Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

40MntVrn

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About 40MntVrn

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree, but interpret this differently. If a train is enroute to a different borough, I'd like announcements to say "This is a X bound Z". Up/Downtown should really only be used in Manhattan. My biggest pet peeve still remains on how they describe express service. A 5 peak-hour express train is very different from a 5 off-peak hour express train.
  2. NYCT is soliciting public comment on how we describe a trains direction and destination. Thought I'd share.
  3. How many set do you reckon are in revenue service?
  4. You're talking around my point. More space on a train provides more space on a train. If more space on a train causes a dramatic drop in need for trains, then headways will be adjusted. Don't artic's provide ~20% more space than their 40-foot counterparts? Might be a bit of a reach to think that a max of 5% more space on a train would be enough for the MTA to reduce headways.
  5. Not trying to bite your head off, but it's this sort of thinking that has kept one of largest transit agencies away from open gangways. London Underground (TfL) does nearly what MTA does with open-gangway sets. It's not a theory. More space on a train is more space on a train. Back when crush loads were still a thing, open-gangways would have provided additional space to straphangers where space didn't exist before. There are just so many other areas to scrutinize. Like: Did CBTC really provide enhance service along the Flushing Line? Where are the benefits of closing the subway each night? Instead, the circuitous question that keeps prevailing: will more space on a train provide more space on train?
  6. I should have been more specific. I find it interesting peak fares are still being collected.
  7. The fact that they still have trains with 'peak' designation is what kills me.
  8. This makes me miss the trackside bar carts and two boots. GCT once had its cheap options too. But building a high-end food hall across the street from another high-end food hall made all the sense in the world.
  9. I'd be surprised if service returns earlier than noon tomorrow for any of the 3 commuter agency's.
  10. No this I don't hate. If there there was a bit adjustments with the traffic lights along Sanford, you'd 1- decrease travel time on the route and 2- remove all of the tight turns the 42 makes and 3- connect to 2 lines vs just the 1. Dont know if Westchester would have the latitude with NYCDOT to have a line connecting two lines tho. I dont think you'd need to make that many modifications with the 7 and 55. I'd just shift the 52 to the areas where the 42 used to serve.
  11. I mean...could you of have said MORE TRUTHS?!?!
  12. Help me understand, how is this not a 42 that is just extended to Port Chester with runs that short-turn at New Rochelle (a variant)?
  13. I get what you're saying here but I can't see how this would drive efficiency. The 42 has ~120 daily trips, compared to the 61's ~50. If you were to extended the 42 north full-time, almost all runs would be nearly empty north of New Rochelle. If you were to extended the 42 north part-time, creating some sort of 42P variant, you'd most likely net the same amount of runs as it currently stands.
  14. Yes. WDOT plans on migrating the entire fleet to hybrid-electric by 2025.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.