Jump to content

The "Cut" is being worked on


Recommended Posts

And if this new (M) fails (which it will), then working on the cut is an entire waste of money.

Why do you think the new (M) will fail? Just curious because I've heard people say a Broadway (Brooklyn)-Sixth Avenue line would work today as compared to the late 1960's/early 1970's when the (KK)/70(K) was tried, changed in mid-stream, then failed.

 

Then:

(KK) 168th Street-Jamaica Terminal to 57th Street-Sixth Avenue 1968-1972 Rush Hours

70(K) "Broadway Junction" to 57th Street-Sixth Avenue 1972-1976 Rush Hours

 

Today:

(M) Middle Village-Metro Avenue to Forest Hills-71st Avenue via Sixth Avenue local 6am-11pm weekdays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply
And if this new (M) fails (which it will), then working on the cut is an entire waste of money.

 

I don't know if it'll fail (I personally think the (M) a good idea, in theory), but this isn't a good start for the (MTA)'s new pet project.

 

If history tells us anything, this isn't going to end well (for those of us who's date of birth is after 1967, the (K)(K))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it'll fail (I personally think the (M) a good idea, in theory), but this isn't a good start for the (MTA)'s new pet project.

 

If history tells us anything, this isn't going to end well (for those of us who's date of birth is after 1967, the (K)(K))

 

Well, the city has changed in those years.

 

Why people hate the (M) so much is hard to explain. For every idea, there's always someone who hates it.:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the city has changed in those years.

 

Why people hate the (M) so much is hard to explain. For every idea, there's always someone who hates it.:confused:

 

The reason why I don't like the concept of the (M) is because of the circumstances involved in regards to its creation. There have been (M2)/(V) morons for years at SubChat and at SubTalk before it folded who just don't understand that ridership has never warranted for the connector to be used. Ever. There's a fine alternative to Midtown and it's the (L) train, more efficient and faster than the (M) would ever be.

 

You're drinking the MTA's Kool-Aid. Taking away two cars from the Queens Boulevard corridor and that itself is a big mistake in its entirety. The worst part is, the new (M) will have the same headways as before.

 

If this new pattern goes into effect I wouldn't get comfy with it. The day that the changes go into effect the whole railroad will be in a state of disarray that the MTA will ever regret enacting the (M) line. Mark my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I don't like the concept of the (M) is because of the circumstances involved in regards to its creation. There have been (M2)/(V) morons for years at SubChat and at SubTalk before it folded who just don't understand that ridership has never warranted for the connector to be used. Ever. There's a fine alternative to Midtown and it's the (L) train, more efficient and faster than the (M) would ever be.

Well now there might be. The last time they tried was what? 40 years ago.

You're drinking the MTA's Kool-Aid. Taking away two cars from the Queens Boulevard corridor and that itself is a big mistake in its entirety. The worst part is, the new (M) will have the same headways as before.

The (V) is underutilized anyway. Taking two cars away won't cause trains to be over-packed.

If this new pattern goes into effect I wouldn't get comfy with it. The day that the changes go into effect the whole railroad will be in a state of disarray that the MTA will ever regret enacting the (M) line. Mark my words.

The DAY that it's enacted? How about what happened when Chrystie Street opened? It was chaos. And now, the Connection is proven to be helpful ((:P(D) trains)

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now there might be. The last time they tried was what? 40 years ago

 

Bottom line, it wasn't needed then, and it's not needed now.

 

The (V) is underutilized anyway. Taking two cars away won't cause trains to be over-packed.

 

That is not true. The (V) is crush-loaded during rush hours, SRO to be exact. Whenever there's a problem with the (F) the (V) comes to the rescue.

 

The DAY that it's enacted? How about what happened when Chrystie Street opened? It was chaos. And now, the Connection is proven to be helpful ((:P(D) trains)

 

That's just the South Brooklyn connection. The other portion isn't or it would have never been shut down in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line, it wasn't needed then, and it's not needed now.

Ridership demands change over 40 years. A LOT.

 

That is not true. The (V) is crush-loaded during rush hours, SRO to be exact. Whenever there's a problem with the (F) the (V) comes to the rescue.

Wasn't there some kind of study that said that a passenger has one of the highest chances of getting a seat on the (V)? Also, when the (F) messes up, the (V) is usually suspended.

 

That's just the South Brooklyn connection. The other portion isn't or it would have never been shut down in the first place.

See #1.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridership demands change over 40 years. A LOT.

 

If ridership changes so much, then why was the connection closed down in the first place?

 

Wasn't there some kind of study that said that a passenger has one of the highest chances of getting a seat on the (V)? Also, when the (F) messes up, the (V) is usually suspended.

 

Usually, but that's not always the case. Besides, passengers who are smart enough can, and as a matter of fact, do take the (V) train during a.m. rush hours to Manhattan and do take it coming from Manhattan during the p.m. rush. Also, the reason why the (V) is suspended is to keep the longer lines like the (F) and the (R) from being tied up because they're always prone to delays due to their length; the (E) also runs ten minutes apart in an event like this as well...sometimes it can be the (E) running ten minutes apart, the (V) suspended, or even both.

 

See #1.

 

Again, why was the connection closed down then??? If it was not needed then, it's not needed now. The ONLY reason the MTA is doing this is because of the financial issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not that convinced.

 

You dont need to be... Plus this is a service CUT, it is not meant to be helpful in anyway. I think all these cuts are good, if people think service is bad now they will crap them selfs when the cuts go into effect and mabye then they will stop bitching. Also to allt hose who say that the cut was and is not needed, remember this. If the cut was never built, there would be NO 6th Av service over the Southern BMT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont need to be... Plus this is a service CUT, it is not meant to be helpful in anyway. I think all these cuts are good, if people think service is bad now they will crap them selfs when the cuts go into effect and mabye then they will stop bitching.

 

The way I see it, the TA is making the wrong type of cuts (e.g. gas-guzzling MCI routes that aren't even used on weekdays or off-peak weekday hours). But yeah...ridership has fallen and the MTA will do anything to make ends meet so that I do understand.

 

Also to allt hose who say that the cut was and is not needed, remember this. If the cut was never built, there would be NO 6th Av service over the Southern BMT.

 

IAWTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have NEVER even seen a SRO (V) train. It's always a Sunday on that line; eight cars is good enough. Now the (C), that's a different story. That's the one that needs 10.

 

You have to be in the right place at the right time, in the right circumstances. So anyone who says that the (V) gets no usage at all is on stupid pills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The V is by far the line with the lowest loading systemwide, with a peak load of 50%. There would be no problem shortening the V to 8 cars. (I believe the peak load % is based off of 125% of a seated load.)

 

The K was cut in 1976 when it was a rush hour only line which was designed to fail. There werent that many trains, and they were incredibly unreliable when they were scheduled to run, so that really killed ridership. The new M will roughly parallel the L line, which is the most overburdened line in the system, and is also the fastest growing line.

 

I wholly agree with you on the MCI front- the express lines need to be largely slashed too, but I think it is foolish to complain about the one service "cut" which will actually help roughly as many people as it hurts, which means it saves a lot money for little "cost".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, the TA is making the wrong type of cuts (e.g. gas-guzzling MCI routes that aren't even used on weekdays or off-peak weekday hours). But yeah...ridership has fallen and the MTA will do anything to make ends meet so that I do understand.

 

 

As much as I hate buses, bus routes should not bee cut. Subway service is easily affected and disrupted so there needs to be a good alternative. Also, people complain about subway service more then they do bus service. I feel that for some time the people of this city need to be given the buisinses so they see that what they had before was great, better then the service of every other city in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I agree with you. Most buses provide a valuable service which is greatly needed by the city. The express routes which LRG is referring to generally spend more than $15 per rider, which is absolutely absurd. The money spent on those buses could easily be spent providing substantially more local service in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I agree with you. Most buses provide a valuable service which is greatly needed by the city. The express routes which LRG is referring to generally spend more than $15 per rider, which is absolutely absurd. The money spent on those buses could easily be spent providing substantially more local service in the area.

 

Exactly. In addition, buses tend to take more money out of the TA's pockets because they cost more to maintain for one (especially over-the-road coaches and hybrids) and also use natural resources in order to be powered so that sucks up more money in the long run as well.

 

While not EVERY express bus route should be cut, the bottom line is, there are some routes that run on empty early in the morning, late in the evening, or just empty period (some of the MTAB Company routes run one bus per hour (every sixty minutes) on weekends) and the buses are still not even at capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be in the right place at the right time, in the right circumstances. So anyone who says that the (V) gets no usage at all is on stupid pills.

 

Exactly my point: Rare. Therefore 10 cars are not needed. Compare that to the (6) or (E) during rush hour, or even reverse peak sometimes. Pick a station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point: Rare. Therefore 10 cars are not needed. Compare that to the (6) or (E) during rush hour, or even reverse peak sometimes. Pick a station.

 

That's irrelevant...the (V) is justified to be full-length. ALL subway lines should be full-length, especially the (C) and (G) lines. The reason why they aren't is due to a car shortage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's the point of having 10 with-seats cars? Might as well have 8 cars and a few standees.

Cars these days are built into either 4 car sets or 5 car sets. (I'm talking about 60 footers) And you want to have some kind of uniformity in yards. It's not logistical to have a yard with some 5 car sets and some 4 car sets.

 

So it's either A or B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cars these days are built into either 4 car sets or 5 car sets. (I'm talking about 60 footers) And you want to have some kind of uniformity in yards. It's not logistical to have a yard with some 5 car sets and some 4 car sets.

 

So it's either A or B.

 

But since the new (M) is based out of ENY, which has 4-car sets, the (M) will be 8 cars.

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.