NYC Subway Map gets Updated!(July 2009)

[Maserati7200]

V train need to go Brooklyn or it is worthless

 

Thats a bold statement.

 

The is definitely not worthless. I can't count how many people simply ride it from 6th Avenue to Lex/53rd. Now that the is via 63rd, the still has the connection to the and the 53rd street line.

[Far Rock Depot]

i can say this though, being slightly off-topic, chrystie cut serice wuould come in handy during rush-hours.

Back on topic....

we can only see how utilized the to church during the next 4 years and also see what the will do with the

Express service?

for what? to skip about 5 stops? i dont see it being extremely needed. maybe if they wanted to keep the to church and releive some congestion at Bergen St from switching delays between and trains.....

But not much.

[mark1447]

V train need to go Brooklyn or it is worthless

 

R u kidden me?? The is not worthless, So if Im at Queens Plaza to 53rd/5th and want 6th ave, why use the to the when the provides an alternative. Since the needs to head over 63rd street.

 

Plus here we go again with the to brooklyn. Not gonna happen, no money, just pointless, You can use the instead. Plus the is already using the line up to church as of July 5th due to Culver Viaduct project..

 

keep wishing, come up with some money(over a million dollars_ and lets see if the will focus on the to bklyn..

[Forest Glen]

I would talk about how I hate the being on 63rd and how I miss being able to transfer from the to the , but certain people may be offended.

[mark1447]

Good to see someone is using their brain. IAWTP

 

 

Well someones gotta say sumin, Everyone keeps talking the same bull about the , like its rly gonna happen. I wonder who was the one who invented the to brooklyn. And removing the off 53st line.. Come on.. Same crap with the R179/R188.. Yadda yadda. oh boy..

[Trainmaster5]

Well someones gotta say sumin, Everyone keeps talking the same bull about the , like its rly gonna happen. I wonder who was the one who invented the to brooklyn. And removing the off 53st line.. Come on.. Same crap with the R179/R188.. Yadda yadda. oh boy..

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. BTW It's been a while since and train crews were told to BYPASS 53rd-Lex station because of overcrowding on the platforms. Maybe operations and planning did the right thing in creating the after all.

[mark1447]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. BTW It's been a while since and train crews were told to BYPASS 53rd-Lex station because of overcrowding on the platforms. Maybe operations and planning did the right thing in creating the after all.

 

No problems mr(5). At least until the SAS project completes(When ever that happens, besides 2016 around), which can help out in this East side issue

 

Hopefully the Manhattan 15 bus will fix it up when it becomes BRT..

 

@33rd Street Yup seen it all over.. this and that.. I might just put up suminon my sig one day: No (V)s to Brooklyn, not gonna come true.. DONT ASK!

[Forest Glen]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. BTW It's been a while since and train crews were told to BYPASS 53rd-Lex station because of overcrowding on the platforms.

 

The mezzanine that currently exists at the platform didn't exist back in 2001 when the was created. There was only one exit to the -the escalators at the western end of the platform. That's why the station is less crowded. I'm pretty sure it can handle the . 59 street/Lex handles the and that's a narrower platform.

[Maserati7200]

Honestly, I don't care if the goes to Brooklyn or not. I just want Culver express service. Possibly make a new 8th avenue route go down the culver express. The also seems like a viable solution for this, but so many people here get outraged by hearing the idea.

 

Now I have a question for you people, and please don't be rude. I want to understand your position. We could all have a relaxed discussion about it. Why are you against the going into Brooklyn? It's simply a service increase. How can it hurt you? For the sake of argument, the (V)'s headways would remain the same. Why are you against it.

[mark1447]

Honestly, I don't care if the goes to Brooklyn or not. I just want Culver express service. Possibly make a new 8th avenue route go down the culver express. The also seems like a viable solution for this, but so many people here get outraged by hearing the idea.

 

Now I have a question for you people, and please don't be rude. I want to understand your position. We could all have a relaxed discussion about it. Why are you against the going into Brooklyn? It's simply a service increase. How can it hurt you? For the sake of argument, the (V)'s headways would remain the same. Why are you against it.

 

Cuz theres no point Its not like its the most popular line to get an extra. It cost money of course. It ill feel like the , [before March 2005] and .

 

For the Culver Express, Id keep it Local and Express maybe.. I dunno how will it work tho, hopefully it wont fail like the 1970s pilot they had.

[SubwayGuy]

The mezzanine that currently exists at the platform didn't exist back in 2001 when the was created. There was only one exit to the -the escalators at the western end of the platform. That's why the station is less crowded. I'm pretty sure it can handle the . 59 street/Lex handles the and that's a narrower platform.

 

Yes it did. The only thing that changed with that station is the addition of an extra escalator that is one person wide. Not nearly enough width to fit many more people, and it's not like the platform got any bigger which is the root of all the problems. I remember what it used to be like riding at that station and I know what it's like now. It's certainly far from good but it's a lot better than it used to be. This topic has already been beaten to death in another thread and there is no point in going down that road again.

 

Speculating Car moves/arguments for service changes that aren't going to happen/speculating what car contracts in the future will look like - all this stuff has to go into a new forum called Bucket of Foam because it is hurting the other discussions here...seems like every week 2 topics are dug up from the graveyard of old threads and rebrought back to life and its just the same arguments back and forth over and over again...most of the service change arguments involving some form of M/V combo, culver express, or change to the V...

[SubwayGuy]

Honestly, I don't care if the goes to Brooklyn or not. I just want Culver express service. Possibly make a new 8th avenue route go down the culver express. The also seems like a viable solution for this, but so many people here get outraged by hearing the idea.

 

Now I have a question for you people, and please don't be rude. I want to understand your position. We could all have a relaxed discussion about it. Why are you against the going into Brooklyn? It's simply a service increase. How can it hurt you? For the sake of argument, the (V)'s headways would remain the same. Why are you against it.

 

OK here's the reasonable position. 1) It will cost money. is in financial straits as it is, especially if the economy doesn't pick up which it doesn't look like it's going to with people still defaulting on loans and out of work nationwide because the economy and the stock market are not as related as the news wants you to think. 2) That money will have to come in the form of more fare increases. 3) It won't provide that much of a benefit to run a Culver Express.

 

The only way to Brooklyn even works at all is if all three services run local, and the and turn at Church...Rush hour only for the , like West End , the rest of the time it could terminate at 2nd Ave. But even so the ridership may not quite justify doing that, and that may cause delays at Church turning 2 services while a third continues on. Certainly the costs won't justify it. Sending the express and the local also reduces service to local stations since the runs more frequently than the . Running express service was a great idea many years ago when most people worked in central locations, and local stops didn't see anywhere near as much traffic particularly in outer boros but with the city's growth local stops in the outer boros are very much used stations and it's silly to skip just a handful of them because it won't save much time for express riders and will hurt local riders. Culver Express *MIGHT* save 5-6 minutes tops, that's really not much and certainly not worth the cost.

[Maserati7200]

Cuz theres no point Its not like its the most popular line to get an extra. It cost money of course. It ill feel like the , [before March 2005] and .

 

For the Culver Express, Id keep it Local and Express maybe.. I dunno how will it work tho, hopefully it wont fail like the 1970s pilot they had.

 

OK here's the reasonable position. 1) It will cost money. is in financial straits as it is, especially if the economy doesn't pick up which it doesn't look like it's going to with people still defaulting on loans and out of work nationwide because the economy and the stock market are not as related as the news wants you to think. 2) That money will have to come in the form of more fare increases. 3) It won't provide that much of a benefit to run a Culver Express.

 

The only way to Brooklyn even works at all is if all three services run local, and the and turn at Church...Rush hour only for the , like West End , the rest of the time it could terminate at 2nd Ave. But even so the ridership may not quite justify doing that, and that may cause delays at Church turning 2 services while a third continues on. Certainly the costs won't justify it. Sending the express and the local also reduces service to local stations since the runs more frequently than the . Running express service was a great idea many years ago when most people worked in central locations, and local stops didn't see anywhere near as much traffic particularly in outer boros but with the city's growth local stops in the outer boros are very much used stations and it's silly to skip just a handful of them because it won't save much time for express riders and will hurt local riders. Culver Express *MIGHT* save 5-6 minutes tops, that's really not much and certainly not worth the cost.

 

Something i'd like to get out there: I'm assuming the does not have financial problems and the economy is doing well. I'm talking about the idea itself, not about if the could actually do it financially.

 

Thats not true. The Culver express won't only skip two stations. The full Culver express would be Jay street, Bergen street, 7th Avenue, Church avenue. That means it would skip Carol street, 4th avenue, Smith & 9th, ft. Hamilton pkwy, and 15th street. Thats actually 5 stops. And it will, save more than 5-6 minutes. More like 11-12 minutes. Lemme tell you, if you ride a CI bound local on those local track, I can promise you you will be behind schedule. During the PM rush, at least 2 peak direction (F)'s go "express" (because there are backed up trains along the route) by doing a battery run from 7th to Church. Trains travel painfully slow on the local track, and there is extreme congestion. I don't care what the time table says, during the rush it is dramatically slower. Also if you look at a track map the express tracks take a "short cut" and it saves a lot of time. I can promise with out exaggeration that if the went express on the express track during the rush it would get to Church 10-12 mins faster than the local we have today.

 

Also, there was express service on the IND section of the Culver from 1933 until the late 70's or 80's when there was a signal fire at Jay/Bergen street. There was no problem for 40+ years so there shouldn't be one now.

[SubwayGuy]

Something i'd like to get out there: I'm assuming the does not have financial problems and the economy is doing well. I'm talking about the idea itself, not about if the could actually do it financially.

 

Thats not true. The Culver express won't only skip two stations. The full Culver express would be Jay street, Bergen street, 7th Avenue, Church avenue. That means it would skip Carol street, 4th avenue, Smith & 9th, ft. Hamilton pkwy, and 15th street. Thats actually 5 stops. And it will, save more than 5-6 minutes. More like 11-12 minutes. Lemme tell you, if you ride a CI bound local on those local track, I can promise you you will be behind schedule. During the PM rush, at least 2 peak direction (F)'s go "express" (because there are backed up trains along the route) by doing a battery run from 7th to Church. Trains travel painfully slow on the local track, and there is extreme congestion. I don't care what the time table says, during the rush it is dramatically slower. Also if you look at a track map the express tracks take a "short cut" and it saves a lot of time. I can promise with out exaggeration that if the went express on the express track during the rush it would get to Church 10-12 mins faster than the local we have today.

 

Also, there was express service on the IND section of the Culver from 1933 until the late 70's or 80's when there was a signal fire at Jay/Bergen street. There was no problem for 40+ years so there shouldn't be one now.

 

What is the point of discussing changes "if money didn't matter?" Money DOES matter and that's the main reason for NOT doing this.

 

EVERY person in any kind of decision making role asks themselves the following question before doing ANYTHING: "Do the benefits outweigh the costs" If the answer is yes, do it, if the answer is no, don't do it. Costs matter.

 

By saying "if money didn't matter" you are saying "screw costs" and in that case I will show you a subway system that features a 4 track local/express line on every avenue and major cross street in every one of the five boroughs, and every abandoned station and unused track will somehow get incorporated into this monster system for maximum foaming pleasure and none of it will cost any money because we'll just assume the MTA has endless amounts and can do what they want. And while we're at it they'll unreef all the redbirds and run them again, and expand every yard so that collectively they can store 15,000 cars in the system. After all if money didn't matter why stop at the express?

 

But what's the point of that. Money DOES matter...

[LTA1992]

There is a difference between a G.O. which is only very temporary, and a permanent service pattern.

 

Apparently the fact that i also said "regular service" was completely disregarded.

[Maserati7200]

What is the point of discussing changes "if money didn't matter?" Money DOES matter and that's the main reason for NOT doing this.

 

EVERY person in any kind of decision making role asks themselves the following question before doing ANYTHING: "Do the benefits outweigh the costs" If the answer is yes, do it, if the answer is no, don't do it. Costs matter.

 

By saying "if money didn't matter" you are saying "screw costs" and in that case I will show you a subway system that features a 4 track local/express line on every avenue and major cross street in every one of the five boroughs, and every abandoned station and unused track will somehow get incorporated into this monster system for maximum foaming pleasure and none of it will cost any money because we'll just assume the MTA has endless amounts and can do what they want. And while we're at it they'll unreef all the redbirds and run them again, and expand every yard so that collectively they can store 15,000 cars in the system. After all if money didn't matter why stop at the express?

 

But what's the point of that. Money DOES matter...

 

The reason I don't want to talk about cost because some people here don't want the into Brooklyn because of some reason other than cost. I'd like to know what that reason is. 33rd street said somewhere along the lines before "the should be a Manhattan Queens line only" ?(or something like that. But I guess you don't think that way so I guess it wouldn't apply to you.

Anyway, if you rode the during the PM rush in peak direction, I think you would agree benefit would outweigh the cost. I assure in my earlier post where i described the during the rush, I wasn't exaggerating. I think the should run express at least peak direction rush hours, even though there are 4 tracks. During the rush, it is bad.

 

By the way, I'm not supporting the express because I'm one of those people who want express service on every line. Not every line needs express service. but this one does. I thought the Astoria express was a stupid idea and I also don't think those express tracks north of 96th on the are necessary for daily passenger service.

[SubwayGuy]

The reason I don't want to talk about cost because some people here don't want the into Brooklyn because of some reason other than cost. I'd like to know what that reason is. 33rd street said somewhere along the lines before "the should be a Manhattan Queens line only" ?(or something like that. But I guess you don't think that way so I guess it wouldn't apply to you.

Anyway, if you rode the during the PM rush in peak direction, I think you would agree benefit would outweigh the cost. I assure in my earlier post where i described the during the rush, I wasn't exaggerating. I think the should run express at least peak direction rush hours, even though there are 4 tracks. During the rush, it is bad.

 

By the way, I'm not supporting the express because I'm one of those people who want express service on every line. Not every line needs express service. but this one does. I thought the Astoria express was a stupid idea and I also don't think those express tracks north of 96th on the are necessary for daily passenger service.

 

Well...back to the realities of cost, as an NYC/NYS taxpayer and currently a non TA employee, I don't want my taxes to go up or the fare that I still have to pay for the immediately foreseeable future to go up to fund something whose "need" would have been eliminated by people taking the same train they always take to work, just getting up a few minutes earlier.

 

Especially when SAS is partially funded, the line extension is omitting a very important stop at 40th st and 10th ave, and a lot of key station rehabilitation is needed on the West End/Sea Beach/Culver lines, all of which is unfunded or no plans exist to do

[Maserati7200]

Well...back to the realities of cost, as an NYC/NYS taxpayer and currently a non TA employee, I don't want my taxes to go up or the fare that I still have to pay for the immediately foreseeable future to go up to fund something whose "need" would have been eliminated by people taking the same train they always take to work, just getting up a few minutes earlier.

 

Especially when SAS is partially funded, the line extension is omitting a very important stop at 40th st and 10th ave, and a lot of key station rehabilitation is needed on the West End/Sea Beach/Culver lines, all of which is unfunded or no plans exist to do

 

Your right. Now isn't a good time. But I would like to see it eventually. But who says the will be in this slump forever? A few years ago they had a budget surplus. Hopefully they will soon get full committed funding (whether it be federal, state or city) for operations.

 

A little off topic, I think Bloomberg is the biggest shmuck ever when it comes to the (MTA)'s projects. I think the city is fully funding the line extension, Bloomberg's "pet project". Sure that project would bring expansion, but the SAS has not received much funding from the city. The SAS is way more important and it looks like that c**t doesn't care.

[SubwayGuy]

Your right. Now isn't a good time. But I would like to see it eventually. But who says the will be in this slump forever? A few years ago they had a budget surplus. Hopefully they will soon get full committed funding (whether it be federal, state or city) for operations.

 

A little off topic, I think Bloomberg is the biggest shmuck ever when it comes to the (MTA)'s projects. I think the city is fully funding the line extension, Bloomberg's "pet project". Sure that project would bring expansion, but the SAS has not received much funding from the city. The SAS is way more important and it looks like that c**t doesn't care.

 

Of course he doesn't care about SAS. What is he going to develop on 2nd Ave? On the other hand he views the west side yards, once theyre connected by subway, as an "excellent opportunity" for more mall-ization and bastardization of what this city once was that he can pitch to his rich b**** friends and the yuppie weenies that have taken over almost all of Manhattan in the last 15 years.

[MTR Admiralty]

Jesus Christ people, I was in Washington for 11 days and when I came back and took a good look at every post, I've seen these things:

1. You people need to chill here

2. If you think about of it, it's kinda getting off topic with all this V talk. If you guys want a real debate on the V, make a new topic somewhere else. Don't keep blathering on how much you hate the V, how much you don't want the V to be extended into Brooklyn, how beneficial the contrary will be, or whatever. The point is about the map being edited.

3. We should all put an end to this BS before this thread goes astray. Or shall we have some mods to exert their power here?

4. I have yet to find a fourth point.