|
|
| Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... 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 8 of 12 |
||
|
| (883712) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:53:19 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 8 13:18:41 2010. I know, I'm wasting my time explaining the negatives as I see it too. I'm fighting a losing battle.Put it this way, you have more people on your side than I do. Maybe it's time for this pompous ass (according to Kew Gardens Transport) to leave this playground till this thing dies down. I think it's coming soon, then I'll come back till it starts up again next week. You can't see that for every person it helps, it hurts somebody else. Don't worry, I quit. |
|
|
| (883713) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Jan 8 13:56:11 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:53:19 2010. Bill dont let this bug you brother your input is very helpful..Even if others dont see it or dont want to see it... Really.. Off to work now,Needs Of The Service... |
|
|
| (883724) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 14:23:35 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:53:19 2010. Bill, this is about a discussion about rail topics...we all come here to discuss things like this.... There's nothing wrong with being on opposite sides of a discussion, and your input is very welcome.Don't "give up" just because people disagree on this particular topic. Who cares? Another day and another topic, and we agree. A day later, another disagreement. There wouldn't be any comversation at all if everyone agreed all the time, that's not realistic. I like the A train So do it, it's nice Me too. Pretty boring, no? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (883729) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 14:35:50 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:33:58 2010. No, that is a fact. Since you rarely ride the system by your own admission, you don't realise that the ridership does not like to divert from their established way of getting to/from work.I rode the line for 25 years. I know exactly what it means to be "set in my ways" on my way to get to work. This thru service all you guys are so in love with gives the riders ZERO connections to the east side, where most are traveling to. That's incorrect. Broadway-Lafayette-Bleecker is coming. I know very well, I traveled the east side for half of that time, using Union Square from the L from the M train. I am quite familiar with these lines. Plus the L has more frequent service than the M. Yes, but that can always be increased as need arises, and a short two seat ride will beat a three seat ride, which is what the L now entails. I already explained in another thread WHY they use the three seat L option instead of the two seat Nassau/transfer option, but this new line wouldn't be one of the old Nassau transfers. The L's ridership is heaviest north of Myrtle Wycoff, those already riding aren't giving up their seats to change for the M/V upstairs. Other L riders will not backtrack to wait on a cold/snowy/rainy/windy elevated platform. No, the heaviest ridership is south of Myrtle Wyckoff (meaning the side closer to the city). And WHO is saying ANY of those people would be transfering to the M/V? It's irrelevant to them, but many of the M transplant WOULD forgo getting off their M trains and staying on the new M/V. This isn't about getting L people off the L, it's about keeping M people on the M at Myrtle Wyckoff and OFF the L. It just kills you guys that this stretch of trackage isn't used for regular service. NO, as a user of the MJ and L lines for 25 years, and my father for 50 years aside that, I know very well the needs of this line. Unless we were headed for "Chinatown" or the Financial district, the M never went where we wanted it to go. Even if we took the M, 9 our of 10 times we head back uptown again. I also know many people to this day in that area. This is not about "using an unused piece of track", it's about providing a needed and desired service. It's not like I really care what routings are used or if they are left unused. I full support the G not leaving Court Square, and that is a similar situation. But for some reason, some people against an idea "railfans" put forth, always seem to think anyone that disagrees with them is some sort of "foamer". I am one of the least "foamer" types here.... |
|
|
| (883731) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 14:48:50 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:08:24 2010. As I said 10 times a year every time this M/V thing is bought up, it screws M riders who have to make a new transfer at Essex to the J to get to lower Manhattan who lose their current one seat rideAnd for many more, it will give them a 1 seat ride instead of a THREE seat ride. Some even have another transfer to make to the IRT they already make at Chambers or Fulton. So they change at Broadway-Lafayette/Bleecker, which soon will be a full transfer (and not have to go roundabout all the way downtown on Nassau), or 14th St for the West Side IRT (instead of going all the way downtown first to Fulton on Nassau). And actually, many of the West side people will have a dream of a transfer to the West Side at West 4th St, whereas now the transfer at Fulton is a nightmare, and that after going roundabout ALL THE way downtown. But all the supporters of this conveniently ignore this FACT to bolster their own justification. This was CLEARLY addressed in a post right in this thread, that YOU conveniently chose to ignore apparently. If this is a go, and if you look at the beginning of this subthread Zman re-emphasizes this is NOT a done deal, politicos along the J/M lines will yell like Vallone is yelling about losing the W. Once Cathy Nolan in Ridgewood is involved (who has pushed for it before) to finally seeing Midtown service for the M, she gets things done. |
|
|
| (883737) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:02:12 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 23:24:57 2010. Yes, my first as well. IIRC the trip was cut short when the train developed issues at Howard Beach. That was one of the only trips that did not begin at 59th St, it began at Chambers St. The route had us go out to Metro, then back to Manhattan and up 6th Ave to W4th, then reverse and head out to Rockaway. I remember doing at least 60 MPH on the Fulton express. |
|
|
| (883738) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:03:27 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 04:15:09 2010. Was it used well, or did people simply take the first train that arrived and change at Essex/Delancey? |
|
|
| (883739) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:04:54 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 23:24:01 2010. I always thought the connection led to the middle tracks at 2nd Ave, not until I discovered nycsubway.org did I find out otherwise. |
|
|
| (883740) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:06:33 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 23:28:13 2010. It would also make the loss of M service thru Dekalb Ave. permanent. I doubt they will be able to take away service thru Chrystie after re-introducing it again. |
|
|
| (883752) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:28:11 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 03:59:11 2010. Maybe it began when there were double letters. Still, it would have been strange to make that AA, when it would diverge so far from the A. So I think it would have been K or KK, or, tentatively, either KK or AA; realizing it would be the merging of both lines. Hence, again, K becoming blue in the new colors.Even though the double letters were revealed to the public in 1985, they were apparently assigned or at least thought of years before. A 1982 New York Affairs "Transit Issue" (talking about the 63rd, Archer and other projects including the Queens Bypass) interestingly enough had already made the change, with a map of a part of Brooklyn showing ‹  ›    (The map was B&W, actually. Franklin shuttle was spelled out) In the text part of the book, you still saw "AA" as well as "CC", but the others were single! This was published by NYU, but I get the sense they had probably gotten the info from Transit. So perhaps the combined service was still in the books somewhere, and had been designated "K", and again, only the AA part of it ran. The 6th Ave shuttle I was referring to was the one when the bridge was closed. It ran from 57th to Grand, but I thought I heard there was an idea to run that to the East instead. (Grand would probably have had its own shuttle, like in 2001). |
|
|
| (883756) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:30:38 2010, in response to Re: Nassau Street loop line, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 8 04:31:43 2010. That's what they should do. I was thinking of sending in an idea making the Z that "southern" service, instead of the M. That way, they have their own service, and not hold ours up when there are delays on that end. |
|
|
| (883759) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:34:37 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 14:35:50 2010. That's incorrect. Broadway-Lafayette-Bleecker is coming. I know very well, I traveled the east side for half of that time, using Union Square from the L from the M train. I am quite familiar with these lines.WTF does the Broadway-Lafayette Street/Bleecker Street have anything to do with the BMT Eastern Division? I would love to hear what you've got to say. No, the heaviest ridership is south of Myrtle Wyckoff (meaning the side closer to the city). And WHO is saying ANY of those people would be transfering to the M/V? It's irrelevant to them, but many of the M transplant WOULD forgo getting off their M trains and staying on the new M/V. This isn't about getting L people off the L, it's about keeping M people on the M at Myrtle Wyckoff and OFF the L. Here are ridership figures on the L line (as of 2008): From 8th Avenue to Myrtle-Wwckoff: 8th Avenue: 11,568,852 6th Avenue: 15,304,268 Union Square: 35,545,653 3rd Avenue: 1,825,033 1st Avenue: 6,201,745 Bedford Avenue: 6,504,331 Lorimer Street: 3,831,975 Graham Avenue: 2,727,719 Grand Street: 2,075,718 Montrose Avenue: 1,747,376 Morgan Avenue: 1,664,668 Jefferson Street: 1,569,253 DeKalb Avenue: 3,329,950 Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues: 5,230,077 From Halsey Street to Canarsie: Halsey Street: 1,946,762 Wilson Avenue: 1,055,011 Bushwick Avenue-Aberdeen Street: 366,270 Broadway Junction: 2,937,794 Atlantic Avenue: 386,672 Sutter Avenue: 1,104,244 Livonia Avenue: 691,560 New Lots Avenue: 1,072,250 East 105 Street: 1,017,671 Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway: 3,773,940 Saying that you would want to keep M riders off the L is a irrevelant thing to say. The reason why the section from 8th Avenue to Myrtle-Wyckoff sees a lot of ridership is due to a higher consentration of people. The stations south sees a lower amount of ridership is due to a lower concentration of people living in those areas. Bill from Maspeth nailed on the head. Stop bringing up the M and V combo just because a short section of track isn't being used. Suppose if the MTA decided to server that track, what would you do? |
|
|
| (883760) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:36:51 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:45:18 2010. IAWTP x10. Have a great day and weekend, sir. |
|
|
| (883762) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:38:25 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 04:01:19 2010. The K as Canarsie skip stop idea was early 90's, and the R110B signs even had a gray "K" printed for that (no longer blue). But then, it was sometime later, that I heard that it was changed to "Y". |
|
|
| (883763) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:39:10 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 11:32:52 2010. The renovation of Hewes and Lormier sealed the deal that this would never happen. If it were, those stations would be closed and a new station would have been built as a transfer center. Oh yeah, then y'all be unhappy when the station would be served by local trains only! LOLRegular users of those two stations would have thrown a fit if those two stations were to have been combined. I know people who live in that area, so I should know. |
|
|
| (883765) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:40:43 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Chipper10 on Fri Jan 8 11:35:12 2010. The reason why the M runs on the West End is some of those residences work in Lower Manhattan. That info has been posted here plenty of times. |
|
|
| (883766) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:41:50 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 04:14:27 2010. I wonder if 44's on non-GO reroutes ever got sent through. |
|
|
| (883767) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:41:58 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:33:58 2010. IAWTP |
|
|
| (883769) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:44:18 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:15:39 2010. Of course they can. From either direction. they do it with the shuttle, to turn it back to Manhattan, and there are GO's or delays where they turn there and go back over the bridge.(And the M running normal in the midday, if that was correct, would probably be go9ng to Chambers like it does now anyway). |
|
|
| (883771) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:47:44 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:34:37 2010. Bway-Laf/Bleecker would give the new V service riders the Lexington access they would lose by the M being cut out of Chambers. (though it would be only the local). |
|
|
| (883774) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Chipper10 on Fri Jan 8 15:55:04 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:40:43 2010. But the ridership like I said before is bound for Midtown, look how packed the D train is along the West End Line. |
|
|
| (883776) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Fri Jan 8 15:58:05 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:41:58 2010. I do as well!! |
|
|
| (883783) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 16:15:29 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Chipper10 on Fri Jan 8 15:55:04 2010. Do you have ridership figures that proves you point(s)?Ot of all the South Brooklyn Lines, the Brighton line is number one on that list. |
|
|
| (883787) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Fri Jan 8 16:19:41 2010, in response to Re: Nassau Street loop line, posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:30:38 2010. Make the M a rush hour concession like the old QB...4 or 5 trips from 7:30-8:30AM and 5:30-6:30PM, 4 or 5 trips in each direction between Met and Bay Pky. Otherwise cope with a same-platform transfer at Essex or Myrtle. That should mollify the complainers and not break the bank. |
|
|
| (883812) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:48:15 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:35:43 2010. It's a longer route vs the direct path of the L. The one thing the V-M has going for it will be allowing riders a one seat ride into Manhattan. But the bridge as it is is slow as hell vs the 14th St tunnel.Why don't you show me the math about how it will make a 'MAJOR' difference. |
|
|
| (883813) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:48:52 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by G1Ravage on Fri Jan 8 02:17:21 2010. thanks. |
|
|
| (883815) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:50:43 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:40:43 2010. So if the V-M is combined, they could extend the Z to replace the M on the West End line. Either that or keep the W around and extend that into Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (883816) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:51:50 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:39:10 2010. But if the stations were combined it could've offered a direct connection to the G. As it is now the best they can do now is offer an OOS transfer. |
|
|
| (883818) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:53:51 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 04:08:02 2010. Exactly, if they kept the B5, all they would've had to do is 'shave off' or blot out the 0 of the '50'. I have no idea where they pulled the '82' from. |
|
|
| (883819) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:54:25 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 04:08:02 2010. Exactly, if they kept the B5, all they would've had to do is 'shave off' or blot out the 0 of the '50'*. I have no idea where they pulled the '82' from.*on the old bus stop signs, |
|
|
| (883820) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:56:23 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GrandAvenue on Fri Jan 8 04:23:32 2010. Yeah, they have to make things more confusing. Imo, they should just run the lines as is even if they don't run on the weekends.Either way there's going to have to be posters advising riders of the service changes. |
|
|
| (883822) | |
Re: Running the E as a V during G.O.'s |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:00:14 2010, in response to Re: Running the E as a V during G.O.'s, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 8 04:39:17 2010. True, but that's just 4 extra stops in Queens vs 8 in Manhattan.Plus I would think it'd be easier a transition for the outer borough riders vs those in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (883823) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:01:22 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 7 21:53:10 2010. Same here. |
|
|
| (883825) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:02:00 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 7 21:53:10 2010. Same here. **well actually it was the Dec 2003 one. |
|
|
| (883826) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:03:51 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:06:33 2010. They could either extend the Z to replace the M in southern Brooklyn or keep the W and run it to Bay Pkwy. |
|
|
| (883829) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:10:22 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:34:37 2010. THey would never cut the connection, as it is, it is useful for non-revenue moves between divisions. |
|
|
| (883830) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jan 8 17:11:27 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:03:51 2010. They could either extend the Z to replace the M in southern Brooklyn or keep the W and run it to Bay Pkwy.Wouldn't that negate the cost savings? |
|
|
| (883831) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 8 17:11:34 2010, in response to Re: Nassau Street loop line, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Fri Jan 8 16:19:41 2010. This is a good suggestion. Who says that to get the M/V combination that it has to be an all or nothing operation.Yes, there are riders who will benefit from the M/V combination, and riders who will be inconvenienced by the new route. It is not hereasy to say that the some riders will benefit from such a change, and some riders prefer the current operations. At the present it seems that a possible M/V combination, has to be combined with a "Doomsday Plan", instead of considered on its own merits, and the needs of the various groups of riders. Which then pushes the notion that it is an "either / or" situation. Mike |
|
|
| (883832) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:11:56 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jan 8 02:19:34 2010. I agree. Isn't the only obstacle the Metropolitan av station? |
|
|
| (883834) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 17:20:03 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:28:11 2010. The route would still have been more properly called a "AA" since the original IND lettering scheme applied to the combination of the north branch line with the Manhattan trunk line. Thus A/AA indicated a train operating from Washington Hts via 8 Av, B/BB would be Was Hts/6 Av, C/CC would be Concourse/8 Av etc all regardless of the trains south branch line. With the abolition of the double letter system, the MTA has thrown that out the window by assigning the formerly Concourse C to a Wash Hts route and the formerly Wash Hts B to a Concourse route. If the MTA planners had any sense which they definitely do not, they could have assigned the letter H to the Wash Hts/Fulton service since the H designation (originally HH) indicated a Fulton St local which originally never left Bkln but which could have been used for the existing C service without upsetting any traditions. The B could have been given the K designation since That letter has been used for a couple of different services and does not really have a long standing tradition like the other letters do. |
|
|
| (883836) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 17:22:01 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Eric B on Fri Jan 8 15:38:25 2010. The change to Y might have made some sense and the K could then have been applied to some other route to avoid confusion. |
|
|
| (883838) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 17:24:11 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 16:53:51 2010. According to the so called Director of Surface Service Planning the idea was that a new number would stand out as a notice to the riding public that this was a"new" service which it really wasn't. |
|
|
| (883863) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:45:57 2010, in response to Re: Nassau Street loop line, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 18:31:58 2010. Still would not be in favor of it. Just have the trains use the tunnel. There's more than enough capacity there. |
|
|
| (883868) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:48:18 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jan 8 13:14:19 2010. Which could mean they could keep the W and run that into Brooklyn in place of the M. The only other option would be to give the J some R32s to run in 8-car sets to have free up R160 sets for the V-M line. |
|
|
| (883870) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:49:51 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Fri Jan 8 17:24:11 2010. :smh: Well thanks again. |
|
|
| (883877) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 8 17:52:49 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jan 8 17:11:27 2010. For rush hours they're going to extend Q's to Queens and shift the N over as the local, so the W above Canal won't be missed.Also assuming there's still a demand for Lower Manhattan service from Southern Brooklyn, the W would help the R in the absence of the M. Of course they could just boost R service, but I kinda doubt that would happen. |
|
|
| (883893) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 18:28:41 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:06:33 2010. It would also make the loss of M service thru Dekalb Ave. permanent. I doubt they will be able to take away service thru Chrystie after re-introducing it again.I think that is why they have been reluctant to even restart that service. Many people don't even no that service is possible. The neighborhoods have changes so much since the last time that service was there. Once the Christie service is given back again, I agree, they would never be able to take it away again. |
|
|
| (883894) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 18:28:48 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:06:33 2010. It would also make the loss of M service thru Dekalb Ave. permanent. I doubt they will be able to take away service thru Chrystie after re-introducing it again.I think that is why they have been reluctant to even restart that service. Many people don't even no that service is possible. The neighborhoods have changes so much since the last time that service was there. Once the Christie service is given back again, I agree, they would never be able to take it away again. |
|
|
| (883898) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 18:42:06 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Fri Jan 8 15:34:37 2010. WTF does the Broadway-Lafayette Street/Bleecker Street have anything to do with the BMT Eastern Division? I would love to hear what you've got to say.I was RESPONDING to a thread that said the M/V would not have an east side connection. But BRoadway-Lafayette is going to have a full connection to Bleecker St. The M/V (an Eastern Division train) will stop at Broadway-Lafayette as the next station after Essex St. Uhm, sounds like the Eastern Division has something to do with Broadway-Lafayette....this topic, and the POST I was responding to. Apology accepted. Here are ridership figures on the L line (as of 2008): I know, isn't that what I said, that the line is busier south of (closer to the city) side of Myrtle and Wyckoff. What's your point? Saying that you would want to keep M riders off the L is a irrevelant thing to say. The reason why the section from 8th Avenue to Myrtle-Wyckoff sees a lot of ridership is due to a higher consentration of people. The stations south sees a lower amount of ridership is due to a lower concentration of people living in those areas. Uhm, I know that. What does that have to do with what I said? I SAID (if you reread my post), that this has NOTHING to do with "getting L riders to take the M", and that the new line is IRRELEVANT to L riders on the busiest part of the line, on the city side of Myrtle/Wyckoff. That part of the line is OVERBURDENED. It is OVERBURDENED WORSE with M line riders abandoning their line at Wuckoff, and cramming onto the ALREADY busiest part of the L LINE, as all those stations, already busring at the seams, don't need M riders making it even more busy. So YES, it is HIGHLY relevant to the M line. HIGHLY. This plan keeps more of them ON THEIR TRAIN upstairs, instead of them abandoning it at Myrtle/Wyckoff. The rant you went on about "concentration" of people along the L line is the thing that's "irrelevant" to this discussion, aside from saying what I ALREADY SAID, that the busiest part of the L line is on the city side of Myrtle/Wyckoff...and I SAID we want to keep M trains away from that if we can....and on their own train. THAT is how it will alleviate the L, it has NOTHING to do with grabbing any of the L riders away from the L, only the M riders away from the L. |
|
|
| (883900) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 8 18:45:15 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 8 15:02:12 2010. Yup...that's the trip! It began at Chambers....went to Metropolitan....went to Essex....went to West 4th St....down to Roackaway Park....Lunch.....Far Rockaway....and the train broke down at Howard Beach....and ended there. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 12 |
||
