(M)/(V) combo maybe happening in the future?

[BroadwayBuffer]

Although I'd love to see some new inventions, the new route would have more stops than the ; it would be less expensive to change all the (M)s to (V)s than change every symbol and every symbol to an orange . Thus, the is likely to stay.

 

You're overlooking something ... if the route were to change, ALL stations signs indicating the terminal and other information will have to be changed anyway. Every station from CTL to MET would have to have their signs changed. As for the entrances, no big deal, they use stickers over the old bullets. All of the Broadway Line station entrances have "(W)" stickers placed after the "(N) ®" which were the only routes on Broadway during the time of the station renovations and new signs at the entrances. The same would be done to accommodate ANY kind of service change here.

[Forest Glen]

I'm just shocked that they're actually going to use Chrystie Street.

[Art Vandelay]

The V is an established 6th ave line route designation. The M is an established Nassau line route designation. As the new line will be running down 6th avenue, V makes sense as the designation to use.

 

Current V riders could catch the V, and with the exception of one station, the V will be the same for them.

 

Current M riders, if the combined route were to be called M, would get sent to another trunk than would be expected.

 

Other issues are that the V is already orange, the M is not. Route bullets are premade. We would have to order new bullets to change this. Also, V to metropolitan is already programmed into the R160s. M to Continental is not. on R32/R42 signs, V trains are orange, "Via 6 avenue" on the R32. M is brown, with the R32s displaying "Nassau".

 

The V is the route which isnt changing, and is the route for which minimal work needs to be done for this to work with.

[Grand Concourse]

Right, but again, what if they just reprogram the R160s to show an orange M? You would solve the problem about the orange M if the entire line was R160 only and give the J the R32/R42s, since they have signs for the J.

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[SubwayGuy]

Not literally 'shorter' but 60-foot cars, pretty obvious because it'd need to run on the Eastern Div.

 

Wrong! Eastern Division platforms can only platform an 8 car train of 60 footers, which means that trains that run there must be 480 feet instead of the usual 600 feet which applies to the rest of the B Division.

[INDman]

Wrong! Eastern Division platforms can only platform an 8 car train of 60 footers, which means that trains that run there must be 480 feet instead of the usual 600 feet which applies to the rest of the B Division.

 

Some people will never learn....

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[Zman]

Not only that, but the expensive part is not about the 'Stickers' it is about the station signage and the would not only need to change the station signage, they have to completely go all over the eliminated portion of the to remove and possibly replace the station signs. The extending to Forest Hills just makes more sense and clarity.

 

It would be a lot easier to notify the thousands of passengers along the line of the line name change and reroute than it would to notify the 1+ million people who use the Queens Blvd corridor of the line name change. Queens Blvd and Lexington Ave are the system's two busiest corridors, the Nassau St Line has the lightest usage of any non-shuttle corridor.

 

IF this were to be implemented, I am for the designation of the route to be .

 

As far as the station signs go, that's why they have stickers. They'll just cover over the current signs, including blacking out the signs in South Brooklyn.

[RTOMan]

There is already a (V)ictor route programmed into the R160's going from Met to 71st Ave...

[m7zanr160s]

The V is an established 6th ave line route designation. The M is an established Nassau line route designation. As the new line will be running down 6th avenue, V makes sense as the designation to use.

 

Current V riders could catch the V, and with the exception of one station, the V will be the same for them.

 

Current M riders, if the combined route were to be called M, would get sent to another trunk than would be expected.

 

Other issues are that the V is already orange, the M is not. Route bullets are premade. We would have to order new bullets to change this. Also, V to metropolitan is already programmed into the R160s. M to Continental is not. on R32/R42 signs, V trains are orange, "Via 6 avenue" on the R32. M is brown, with the R32s displaying "Nassau".

 

The V is the route which isnt changing, and is the route for which minimal work needs to be done for this to work with.

 

Well said.

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[Eric B]

Well said.

I second that.

Another thing that has not even been brought up is the awkwardness of the route as far as direction. Met will become a southern terminal, and you'll have "southbound" (V)'s running on the same track/same direction as "northbound" (J)'s. I kind of thought that would be one reason might not want to run the line, though to outsiders it would seem to be a silly reason.

Since it was (M)'s north terminal, but now it's becoming a new route's southern termina, it would make more sense as a simple extension of the , whose southern terminal is near Essex, rather than a total rerouting and reorienting of the .

 

Also, if they were to later restore some sort of service to Bay Pkwy (It would have to be to Chambers, not Essex), that would likely be . I had tossed around the idea of , but that's only if the still runs to Met.

[asidrane]

Does anyone else ride the M in south brooklyn, or am I the only one who would miss seeing it on 4th ave? The M to Chambers St for an uptown 4/5 transfer is a really nice way to get to the east side.

[INDman]

Does anyone else ride the M in south brooklyn, or am I the only one who would miss seeing it on 4th ave? The M to Chambers St for an uptown 4/5 transfer is a really nice way to get to the east side.

 

The only time I have taken the is when I have been waiting for the at 9th Street and I am going to Bay Ridge. The few times I have taken it from Manhattan to South Brooklyn, there are very few people on the train. When it goes North Bound during the evening rush, at Court Street the train is empty.

[LRG]

Does anyone else ride the M in south brooklyn, or am I the only one who would miss seeing it on 4th ave? The M to Chambers St for an uptown 4/5 transfer is a really nice way to get to the east side.

 

I've taken the on certain occasions as well, and most of the time, it is empty between Downtown Brookyln and manhattan but it is helpful in terms of traveling along Fourth Avenue if so one does not have to wait for the .

[asidrane]

Yeah, the train is very empty along 4th ave, I guess that's part of why I like it and part of the reason why the mta might eliminate it. It is a shame though, because just the R running local would not allow for many options along 4th ave

[LRG]

EDIT: Never mind.

[fishmech]

Well, that would be the classic O service I imagined, and it'll be very fun while interesting. Maybe counter-clockwise trains could run as the and clockwise could run as the , !

 

I support the (M)/(V) Circle service!

[NX Express]

Exactly, since I grew an attachment to the , it is the only line in the Eastern Div. that I could actually use and use it usefully. The is just a plain rubbish that the put up as an excuse to cut the Line which they are planning for years. The has a clean histroy and the has a dirty one. Oh, god. SO WHAT??????????

 

The main arguement is not about the Main Lines, it is about what is the purpose of a service, like running the only on Late Nites and Weekends, is not clear, the runs all the time, and the is definitely not running the shuttle service because it'll be confusing and crazy. I'd prefer a brown running over the 6th Ave. no matter the rules, the belongs to brown and the belongs to the chopping block.

Tourists will be like WTF? Anyway, after the change, only foamers will care that the OLD route was different.

 

Only partially true, the actually have to replace all the Eastern Div. signs to and cover-up all the (M)'s in Lower Manhattan, while if they did extend the to Forest Hills -71st Ave and eliminate the . Either way, there is still need to spend $$$.

Well, they don't need to change all the QBL and 6 Av station entrances.

 

Yeah, all the Destination Boards need to be change, trains reprogrammed and many more stuff, including eliminating the from 2nd Ave. Which trains? If the , then the program is there. If the others, they are also getting changed anyway.

 

It would be a lot easier to notify the thousands of passengers along the line of the line name change and reroute than it would to notify the 1+ million people who use the Queens Blvd corridor of the line name change. Queens Blvd and Lexington Ave are the system's two busiest corridors, the Nassau St Line has the lightest usage of any non-shuttle corridor.

 

IF this were to be implemented, I am for the designation of the route to be .

 

As far as the station signs go, that's why they have stickers. They'll just cover over the current signs, including blacking out the signs in South Brooklyn.

Thank you. Someone that agrees with me:)

Comments in red

[Cross Harbor RR]

There is already a (V)ictor route programmed into the R160's going from Met to 71st Ave...

 

Exactly, which explains several sets that I seen in E.N.Y. Yard with them signed up as (V)ictor, or it could be just you, and your partner in crime just playing around with trains

[lilbluefoxie]

Is it THAT expensive to keep the current configuration going? even if <M> now goes only to Broad or Chambers St

[Zman]

I know, but you people are NOT stating what will happen on Late Nites and Weekends, the DOES NOT run on Late Nites and Weekends. The DOES...

 

Your obsession with the designation is bordering on the irrational.

 

Whatever a line currently does, or however it currently operates, has absolutely nothing to do with what it will do nor how it will operate in the future. The is currently a weekday line, but could be converted to a 7 day a week line in the event of the plan implementation. The would become the . On weekends and late nights the shuttle would become the shuttle. It's not hard to figure out. If we were to put your thinking into use, then the world would have come to an end when the ( and swapped northern terminals. No...wait a minute...maybe not, because you'd still have the C running on 8th Ave during rush hours only. Things change, that's the way it goes.

 

...so what will happen on Late Nites and on weekends is that the will still run a full length route since the orange designation means the needs to run on 6th Ave. during all opeartion times.

 

Do you ever think your posts over before you hit the send button? Seriously.

Does the run all night on Lexington? Does the ( run on weekends and nights? Does the run under Broadway at 3 am? Does the hit Nassau St on a Sunday? Let me know, ok? I'll be drinking this can of Throwback Pepsi while you go find out.

[fishmech]

Lefferts Boulevard service becomes an late nights when the stops running to it. I see no reason that another part-time couldn't be created for when the isn't running.