Am I the only one that likes the Orange (M)?

[m7zanr160s]

Like I asked, will the crowds at heavily-used 5th Avenue or Lexington/53rd be able to deal with a train that is two cars shorter than what they're used to? 480-foot trains haven't run on 53rd Street in rush hour service in a long time. The runs 600-foot trains, the did, and the current does. I know the isn't packed, but I don't think we should have throngs of people running for the end of a shorter train at both ends of a platform? I realize it is not possible to run 10-car trains on the train. But it's possible to run 9-car trains (540 feet long). It should be possible to run a 5-car set of R160s with a 4-car set. The loss of one car will be less of a problem than the loss of two.

 

I'm assuming at Lex/53rd they'll have the stop as far back as possible, since the main entrance to that station is those really long escalators.

[m7zanr160s]

With the having 160's the trains will be packed and you are crazy saying the is never packed.Stand at 5th Av/53rd St or take the around 4-7pm and tell me how it is.

All those people got off that ! There wasn't an for at least 15min 5 back2back (E)'s before this came which ran express!

Pics from Friday!

 

Exactly my point. With service being normal, the always has seats.

[KeystoneRegional]

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

[2 Train Master]

Exactly my point. With service being normal, the always has seats.

Yea but that was a on the right and an on the left.That was packed when service was normal.Wat was crazy was people stayed a bit longer at 71 Av thinking it was going to Jamaica-179 due to the gap in service.

[checkmatechamp13]

Here's the thing though: a train doesn't necessarily have to be "packed" to justify its usage. If it gets ridership then it's doing its job, isn't it? The doesn't necessarily run empty at all, it gets people. Despite where along the route it gets its riders doesn't justify that the line is useless as a whole. Besides, trains aren't always full at the extreme ends of its route.

 

Let me add onto that.

The subway is more cost-efficient than the bus network. A "packed" 40 foot bus could be less cost-efficient than a train with a seated load.

[LRG]

Let me add onto that.

The subway is more cost-efficient than the bus network. A "packed" 40 foot bus could be less cost-efficient than a train with a seated load.

 

Exactly. It costs more money to operate a bus than it does to operate a train. Speaking from a logistical point of view that is why the Franklin and Rockaway Shuttles will never be replaced at night with shuttle buses, it's too inefficient to both the MTA and its passengers who'd have to wait 20 minutes in the blistering cold on a winter day for a bus. Not to mention the cost of fueling for the buses and the beating they take on the road with whatever obstacles that lie ahead of it.

[checkmatechamp13]

Plus the cost of closing down the stations just to open them 5 hours later would be very costly.

[Grand Concourse]

Exactly. It costs more money to operate a bus than it does to operate a train. Speaking from a logistical point of view that is why the Franklin and Rockaway Shuttles will never be replaced at night with shuttle buses, it's too inefficient to both the MTA and its passengers who'd have to wait 20 minutes in the blistering cold on a winter day for a bus. Not to mention the cost of fueling for the buses and the beating they take on the road with whatever obstacles that lie ahead of it.

 

Riders would at Rockaway Park would have to wait in the cold for the at Broad Channel anyway. At least the bus taking people directly to 67th would be a bit more inland than BC is.

But I'm not going into the whole replace the late night S with a bus shuttle again.

Plus the cost of closing down the stations just to open them 5 hours later would be very costly.

 

What about electricity powering the lights and turnstiles and the overall costs to maintain the 4-car shuttle compared to running a single bus? I'm just saying, is overall really that bad to run a bus instead?

[Art Vandelay]

Lights and turnstiles are not a major expense at all. Furthermore, you cant turn the lights off anyway.

[VIP]

Some people were saying that because the (M2) served South Brooklyn for over 40 years, that it should not move. Service patterns should not be historical, they should be functional. The will better serve the customers, the was a waste from day 1 and could have been avoided by adding extra trains to several lines, and the should have been discontinued after Stillwell was finished. If you want subway service patterns to be as they were way back when, go look at an old map.

 

IAWTP

[VIP]

The crazy thing about this (M)/(V) dilemma is when it was the to Metropolitan, it was the Myrtle residents who were complaining about the letter being , but when the plan was changed to , it was the die hard fans that were whining. At the end of the day, its still the same train from Middle Village to Forest Hills..... SMH.

the official reason as to why the letter didnt stick is because that line is based out of jamaica and the didnt want to use a mixed fleet. so having an was a better option, then all this bs of the (M2) being an existence for 40 yrs and customers complaining. most of customers really didnt dramatically affect the (MTA)'s decision of keeping the M, it was all about car assignments and maintenance costs

[LRG]

the official reason as to why the letter didnt stick is because that line is based out of jamaica and the didnt want to use a mixed fleet. so having an was a better option, then all this bs of the (M2) being an existence for 40 yrs and customers complaining. most of customers really didnt dramatically affect the (MTA)'s decision of keeping the M, it was all about car assignments and maintenance costs

 

Uh, that's not necessarily true as the would have been transferred to ENY since a majority of the cars that would be used are four-car sets of R160s.

 

While I disagree with the (M)/(V) combo, from a rational point of view, would have been a more rational designation for the new service.

[MTR Admiralty]

Uh, that's not necessarily true as the would have been transferred to ENY since a majority of the cars that would be used are four-car sets of R160s.

 

While I disagree with the (M)/(V) combo, from a rational point of view, would have been a more rational designation for the new service.

I don't see why that is though. After all, the thing is still running on the Myrtle line (north of Broadway) which since the 60s used the M designation. People are more familiar to the M designation there.

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't see why that is though. After all, the thing is still running on the Myrtle line (north of Broadway) which since the 60s used the M designation. People are more familiar to the M designation there.

 

The is really just being extended, whereas the is being fully rerouted from its route. Also, since the (M2) shares lines with the and in Brooklyn, people might think that the goes to 4th Avenue from Queens Blvd or 6th Avenue, when in reality, it goes over the Williamsburg Bridge.

[2Line1291]

Then people **needs** to read the MTA site (if they have a computer) or read the advisories posted at stations, find out and **know** what's really going on and what's about to affect them. There's no room for thinking cause this change is in effect in 6 days and 3 not counting the weekend.

[N-Trizzy2609]

You know I like the idea of the new but it just doesn't feel right. So weird and all. I guess we'll get use to it cuz there's no turning back.

[MTR Admiralty]

The is really just being extended, whereas the is being fully rerouted from its route. Also, since the (M2) shares lines with the and in Brooklyn, people might think that the goes to 4th Avenue from Queens Blvd or 6th Avenue, when in reality, it goes over the Williamsburg Bridge.

Well yeah, it IS a extension, but the thing is, you ARE still using the Myrtle section. And also the is still being kept to its size of 8 cars per train. It's still based out of ENY.

[NX Express]

The name might have been to make the Eastern Division stay J, L, M, Z instead of J, L, V, Z.

[2Line1291]

If that was the case, then along w/ people who had a fit over the changing to a were at fault and were just being plan picky.

[MTR Admiralty]

It doesn't matter whether if it's the or the . The fact of the matter is, the is going to Forest Hills no matter what and that starts in less than a week whether you like it or not.

[2Line1291]

Friday is the last day of the (M2) to Bay Parkway and Lower Manhattan.... wow has time flew by fast.

[Sam]

In a way, the is actually replacing the old line as much as the when you think of it. The old 70(M), formerly express in Brooklyn, replaced the as the Broadway Brooklyn local. Now it continues through Chrystie and extends back into Queens.

 

I'm excited about the new because it makes up for the old . For those of us old-timers who were around for the 1976 cuts, we fought like hell to keep it but the MTA wouldn't listen. Now we have a new round of budget cuts and this time the MTA did listen. We've gone full circle. Just my two-cents.

[Tinamarie]

The only reason I like the because it can take me to midtown now without changing for another train. The reason why I hate the is because it doesn't transfer over to the for me to get to my college. Now I would have to take another train to get to the or take the to 14th street and the is local and the ramp from the to the is annoying. I prefer the (M2) way better. My father hates the a lot since now he has to take 3 trains to get to work.

[Y2Julio]

T My father hates the a lot since now he has to take 3 trains to get to work.

That's life. I've been taking 3 trains to work for 5 years now.

[2 Train Master]

Yesterday I an other people saw the ENY R160's going to Layup and its a BIG ASS GAP I didn't know 120ft was a lot,I was like whoa a lot of people are gonna bust their ass running for that .That is crazy and an ultimate fail.