Jump to content

V to Metropolitan? It's possible.

Zman

By Zman,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Zman

Zman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not only that, but the TA already announced that the (M) would be shortlined to Chambers St Mon-Fri if the cuts were to go through. By combining the (M) and the (V), it would be a win/win situation for the passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe C

Joe C

Posted
Posted
It could be a (M), it could be a (V). I said before that nothing is official, even though this thread spread like wildfire through a dry forest onto other posting boards.

 

IF this does go through, IMO most of the passengers on the (J) and (M) lines will be thrilled. The (F) would also get a break as it would eliminate the majority of the crowds that get on/off at Delancey St.

 

True,Delancey St does get crowded so this would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3348

R32 3348

Posted
Posted
How can i forge that..

 

Id just leave the (M) and leave the (V) alone! The (M) has been on the t/a for a long time compared to old (V)ictor!

Whether you cut the (M) and extend the (V) to Metropolitan Ave., or cut the (V) and extend the (M) to Forest Hills, is the same exact route. The ONLY difference is the letter. It's not cutting the (M), but all it's doing is cutting the rush hour section to Bay Parkway and the Nassau section of the line.

Meh, I'd rather send it along Grand Ave. and down 69th St. in Queens and connect the (V) with the (M), it'll be much easier and does not need the Chrystie St. Connecter and builds a missing connecting in West-Central Queens and Brooklyn.

 

Except, I also see a problem because the (R) now is having a heavy burden, I'd most likely revive the old Roosevelt Terminal and run a (S) service meaning:

(S) Roosevelt-Metropolitain Connector.

Northern End: Roosevelt Terminal.

Elmhurst Ave.

Queens Blvd.

80th St.

Borden Ave.

Eliot Ave.

Juniper Blvd.

Southern End: Metropolitain Ave.

 

~or just follow the planned Winfield Spur (IND Second Div)~

This is a service cut not a service expansion (technically speaking). It's basically extending the (M) but eliminating the (V) (or vice versa). The (R) will stay the same, but I would assume that the new route would be slightly less frequent (every 6-8 minutes to every 8-10 during the rush).

The whole idea wont work. There is not enough R160 4-car sets if you combined M and V. Unless MTA god knows if the order could be revised.

They could use SMEE's. If the R44s are going then they aren't going to retire the R32s and R42s.

 

Now I see why they wanted to send those 14 R42s to ENY...2 extra trains would help cover the new (M)/(V) route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zman

Zman

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Meh, I'd rather send it along Grand Ave. and down 69th St. in Queens and connect the (V) with the (M), it'll be much easier and does not need the Chrystie St. Connecter and builds a missing connecting in West-Central Queens and Brooklyn.

 

Except, I also see a problem because the (R) now is having a heavy burden, I'd most likely revive the old Roosevelt Terminal and run a (S) service meaning:

(S) Roosevelt-Metropolitain Connector.

Northern End: Roosevelt Terminal.

Elmhurst Ave.

Queens Blvd.

80th St.

Borden Ave.

Eliot Ave.

Juniper Blvd.

Southern End: Metropolitain Ave.

 

~or just follow the planned Winfield Spur (IND Second Div)~

 

On what, a Lego railroad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Princelex

Princelex

Posted
Posted

Wow, that would be quite a route. I think this sounds pretty cool. In a perfect world, the (M) would stay and the (V) would still go to Metropolitan Ave. Its just a damn shame that it would require eliminating the (M) just to make this route a reality, if it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zman

Zman

Posted
  • Author
Posted
In a perfect world, the (M) would stay and the (V) would still go to Metropolitan Ave.

 

In a perfect world:

 

• There would be no poverty

• There would be no hunger

• There would be no wars

• There would be everlasting peace in the Middle East

• There would be no foreclosures and people losing their homes.;)

• The (M) would stay and the (V) would still go to Metropolitan Ave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NX Express

NX Express

Posted
Posted
In a perfect world:

 

• There would be no poverty

• There would be no hunger

• There would be no wars

• There would be everlasting peace in the Middle East

• There would be no foreclosures and people losing their homes.B)

• The (M) would stay and the (V) would still go to Metropolitan Ave

 

In a perfect world nobody would need the subway. Nobody would work!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zman

Zman

Posted
  • Author
Posted
In a perfect world nobody would need the subway. Nobody would work!;)

 

That wouldn't be a good thing. Look at poor Casey Johnson. I think that people need to work in order to have a positive feeling of accomplishment and worth.

 

Besides, we'd still need the subway. Even in a perfect world, you still couldn't park in Manhattan.:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark1447

mark1447

Posted
Posted
Whether you cut the (M) and extend the (V) to Metropolitan Ave., or cut the (V) and extend the (M) to Forest Hills, is the same exact route. The ONLY difference is the letter. It's not cutting the (M), but all it's doing is cutting the rush hour section to Bay Parkway and the Nassau section of the line.

 

 

No it wont be the same. Becuz if the (M) gets cut, people from the Myrtle Line wont have direct access to Nassau St Lines but a transfer to the (J). And of course cutting Brooklyn Service south of Broad.. Same applies going to Queens from the Nassau

 

To add also! If the (V) gets rerouted via Jamaica, then it WILL have to run on Weekends and Late NIghts for the Myrtle Line

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NX Express

NX Express

Posted
Posted
No it wont be the same. Becuz if the (M) gets cut, people from the Myrtle Line wont have direct access to Nassau St Lines but a transfer to the (J). And of course cutting Brooklyn Service south of Broad.. Same applies going to Queens from the Nassau

 

He means cutting the (V) and extending the (M) or vice versa. The only difference between those 2 is the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zman

Zman

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No it wont be the same. Becuz if the (M) gets cut, people from the Myrtle Line wont have direct access to Nassau St Lines but a transfer to the (J).

 

If you stand on the platform at Bway/Myrtle during the AM rush, you'll already see the vagues of people running from the (M) local to the (J) express when the two trains connect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EE Broadway Local

EE Broadway Local

Posted
Posted

One difference would be that the (V) would be eight cars (480 feet long) but this would be similiar to the old (K) which ran (1973-1976) from Eastern Parkway to 57th Street (Weekday rush hours).

 

Another difference would be Essex Street would be the next stop after Broadway-Lafayette Street and Broadway-Lafayette Street would be the next stop after Essex Street.

 

The new (V) would start/end at 71st Avenue and Queens Boulevard underground in Forest Hills, Queens and end/start at Metropolitan Avenue near 69th Street ground level in Middle Village, Queens. That, I think, would be neat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LRG

LRG

Posted
Posted
(V) from Queens, via Bklyn, via Manhattan then back to Queens? wow.

 

can't they just leave everything the way it is? (with the exception of the (:P via Brighton Local and the proposed extension of the (Q) to 96 St/2 Av.)

 

You can say that again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept