Maserati7200 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #51 Posted July 20, 2009 If the had the same, or similar frequency as the , that wouldn't be a problem.The can stay terminating in Manhattan right where it does. Still though, there's a difference in stopping express service where it already exists, and introducing an express service where it isn't necessary. You do realize that the ran express there until the late 70's, right? And yes, during the rush hour in peak direction, it is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted July 20, 2009 Share #52 Posted July 20, 2009 Not its not. Ridership statistics would show that an additional line isn't needed. The line is fine as is. If the would to run alongside with the in Brooklyn, those trains would be empty as hell. You are just showing yourself that you know nothing about ridership patterns. I can only see the as either an express or a local, with the vice versa. But would it be necessary if the is a local? Do you need two locals? I don't think so. The does need extra service, I'll say that much. Maybe it should borrow some cars from CI like what the does, but I don't want to get into that right now. The main point is that there is no reason the needs to be in Brooklyn if the does a fine job as it is doing right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted July 20, 2009 Share #53 Posted July 20, 2009 You raise a point... That's probably the only upside. (about Delancey).. however, you tinker w/ that F in Brooklyn (esp. in Park Slope) and those ppl. will raise HELL... no question in my mind... anyway, let's take a look at the bigger picture as far as the F is concerned... during the AM rush, there are more F riders coming from Queens than there are from Brooklyn (into Manhattan)....during the PM rush, subsequently, there are more F riders heading towards Queens than there are heading towards Brooklyn... ^^ I know you're not saying this, but I'm still going to make a general statement here... this idea that no one rides the V along it's current route, is ignorant... I think ppl. in general still have this mentality of the V line.... It's not about there being no ridership anywhere on the line. It's between W4 and 2nd Ave. where it is almost empty, as it is only serving two more stations. Then, yes, that is the reverse peak direction from Quieens in the PM, so the frequencly is likely a btlonger as it is, and then, as I mentioned, the delays in Queens that often tie up the . I'm sure those Park Slope riders would rather have the less crowded, and usually undelayed to take to their stops, than to have to wait for the crowded . So the being extended would actually balance the loads. And those past 7th Ave. would also have the option of taking the and changing to either a or at that station. B35 via Church, thank you very much. People have to remember, the bulk of the line's ridership is in Manhattan and Queens. Adding an additional line along the Culver line would be a huge money waster. I have never seen a crush loaded anywhere south of Church Avenue. Even though this letter did say it was going to Kings Hwy; most of us are nt arguing the should go south of Church. Since it said rush hourse, those (V)'s from KHY would probably be putins from the yard (replacing current putins, being the would become two-ended and not only lay up at JYD) anyway, so they would have to have come from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfkdepot09 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #54 Posted July 20, 2009 WTH is up with this sarcasm? Save it, please! It's bad enough Zman did it. We don't need anyone else ruining the integrity of the forums, thank you. .............ummmmm yea u need to lighten up kid its a joke and I do not think I gonna or am ruining the forum.....as u see for ur self the forum got a upgrade (it looks good by the way great job) ..........anyway take a chill pill kid its was only a joke ...I hop ur not this uptight in real life ..wow!!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #55 Posted July 20, 2009 Well the plan only sees extended hours of the until 1 a.m., so the will be inactive until 6 in the morning. But if this is the case, then maybe the may just be unnecessary. But what got me irate was that people thought of making the Lefferts the . That's like having three trains in Brooklyn, which would be pointless. My plan would have almost LESS trains on the road because there would be increased service to Far Rockaway and increased service on the but because the would be Manhattan Express then there will virtually be less trains, and the leftover cars would become the , even if there would need to be 8-car trains. I'm still working on my plan because I feel that Eighth Avenue needs two expresses and two locals and its absurd to let three trains pass before a comes. I'll continue on the train proposal thread as more thoughts develop so stay tuned. The Eighth Avenue line has two locals at all times right now, and with extending the to 1AM, will continue to have 3 trains on the track below 59th St () all weeknights until 1AM. From 1AM to 6AM, no is needed, as the total demand for local service can easily be met by the and the . Remember this is also the time the Euclid Avenue-Lefferts Blvd shuttle runs, and there are very few riders getting on at the Fulton St local stations, so it makes sense to have the Far Rockaway running local in Brooklyn and Queens. Also, a local in Manhattan below 59th loses very little time, since there are only 3 local stations in that part of Manhattan (50th, 23rd and Spring St), and the train spends little time in each station as there are very few people getting on/off. So you really cannot demand an express service at these times, or a new local service. Weekdays the and can successfully handle all express riders above 59th St, especially middays and evenings, so there is no real need for a express uptown either. I sometimes take the downtown (southbound) during PM rush hours, and almost always find a seat. Thus, I am almost certain that the and successfully handles all local traffic below 50th St. Having a new local would make very little sense, especially middays and evenings, when the local riders cannot even fill the to half capacity. Making the express will increase ridership on the , but will never provide enough of a rationale for a local. Of course, as I said in my previous post, the has to run local during rush hours to keep the express track clear and prevent overcrowding on the . The does run sufficient numbers of trains during rush hours: every 4-5 minutes on the southbound track during PM rush hours from 4:00-5:30PM, and every 6-7 minutes thereafter. The trouble is mainly that most of the time, the first train to arrive doesn't go to the southern terminal that I want. The was cited the worst line in large part due to (in)frequency of service. All you really need is for the to run 2 or 3 more trains during rush-hour peak direction (i.e. 10 TPH instead of 7). This is mainly an issue with a car shortage and not inherently a problem with lack of enough service marks. Like I said, you cannot possibly have also running on the express along with 12-13 trains per hour. The only possible change I would propose is this: the runs express between 168th and 59th St late nights and weekends, and some kind of shuttle transfers the local station riders between 59th and 168th St to connect to the or . All I really care about is extending the to Lefferts Blvd from 6AM to 1AM, and keeping the shuttle from 1AM to 6AM, and redirecting all service (barring rush hour peak direction) to the Rockaways. Creating extra express service in Manhattan is not a precondition for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maserati7200 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #56 Posted July 20, 2009 Not its not. Ridership statistics would show that an additional line isn't needed. The line is fine as is. If the would to run alongside with the in Brooklyn, those trains would be empty as hell. You are just showing yourself that you know nothing about ridership patterns. Hahaha, you're insults won't phase me. Try that on someone else. You just so happen to be talking to a resident of Midwood who uses the during the PM rush. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever rode a Brooklyn/CI bound from lower Manhattan to Brooklyn during the weekday PM rush between 5 and 6 PM? I don't think you have, otherwise you would be supporting an express plan. Lemme tell you, if you ride a CI bound local on that local track, I can promise you you will be behind schedule. I'm waiting at Jay street for 15 minutes, finally an comes, but guess what! It's packed to the bone! Not everyone could get on and have to wait for the next train. And no, this is not once in a while or occasionally this is almost every weekday. 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. By adding the in Brooklyn, you are relieving the heavy crowds on the . It's only needed during rush hours. Thats why I believe the should be in Brooklyn along with the during the rush hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted July 20, 2009 Share #57 Posted July 20, 2009 You have demonstrated that you are an idiot. I have been on the going to Coney Island plenty of times during the PM rush. The only reason why you want the damned train to go to Brooklyn is so that you won't have to go to Manhattan just to ride it. If the is ever extended southward, I'll change the MTA's mind in a heartbeat. How do you know the will be empty if it goes to Brooklyn? It hasn't been tested yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted July 20, 2009 Share #58 Posted July 20, 2009 How do you know the will be empty if it goes to Brooklyn? It hasn't been tested yet. The only way is to find out! The may have to run a pilot program to either Kings Highway or Church Avenue for an hour or so to see if the service can become permanent. But the MTA will need money for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 20, 2009 Share #59 Posted July 20, 2009 You do realize that the ran express there until the late 70's, right? And yes, during the rush hour in peak direction, it is necessary. This aint the 70's... No way does that justify there being a need for the F to run express in Brooklyn & the V to run local (or, anywhere) in Brooklyn. btw, You still have yet to tell us this "huge" benefit you spoke of in an earlier post. It's not about there being no ridership anywhere on the line. It's between W4 and 2nd Ave. where it is almost empty, as it is only serving two more stations. Then, yes, that is the reverse peak direction from Quieens in the PM, so the frequencly is likely a btlonger as it is, and then, as I mentioned, the delays in Queens that often tie up the . I'm sure those Park Slope riders would rather have the less crowded, and usually undelayed to take to their stops, than to have to wait for the crowded . So the being extended would actually balance the loads. And those past 7th Ave. would also have the option of taking the and changing to either a or at that station. I didn't say YOU said there was no ridership on the V. Anyway, I'm sure those group of riders would like/choose the option of a less crowded train... anytime you introduce another line somewhere, some riders will take the extended line - I'm not saying V's will be 100% empty just b/c.... but when you say balance, I hope you don't mean that 50% of current Brooklyn F riders will opt to take V's.... b/c I can't picture that happening w/ the current ridership patterns of the F right now.... and yep, I know what you're talking about, when the V hits West 4th (southbound)... I sometimes take the F train home (I get on @ W 4th) & see those V's.... Yes, F's are crowded heading in that direction b/c they're heading to Brooklyn, while V's are not... I don't get the sense/feeling, looking at the level of crowding on the F, that it needs a supplementary line heading into Brooklyn... I just don't.... Like I told another poster, if F's ran as frequently as 7's did, and ridership were bursting @ the seams along the Culver (before F's get to Church av, NB), then I could possibly see a necessity for a V extension... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 20, 2009 Share #60 Posted July 20, 2009 Lemme tell you, if you ride a CI bound local on that local track, I can promise you you will be behind schedule. from lower manhattan to Brooklyn... Yes, the F is subject to delays... ever occur to you that the G could maybe... just maybe be a cause for that... or maybe even another preceding F that's behind schedule for what ever the reason.... I'm waiting at Jay street for 15 minutes, finally an comes, but guess what! It's packed to the bone! Not everyone could get on and have to wait for the next train. And no, this is not once in a while or occasionally this is almost every weekday. @ Jay st, yes, I can vouch for this... this is true... southbound F's at that point are still crowded.... However, that crowd starts to dissipate b/w Bergen st & Church av... south of Church, F's are not that crowded to the tune where the V is needed..... 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. at least 2 trains... lol... surely you can build a stronger argument than that.... and those kings hwy F trains... that's due to Stillwell only being able to handle but so many F's..... 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. By adding the in Brooklyn, you are relieving the heavy crowds on the . It's only needed during rush hours. Thats why I believe the should be in Brooklyn along with the during the rush hour. Congestion on the F is not extreme during those (or, any) hours in Brooklyn (quite frankly, congestion on the F is worse in Queens, but that's something else)... You are exaggerating with that... Yeah F service is slower during rush hours; tell me one trunk line in manhattan that isn't generally slower (or any faster) during the rush vs. the non-rush hrs.... This is all about preference with you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share #61 Posted July 20, 2009 Thank you B35 for some reality to the situation. Look, how does arguing on a forum get people's point across? Hudson River's letter made more of an impact than any of this stupid bickering about topics that have been "discussed" or rather fought about every 2 weeks for the past 3 months ever will. If it really bothers you that there is no Brooklyn V or no express F, send Roberts a letter yourself, call it a day, enjoy the free Metrocard and shut the hell up about it on the forums. Look I'm not trying to be a prick about it, but a group of us that post here read the threads all the time and it gets to the point where we are literally shaking our heads every time we open up a thread and see anywhere in the thread. Besides Aren't there R160 moves and "highest car number" discussoins and fights about what equpiment will be where in 2018 to argue about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted July 20, 2009 Share #62 Posted July 20, 2009 This thread is now closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.