Jump to content

No Love for the soon to be dead W line?


Recommended Posts

I don't support cutting the (W) for selfish reasons like wanting my (N) to stay express, but some of you obviously don't ride the Broadway.

Broadway really doesn't need two expresses, like Nel says. First off, the express skips a total of 4 stations (5 if you count 49th), and the time saved is not significant. The Bridge is where most of the time savings come from, and that will remain unchanged. Secondly, in the AM rush, most express riders get off by Union Sq, and not that many people board there. Thirdly, most of the express riders just end up on the express by "default," kinda. If they live on the (N)/®, they're still gonna take the (N) even if it's local. I know I won't be waiting for no (Q) train just because it skips a couple stops. Note that this is from a Brooklyn rider's perspective, but I think travelling to Queens is even easier, since the local and express make basically the same stops, with the exception of those 4 or 5 stops.

 

The Lower Manhattan portion might be troublesome, but there are a few transfers available to other lines ((4)(5) at Union Sq, (J) at Canal) that serve that area along Broadway, so I don't see that much of a problem there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good riddance the (W) should have been eliminated after the bridge construction was completed. The (W) was a luxury never thought Astoria needed two lines and always thought the (N) should be local via broadway.

 

Nel if you saying the (N) should run local via the tunnel at all times as you suggested in earlier threads you will then overcrowd the (Q) and even the (D). Not to mention congestion problems aka congra line between Dekalb and Pacific/Atlantic going from Express-Local tracks and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support cutting the (W) for selfish reasons like wanting my (N) to stay express, but some of you obviously don't ride the Broadway.

Broadway really doesn't need two expresses, like Nel says. First off, the express skips a total of 4 stations (5 if you count 49th), and the time saved is not significant. The Bridge is where most of the time savings come from, and that will remain unchanged. Secondly, in the AM rush, most express riders get off by Union Sq, and not that many people board there. Thirdly, most of the express riders just end up on the express by "default," kinda. If they live on the (N)/®, they're still gonna take the (N) even if it's local. I know I won't be waiting for no (Q) train just because it skips a couple stops. Note that this is from a Brooklyn rider's perspective, but I think travelling to Queens is even easier, since the local and express make basically the same stops, with the exception of those 4 or 5 stops.

 

The Lower Manhattan portion might be troublesome, but there are a few transfers available to other lines ((4)(5) at Union Sq, (J) at Canal) that serve that area along Broadway, so I don't see that much of a problem there.

 

That why the (W) should have stayed at least as a rush hour only train. It kept Astoria riders off the already crowded Lex (4)(5) lines to/from the Wall St area. In the end the (MTA) is only saving $2-3 Million a year (if i read the pdf correct if i wrong correct me guys)which is not a huge savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support cutting the (W) for selfish reasons like wanting my (N) to stay express, but some of you obviously don't ride the Broadway.

Broadway really doesn't need two expresses, like Nel says. First off, the express skips a total of 4 stations (5 if you count 49th), and the time saved is not significant. The Bridge is where most of the time savings come from, and that will remain unchanged. Secondly, in the AM rush, most express riders get off by Union Sq, and not that many people board there. Thirdly, most of the express riders just end up on the express by "default," kinda. If they live on the (N)/®, they're still gonna take the (N) even if it's local. I know I won't be waiting for no (Q) train just because it skips a couple stops. Note that this is from a Brooklyn rider's perspective, but I think travelling to Queens is even easier, since the local and express make basically the same stops, with the exception of those 4 or 5 stops.

 

The Lower Manhattan portion might be troublesome, but there are a few transfers available to other lines ((4)(5) at Union Sq, (J) at Canal) that serve that area along Broadway, so I don't see that much of a problem there.

 

So are you supporting for less express service and MORE local service???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ride the (N),(Q), and (W) all the time. The (W) does get quite full, especially after Astoria Blvd. Removing it would be a bad idea. However the (Q) is going to be sent there, so I guess it will make up for it.

 

It doesn't make up the fact that there will only be ONE express route serving Broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you supporting for less express service and MORE local service???

 

It doesn't make a difference, that's what I was trying to say. I don't see why people insist on keeping two expresses, for the three reasons that I've already mentioned in my previous post.

 

The express is a luxury no matter how I look at it, and it's only natural for it to get cut when times are tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Southern BMT (M2) & (W). 2 Great routes that I will personally miss..:tdown: Bad idea to scrap these routes..

 

I agree, the (W) should've been saved and now (N) service gets screwed over in the process in Manhattan. What I am happy for is that they saved the skip-stop service over the (J)/(Z) lines. I'm not too happy with the (M)/(V) switch but what can you do.

 

I'll be getting my (M2) & (W) train vids and pics at every station soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't make a difference, that's what I was trying to say. I don't see why people insist on keeping two expresses, for the three reasons that I've already mentioned in my previous post.

 

The express is a luxury no matter how I look at it, and it's only natural for it to get cut when times are tough.

 

That would mean that the Broadway Line will have the least amount of total express service than any other trunk line. I cannot see that lasting long at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the (W) should've been saved and now (N) service gets screwed over in the process in Manhattan. What I am happy for is that they saved the skip-stop service over the (J)/(Z) lines. I'm not too happy with the (M)/(V) switch but what can you do..

 

Agreed 100% and thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't make a difference, that's what I was trying to say. I don't see why people insist on keeping two expresses, for the three reasons that I've already mentioned in my previous post.

 

The express is a luxury no matter how I look at it, and it's only natural for it to get cut when times are tough.

 

Actually, it does make a difference, wait and dwell times increase and trains will get more and more crowded than they are now. Trains on the Broadway Line will be held longer because of other trains crossing infront of them, this would cause a slight domino effect in terms of trains being bunched up and behind each other every few mins almost like the Lexington Avenue line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support cutting the (W) for selfish reasons like wanting my (N) to stay express, but some of you obviously don't ride the Broadway.

Broadway really doesn't need two expresses, like Nel says. First off, the express skips a total of 4 stations (5 if you count 49th), and the time saved is not significant. The Bridge is where most of the time savings come from, and that will remain unchanged. Secondly, in the AM rush, most express riders get off by Union Sq, and not that many people board there. Thirdly, most of the express riders just end up on the express by "default," kinda. If they live on the (N)/®, they're still gonna take the (N) even if it's local. I know I won't be waiting for no (Q) train just because it skips a couple stops. Note that this is from a Brooklyn rider's perspective, but I think travelling to Queens is even easier, since the local and express make basically the same stops, with the exception of those 4 or 5 stops.

 

The Lower Manhattan portion might be troublesome, but there are a few transfers available to other lines ((4)(5) at Union Sq, (J) at Canal) that serve that area along Broadway, so I don't see that much of a problem there.

 

agreed 100 percent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the (W) should've been saved and now (N) service gets screwed over in the process in Manhattan. What I am happy for is that they saved the skip-stop service over the (J)/(Z) lines. I'm not too happy with the (M)/(V) switch but what can you do.

 

I'll be getting my (M2) & (W) train vids and pics at every station soon.

 

Im with you with everything you stated.:tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (W) is being cut while the (Z) stays, this blows. I personally think the (W) gets more riders than the (Z) period.

 

The (W) runs all day from Monday to Friday, while the (Z) only exists during rush hours. I don't see much (Z) trains, but I see plenty of (W) train riders and it really takes the load off the (N) and (R).

 

With the (W) being cut, I see the (N) taking some load. Good thing the (Q) is out there to help the (N) at Astoria.

 

The (R) is going to take quite a load for the missing (W) between Canal Street and Whitehall Street.

 

I hope a miracle can save the (W). It did before, I hope it comes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it does make a difference, wait and dwell times increase and trains will get more and more crowded than they are now. Trains on the Broadway Line will be held longer because of other trains crossing infront of them, this would cause a slight domino effect in terms of trains being bunched up and behind each other every few mins almost like the Lexington Avenue line.

 

I just noticed that, your right. (Q)s will have to wait for the (N) to clear upon entering Canal going Queens-Bound, because the (N) will cross to the Local Track, then the (Q) will have to wait for (N)s & ®s to clear above 34 St so the (Q) can run to Astoria via the Local track. And the same for Brooklyn-Bound (Q)s crossing above 34 St, and waiting at Prince for an (N) to cross, or the (N) will wait for the (Q) to clear.

 

Now that brings us to the next question. Will the (Q) run express to/from 57 St/7 Av, or will it do what the current (N) pattern is. Since the (Q) is solo on the Express track, why not go thru express all the way to 57 St, then merge with the (N) & (R)? <-- Are you hearing this (MTA)? This makes sense. Use it!

 

Zach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That why the (W) should have stayed at least as a rush hour only train. It kept Astoria riders off the already crowded Lex (4)(5) lines to/from the Wall St area. In the end the (MTA) is only saving $2-3 Million a year (if i read the pdf correct if i wrong correct me guys)which is not a huge savings.

 

The only problem is that it could be too confusing. Under the proposed plan, the (Q) runs to Astoria rush hours and middays (I'm not sure about evenings) and then is cut back to 57th Street, fairly simple to understand.

If the (W) were to run rush hours, that would mean that the (W) would run rush hours only and the (Q) would extend to Astoria middays only, which could be confusing to some riders, not to mention the (N)'s local/express pattern in Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed that, your right. (Q)s will have to wait for the (N) to clear upon entering Canal going Queens-Bound, because the (N) will cross to the Local Track, then the (Q) will have to wait for (N)s & ®s to clear above 34 St so the (Q) can run to Astoria via the Local track. And the same for Brooklyn-Bound (Q)s crossing above 34 St, and waiting at Prince for an (N) to cross, or the (N) will wait for the (Q) to clear.

 

Now that brings us to the next question. Will the (Q) run express to/from 57 St/7 Av, or will it do what the current (N) pattern is. Since the (Q) is solo on the Express track, why not go thru express all the way to 57 St, then merge with the (N) & (R)? <-- Are you hearing this (MTA)? This makes sense. Use it!

 

Zach

I think ridership at 49th Street justifies the (Q) stopping there when it operates to Astoria. It's probably why the (N) stops there now (since 2004) and why the (W) stopped there when it operated as the Broadway Express (2001-2004) as did the yellow B from 1986-88. Even in 1990, when the (N) ran express in Manhattan and Brooklyn and over the Manhattan Bridge for all of three months, it stopped at 49th Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem is that it could be too confusing. Under the proposed plan, the (Q) runs to Astoria rush hours and middays (I'm not sure about evenings) and then is cut back to 57th Street, fairly simple to understand.

If the (W) were to run rush hours, that would mean that the (W) would run rush hours only and the (Q) would extend to Astoria middays only, which could be confusing to some riders, not to mention the (N)'s local/express pattern in Manhattan.

 

 

No need to extend the (Q) middays the (N) could handle Astoria itself. Midday ridership weekdays is similar to Saturday ridership on most lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That why the (W) should have stayed at least as a rush hour only train. It kept Astoria riders off the already crowded Lex (4)(5) lines to/from the Wall St area. In the end the (MTA) is only saving $2-3 Million a year (if i read the pdf correct if i wrong correct me guys)which is not a huge savings.

 

I agree. Right now Lower Manhattan loses out the most on both ends with the M being sent north and the W being cut. I really think running the W rush hours only would've been fair. The Q is only going to Queens during the rush hours right? And are they sending all of them to Queens rather than short turning some at 57th/7th?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the (Q) is slated to run to Astoria the same hours as the (W). Im sure 57 St/7 Av will only be used as a terminal late nights and weekends. Possibly evenings between 9 and midnight, but other than that. Astoria seems to be the (Q)s new 5 days a week home..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oic, thanks. But agreed with what some have mentioned: Astoria can't turn back both the N and Q lines as they are both pretty frequent. They need to short turn the Q somewhere or else create a major jam at Ditmars.

 

I got you. Because the (W) ran only 9 trains total, and the (Q) has at least what, 9 in each direction, so yeah, maybe your right, that they would only send it up during certain hours or turn some at 57 Street..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about the V line, is the M going to be able to live up to the expectations of the QB line ?

 

The real question is, "is the (M) going to be able to live up to the expectations of those who want midtown?"

 

I bet you dollars to doughnuts that riders will resort to taking the (L) after time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about the V line, is the M going to be able to live up to the expectations of the QB line ?

 

I just don't see them increasing service on the Essex-Metropolitan Av end. That's why I think you might see a decrease on the 6th Av and QB ends.

Which for middays won't be a big deal since a 600' V train is practically empty anyway. But rush hours they need to Boost the R to cover the service cuts in all 3 boroughs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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