ave, the F takes the same trek.... |
|
|
| (883086) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 10:23:01 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 08:15:30 2010. The only thing I've got to say is if the MTA ever brings up the M/V combo, I'll be the driving force that will cause that MTA to abandon the plan forever. |
|
|
| (883087) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 10:25:08 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 10:19:19 2010. You actually think I would take the F at 2nd Avenue instead of the V. With a certian car type that shouldn't exsist that currently runs on the F line, I'd rather take the V line with its mix of 32's and 46's. |
|
|
| (883090) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 10:36:10 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by znufrii on Thu Jan 7 09:32:24 2010. I don't know, but it would be somewhat similar to the current M train at Rush Hour. You are at Myrtle-Broadway.....Bay Parkway Bound....and it says, "This is a Brooklyn Bound M Train"....how much sense does that make when you are already in Brooklyn? |
|
|
| (883091) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 7 10:41:03 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 10:36:10 2010. "This is a Brooklyn Bound M Train"....how much sense does that make when you are already in Brooklyn?I dont think it says that..... |
|
|
| (883096) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 11:07:46 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 7 10:41:03 2010. Then they probably won't say "Queens bound" on the M/V either. IINM, they don't say "This is a Queens Bound M Train"....I think they say, "This is a Metropolitan Bound M Train", or "This is a "Bay Parkway Bound M Train".... The only difference would be "This is a 71st St-Forest Hills bound V Train"... |
|
|
| (883098) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 11:10:53 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 10:25:08 2010. LOL, yes, most people are thinking about "the type of car used" on a line....... That makes "so" much sense in keeping thousands of people inconvenienced on another line... |
|
|
| (883100) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 11:28:45 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 11:10:53 2010. People must have some sick fetish for wanting to combine the M and V lines. |
|
|
| (883111) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Jan 7 12:03:06 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 11:07:46 2010. No, you're all wrong. Ride some trains.Southbound: "This is a Brooklyn-bound (M) train." "This is a Manhattan-bound (M) train." "This is a Brooklyn-bound (M) train." "This is a Bay Parkway-bound (M) train." |
|
|
| (883114) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 7 12:07:15 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 12:03:06 2010. No, you're all wrong. Ride some trains.Whos All??? LOL |
|
|
| (883122) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 12:30:18 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 12:03:06 2010. No, you're all wrong. Ride some trains.Good grief, arrest me....and I said "think". And actually I SAID, "this is a Bay Parkway bound M train". Christ. |
|
|
| (883123) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 12:31:25 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 11:28:45 2010. You must have some sick fetish to "ride the subway based on what car the line uses". |
|
|
| (883131) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 7 12:51:58 2010, in response to 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. 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.The problem is that any 8-car train will HAVE to use ENY R160's. Jamaica will only have R46's and 5-car R160's, meaning M/V combo consist could never have it's trains come from there. The pool of 4-car sets is limited, outside the cars that were used by the M right now, there are few alternatives, outside keeping some of the older SMEE's, which is unlikely. This is a flexibility constraint the MTA forced upon itself when it decided to buy permanent sets in 5 or 4 cars. |
|
|
| (883134) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 7 12:55:51 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. The M isn't needed on Nassau St really.Those headed downtown need it. Those who live in southern Brooklyn and need Nassau St. stations need it. |
|
|
| (883142) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 13:17:06 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 12:31:25 2010. Its a proven fact that I hate the 160's. |
|
|
| (883144) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:22:00 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:56:34 2010. He's talking about the ORIGINAL K which was a renaming of the old KK service which operated as a Bway Bkln Lcl originally between 168 Jamaica and later E/Pky and 57/6 from 1968 until 1976. The double letter designation was replaced by the single letter as one of the first routes to be affected by the TA's then new policy of eliminating double letters. After all the routes that did not have single and double letter duplications were changed to single letters, the A/AA presented a problem so the K designation was reused to rename the old AA local. |
|
|
| (883146) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jan 7 13:28:38 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 12:03:06 2010. Wayne and I just chime in with:MOE!!!!!! |
|
|
| (883148) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:31:00 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 09:52:05 2010. AsI have said before in many posts, if the lines were to be combined it should carry the M designation rather than the V. |
|
|
| (883152) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:33:49 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by znufrii on Thu Jan 7 09:32:24 2010. There was already a service with both terminals in the same borough. When the E ran to Bkln in rush hours it went from 179 St to Rockaway Pk with 3 intervals operating to Lefferts all of which were in Queens. |
|
|
| (883153) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 13:39:34 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:31:00 2010. But I disagree. While I like "the M" much better, the new service would be an "orange service", not a brown service....and the V is already orange. |
|
|
| (883154) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 13:40:50 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 13:17:06 2010. That's great...but service can't be run based on the opinion of your feeling for the "R160's".... |
|
|
| (883160) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:52:13 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 13:39:34 2010. THe M could be an "orange" service too. The only reason the the V was used is because thanks to the TA's policy of eliminating double letters, the agency was running out of letters and had to opt for something new to call which would have traditionally have been called a "FF." If the routes were to be combined, logically, the lower letter in the alphabetic series should be used and that would be the M. If on the other had, the V would be combined with the Z, then the lower letter in the alphabetic series would be V and that letter should be used and the Z designation dropped. When the B-34 and B-1 buses in Bkln were combined in the 1980s, the combined route was renumbered with the lower number "1" and the number "34" fell into disuse. |
|
|
| (883166) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 14:12:40 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 12:30:18 2010. No, you originally said: You are at Myrtle-Broadway.....Bay Parkway Bound....and it says, "This is a Brooklyn Bound M Train" |
|
|
| (883167) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 14:14:03 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 12:30:18 2010. And actually I SAID, "this is a Bay Parkway bound M train". Christ. Which is ALSO not what it says at Myrtle Av-Broadway. Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (883168) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 14:14:27 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 10:25:08 2010. Seek medical help or start going to church for your problem. |
|
|
| (883171) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 14:23:37 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 10:23:01 2010. seek medical help. |
|
|
| (883172) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 7 14:26:26 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:33:49 2010. In another message, you talked about a line that has both terminals in the same borough. And you correctly noted that when the E-train ran along the Brooklyn Fulton line, that its terminals were in Queens, different sections of Queens, but Queens none the less.In another message, you talked about the name change of the AA train, from that to being called the K train. However there is another characteristic that the AA train, eveno when it was called the K train also shared - both the AA train's terminals were in the same borough - Manhattan. How you missed that one, I don't know? At one point in the history of the CC, now C-train in its various transformations, at a certain point in its history when it did not run to Brooklyn, but I believe on the weekends to the WTC, from 168th Street, it also operated only in one borough. Beyond shuttle trains, the SIR, the old #8 train - Bronx Third Avenue El, the old AA-train, #1 trains between 137th Street-South Ferry, the very old Broadway local from 145th Street/Lenox Avenue-South Ferry -- those are the only lines that can think of that operated within the same borough. The majority of the transit routes operate to another borough. Mike |
|
|
| (883174) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 7 14:34:51 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 7 12:55:51 2010. From a previous message: "The M isn't needed on Nassau St really.Those headed downtown need it. Those who live in southern Brooklyn and need Nassau St. stations need it." ---------- While it seems that everyone is supportive of a M/V merger route, and it talking about the positives of such a route, I agree that there are indeed positives to this idea. There can be and are negatives to this merger, that I think should also be talked about. Don't sweep the negatives under the rug, in the joy of thinking about a new route. Now whether the positives out weigh the negatives is a whole other argument, and I am not saying that one side does not or does out weigh the other side. I am just thinking that the real and possible negatives have to be discussed. Not every proposal is always rosy, to such a degree that it was "stupid" that the proposal was never followed before. Just my thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (883176) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:44:06 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 14:12:40 2010. And this is the post, under that he responded to:IINM, they don't say "This is a Queens Bound M Train"....I think they say, "This is a Metropolitan Bound M Train", or "This is a "Bay Parkway Bound M Train".... The only difference would be "This is a 71st St-Forest Hills bound V Train"... I guess people can't understand "IINM, I think it says....", and one of the things I said was absolutely correct. |
|
|
| (883177) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:45:43 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 14:14:03 2010. And if you read properly what I wrote, I said "IINM" AND "I think". That implies, I am not sure, please correct me if I am wrong. Which is fine, but that doesn't need to include a snotty reply with that "Ride some trains", when I already admitted I wasn't sure which they said on that particular line. |
|
|
| (883178) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 14:48:36 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 14:23:37 2010. No thank you. I'm not lowering my guard for nobody. |
|
|
| (883179) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 14:49:17 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 14:14:27 2010. No thank you. I don't believe in going to church. |
|
|
| (883180) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:49:29 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:52:13 2010. Using that logic, there shouldn't be any letters "missing" in the current subway list, such as K should have been used instead of W, etc, as it's been available since the K on 8th Ave was taken away. There is no need to have "every" letter used at any given time, nor is there a requirement to use the "next" available letter. Again, while I like "M" better, there is no need to use it for this....as V is already on every station along the current V line....it would be a lot cheaper to just keep the V there. |
|
|
| (883182) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:50:50 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 10:23:01 2010. LOL, that and a $1 more may get you a cup of coffee.Wait till they hear the reasoning... 'I don't like the R160's"....LMAO. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 12 |
||
