St Louis Car 09 Posted May 26, 2010 Share #26 Posted May 26, 2010 The new is failtastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West End Posted May 26, 2010 Share #27 Posted May 26, 2010 line: I approve. Sometimes, change is good. Definitely. One of the best things about the is that it provides a one-seat ride to 6th Avenue and Midtown East, and the expands on that by offering the same to those in northern Brooklyn. Let's just hope that the MTA realizes how popular this line's going to be and decreases its headways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 26, 2010 Share #28 Posted May 26, 2010 The new is failtastic. LOL!!! "Epic" to be exact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted May 26, 2010 Share #29 Posted May 26, 2010 line: I approve. Sometimes, change is good. line: I disapprove. No more brown (M2), no more service thru 4th Ave/West End, no more or .. Change is not important here, its about keeping the customers happy and getting them to there destination.. Yeah they can still get to there destination, but with no (M2) then you have to put more time to get to your destination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West End Posted May 26, 2010 Share #30 Posted May 26, 2010 Change is not important here, its about keeping the customers happy and getting them to there destination.. Yeah, it sucks that these cuts are being made, and I'd rather have service patterns remain the same as much as the next guy. That doesn't mean that the should be blamed for it though. Overall happiness should always be a factor in any public affair, and the (M2) terminating at Chambers would've been far worse than the what the will be doing. If it's between someone else getting a one-side ride or no one getting a one-seat ride, I'd pick the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted May 27, 2010 Share #31 Posted May 27, 2010 Really great work, the both of you. I really like the maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted May 27, 2010 Share #32 Posted May 27, 2010 Call me strange, but I think the subway cut that won't have much of a problem would be the cutting of the , since the replaces it north of 57th Street, the making all stops in Manhattan, north of Canal Street, and the (needs more trains) in Lower Manhattan, the only difference is an extra transfer. Some people say should be a rush hour line, but I've seen as taking quite a load off the . We shall prepare to see more crowding on the . On the other hand the being cut or rather the (M2) fusion into means that the riders will have shorter trains to board along Queens Boulevard, which means crowding issues. 2nd Avenue, Manhattan won't be needing cleaners to clean the trains as the won't go there anymore. While the will help take riders into Midtown Manhattan, the (M2) riders trying to go to Lower Manhattan might as well go pack on the trains, (By the way why aren't they cutting the ?) The (M2) not going into 4th Avenue/West End means an extra transfer to/from the to any Lower Manhattan subway line. I guess the not going to Forest Hills isn't such bad news, since the rarely goes there these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted May 27, 2010 Share #33 Posted May 27, 2010 Call me strange, but I think the subway cut that won't have much of a problem would be the cutting of the , since the replaces it north of 57th Street, the making all stops in Manhattan, north of Canal Street, and the (needs more trains) in Lower Manhattan, the only difference is an extra transfer. Some people say should be a rush hour line, but I've seen as taking quite a load off the . We shall prepare to see more crowding on the . Yes, the will have serious issues as the sole B'way Express. I guess the not going to Forest Hills isn't such bad news, since the rarely goes there these days. IAWTP ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted May 28, 2010 Share #34 Posted May 28, 2010 Call me strange, but I think the subway cut that won't have much of a problem would be the cutting of the , since the replaces it north of 57th Street, the making all stops in Manhattan, north of Canal Street, and the (needs more trains) in Lower Manhattan, the only difference is an extra transfer. Some people say should be a rush hour line, but I've seen as taking quite a load off the . We shall prepare to see more crowding on the . On the other hand the being cut or rather the (M2) fusion into means that the riders will have shorter trains to board along Queens Boulevard, which means crowding issues. 2nd Avenue, Manhattan won't be needing cleaners to clean the trains as the won't go there anymore. While the will help take riders into Midtown Manhattan, the (M2) riders trying to go to Lower Manhattan might as well go pack on the trains, (By the way why aren't they cutting the ?) The (M2) not going into 4th Avenue/West End means an extra transfer to/from the to any Lower Manhattan subway line. I guess the not going to Forest Hills isn't such bad news, since the rarely goes there these days. The is still going to run. The MTA said that the (M2)/(V) merger would save more money and affect less people than cutting the , so they chose the ''lesser of 2 evils'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.