V to Metropolitan? It's possible.

[SubwayGuy]

Dumb idea, but: why not just extend the platforms from Essex to Metropolitan to hold 10-car trains?

The only station I think would have a problem would be Metropolitan, but then that way you can have a full 10-car train for the entire line.

 

Because it costs money and this "service change" is proposed with the idea of saving money and cutting costs, not being a "service improvement" per se, and certainly not increasing costs.

[Far Rock Depot]

It could be a , it could be a . 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 and lines will be thrilled. The would also get a break as it would eliminate the majority of the crowds that get on/off at Delancey St.

 

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

 

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

Those were points i wouldve brought up favoring Replacing the with the

 

You opened up a can of worms on SubChat. Those guys consider it a done deal. I don't. All those folks who have to change to the J at Essex will be pissed. The V train will empty out.

 

Should this come to pass, Look for the Brooklyn & Queens politicians in the M line service area make as much noise as Peter Vallone in Astoria over the loss of the W (even though he conveniently ignores the Q taking its' place.

 

I could see the empting at Myrtle more. And less people transfering between the and at Delancey. And sure the may replae the in Astoria. But thats only short term. Vallone isnt that bright at times. When it comes to transit issues, he doesnt do his homework, like most politicians IMO

 

Because it costs money and this "service change" is proposed with the idea of saving money and cutting costs, not being a "service improvement" per se, and certainly not increasing costs.

 

Another good point. it all comes down to the dollar. I will imagine IF the MTA does go thru with this, Its selling point will be direct midtown service via the WillyB. And the majority of rush hour riders transfer between the JMZ and F at Essex/Delancey.

 

And as far as SubChat going "Its a done deal", i have yet to read in this thread here at NYCTF anyone convinced that its a done deal. we here may have our opinions and our own options on a subject like this, but until its posted on MTA.info, its just a "maybe". right? We all know the MTA loves to mess with our heads!

Even though ive noticed a lot of forum members seem to be under around 22 or so(damn i feel old!) LOL

[Grand Concourse]

The only person claiming it as a 'done deal' is the topic starter Chipper 10. Anyone that can think rationally knows that this is just speculation.

Lol, I'm no longer in the 22-yr-old group too. I guess I'm old as well

[SubwayGuy]

Another good point. it all comes down to the dollar. I will imagine IF the MTA does go thru with this, Its selling point will be direct midtown service via the WillyB. And the majority of rush hour riders transfer between the JMZ and F at Essex/Delancey.

 

And as far as SubChat going "Its a done deal", i have yet to read in this thread here at NYCTF anyone convinced that its a done deal. we here may have our opinions and our own options on a subject like this, but until its posted on MTA.info, its just a "maybe". right? We all know the MTA loves to mess with our heads!

Even though ive noticed a lot of forum members seem to be under around 22 or so(damn i feel old!) LOL

 

With TA everything is a "Maybe" until it actually happens.

[m7zanr160s]

I couldn't agree more.

[mark1447]

With TA everything is a "Maybe" until it actually happens.

 

+1!

 

Just like buses, swapping depot. People think buses will stay with some depots forever, but its false.. Just Temporary, if the t/a wants em swapped..

[Cross Harbor RR]

I'm pretty sure it's possible to send the Victor to Metropolitan avenue because lately I have been seeing R-160 equipment signed up as Victor, at Easy New York yard facility.

[R32 3348]

nel070, I think if this becomes reality, the new would make use of Fresh Pond Yard and also have access to Jamaica Yard.

 

Fresh Pond is a small train yard but it serves the (M)'s R160As

Fresh Pond is only a storage/layup yard. The would just be based out of ENY Yard.

What is SRO?

Standing Room Only

They're too busy wasting their money on ordering new buses that aren't even needed at this time. The TA is in the right ordering new subway cars. The bus fleet has a couple of years before an update would even be needed.

All the buses they're retiring right now are on their last legs, except for the 8600s and maybe the 8400-8500s. A vast majority of the O5s that were and are being retired have visible body rot especially along the roof and underside of the bus. Also, since I'm too lazy to go back and quote the other post you made, federal funds are made available for the replacement of buses after 12 years of use. So the minimum life of a bus before replacement is generally 12 years. The 1991 RTS's made it 18-19 years, and the 1996 Orion V's are making it almost 14 years.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to send the Victor to Metropolitan avenue because lately I have been seeing R-160 equipment signed up as Victor, at Easy New York yard facility.

Well, just because it's signed up as doesn't necessarily mean anything. A T/O could've just been playing with the signs.

[Cross Harbor RR]

Fresh Pond is only a storage/layup yard. The would just be based out of ENY Yard.

 

Standing Room Only

 

All the buses they're retiring right now are on their last legs, except for the 8600s and maybe the 8400-8500s. A vast majority of the O5s that were and are being retired have visible body rot especially along the roof and underside of the bus. Also, since I'm too lazy to go back and quote the other post you made, federal funds are made available for the replacement of buses after 12 years of use. So the minimum life of a bus before replacement is generally 12 years. The 1991 RTS's made it 18-19 years, and the 1996 Orion V's are making it almost 14 years.

 

Well, just because it's signed up as doesn't necessarily mean anything. A T/O could've just been playing with the signs.

 

Kris, there were several sets signed up as Victor, and they also have the route programmed in them too, probably back from station distance testing.

[LRG]

ll the buses they're retiring right now are on their last legs, except for the 8600s and maybe the 8400-8500s. A vast majority of the O5s that were and are being retired have visible body rot especially along the roof and underside of the bus. Also, since I'm too lazy to go back and quote the other post you made, federal funds are made available for the replacement of buses after 12 years of use. So the minimum life of a bus before replacement is generally 12 years. The 1991 RTS's made it 18-19 years, and the 1996 Orion V's are making it almost 14 years.

 

So if federal funds are being provided for the replacement of buses, then why is the MTA in the deficit that they are in? They must not be doing something right....

 

I mean, the vast majority of TA projects receive funds. The Fulton Street project received a load of funds last year as part of that so-called stimulus package. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm not entirely sure.

[R32 3348]

They've had the programming for a while (someone posted a pic of a to Metropolitan a year or so ago) but the fact that several sets were signed up as sounds odd. You might be on to something...

[R32 3348]

So if federal funds are being provided for the replacement of buses, then why is the MTA in the deficit that they are in? They must not be doing something right....

 

I mean, the vast majority of TA projects receive funds. The Fulton Street project received a load of funds last year as part of that so-called stimulus package. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm not entirely sure.

A lot of the recent deficits have been caused by miscalculations and budget shortfalls. Last year, and I think the year before too, tax revenue shortfalls were the reason why the (MTA)'s deficit shot up to $1.2 billion in 2009. This year, the $300-$400 million deficit is because of a $200 million miscalculation of expected bailout funds caused by NYS, and another $143 million cut from the state budget. Basically, it's a lack of federal funding, a bad economy, rising fuel prices (this was the case last year), among other things. A lot of the time, projects are often completed over budget too, meaning more unnecessary spending.

[nel070]

A lot of the recent deficits have been caused by miscalculations and budget shortfalls. Last year, and I think the year before too, tax revenue shortfalls were the reason why the (MTA)'s deficit shot up to $1.2 billion in 2009. This year, the $300-$400 million deficit is because of a $200 million miscalculation of expected bailout funds caused by NYS, and another $143 million cut from the state budget. Basically, it's a lack of federal funding, a bad economy, rising fuel prices (this was the case last year), among other things. A lot of the time, projects are often completed over budget too, meaning more unnecessary spending.

 

Agreed and the city and state each year has reduced funding to the mta and other than fares, the mta does not have a steady income source

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This idea is as good as moving the ( to the Brighton line which basically served to cut down on separate part-time routes.

I think that was a good idea. West End line riders had 24-hour service to Manhattan when the ran 24/7 from September 2002 to February 2004. Prior to that, the was a shuttle late nights and weekends and prior to that, the was a late night shuttle between 36th Street and Stillwell. If the returned to the West End line, late-night (and possibly weekend) West End line service would have likely reverted to a shuttle. I doubt West End riders were going to give up their 24/7 service to Manhattan without a fight. So it made perfect sense to send the there.

 

Not only that, but if the returned as the Brighton Local, the would have likely reverted to weekday-only service, leaving the Broadway line with only the and the evenings and weekends. Broadway is more popular than 6th Avenue on weekends, so it's a good thing that Broadway has the , and on weekends. I wouldn't mess with that. I hope no one else would.

[BroadwayBuffer]

I said the would run with the on 4th Av. Even now the is the only local on 4th Av middays and the would just replace the as a rush hour supplemental service.

 

The provided service that went in a different direction (Nassau). The being the same as the in Manhattan probably wouldn't have any higher ridership as the West End does now. And again with the $$$, there would be no point in eliminating that half of the if would only be replaced by another line.

 

I think that was a good idea. West End line riders had 24-hour service to Manhattan when the ran 24/7 from September 2002 to February 2004. Prior to that, the was a shuttle late nights and weekends and prior to that, the ( was a late night shuttle between 36th Street and Stillwell. If the returned to the West End line, late-night (and possibly weekend) West End line service would have likely reverted to a shuttle. I doubt West End riders were going to give up their 24/7 service to Manhattan without a fight. So it made perfect sense to send the there.

 

Not only that, but if the returned as the Brighton Local, the would have likely reverted to weekday-only service, leaving the Broadway line with only the and the evenings and weekends. Broadway is more popular than 6th Avenue on weekends, so it's a good thing that Broadway has the , and on weekends. I wouldn't mess with that. I hope no one else would.

 

Things were different prior to both sides of Manny B reopening. 21 St/Queensbridge was used as a terminal for the at times and for the (Q6) during the times it ran. Now that 63 St is connected with the Qns Blvd Line, 6 Av trains aren't terminating there. The also ran to 168 St/Wash Hts and the to Bedford Pk until the late 90s.

[Luis1985]

Dumb idea??? NOT! It makes perfect sense to extend these platforms! Why was the Eastern Division left with the shortest platforms while all the others were extended??? Sure it may be problematic but this is something the TA should have done from the get go.

 

exactly, if they built stations it like the way the 4 Av Line or any other line, then they can definitely use 10 car trains. it'll be alot nicer if they used R46's and R68/R68A's on those lines, but unfortunately they cant use 75 foot cars either because of the sharp turns (curves) in the tunnel and on the el's.

[Luis1985]

While I do agree the RTSs are probably a few years away from retirement, it also depends on how much longer the O5s have like the CNGs. New buses will be needed either way.

 

I admit I don't ride the M from Essex to Broad st and beyond in the rush hours, but is it really going to impact the J that much if one less line runs to lower Manhattan?

If they ever do combine the V-M, then they can't cut the W as the R alone can't handle Lower Manahttan. And he 4/5 are also crowded as it is. The W must replace the M to Brooklyn.

 

i hear u on that...then if its going to affect the and plan to take out the , then the rush hour service shouldnt be cut.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Things were different prior to both sides of Manny B reopening. 21 St/Queensbridge was used as a terminal for the ( at times and for the (Q6) during the times it ran. Now that 63 St is connected with the Qns Blvd Line, 6 Av trains aren't terminating there. The ( also ran to 168 St/Wash Hts and the to Bedford Pk until the late 90s.

I know. Which is exactly why the current Broadway and 6th Avenue service plans shouldn't be messed with.

[Russ]

So if federal funds are being provided for the replacement of buses, then why is the MTA in the deficit that they are in? They must not be doing something right....

 

I mean, the vast majority of TA projects receive funds. The Fulton Street project received a load of funds last year as part of that so-called stimulus package. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm not entirely sure.

The operational budget is separate from the capital budget.

[Grand Concourse]

i hear u on that...then if its going to affect the and plan to take out the , then the rush hour service shouldnt be cut.

Totally agreed, if the V-M is combined, then that alone should be enough to keep the Z since the M would no longer run to Lower Manhattan. Even though the Z is just a renamed J, it should be kept since service to LM would be reduced.

[Grand Concourse]

Dumb idea??? NOT! It makes perfect sense to extend these platforms! Why was the Eastern Division left with the shortest platforms while all the others were extended??? Sure it may be problematic but this is something the TA should have done from the get go.

 

Yeah, in a perfect world the entire system could hold 10-car trains. And would make things more flexible.

[NX Express]

Yeah, in a perfect world the entire system could hold 10-car trains. And would make things more flexible.

 

In a perfect world the Lex would have 20-car trains, and would be a B Div line.

[Grand Concourse]

Actually Lexington Av north of 33rd St can hold B division width cars [i think], but yeah it would be nice if the entire system can run 600' B division trains. I don't think it needs 20-car trains as that would be too long. A 600' B division car would be an upgrade over a 510' car IRT width train.

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Zman]

I must say that one thing has come to mind that would affect RTO employees directly:

 

Would the new remain in the Queens section, or would it move to the North section to replace the ?

 

I'm gonna try to find out.