Jump to content

Full time M service?


Threxx

Recommended Posts

Yes, and I know why that's bad, suggesting 42/6 as a compromise for a weekend (M) because of the track switches between 34th and 42nd not realizing that would cause its own set of problems.

 

It's too back they don't really have another option like Columbus Circle where they could switch quickly due to the (A) and (D) being on the tracks there because while Essex would help for nights and weekends, it isn't really the best spot either.

 

What you REALLY needed was 72/2, which was originally supposed to have a middle track, but they cut it out! (I wish they would really reconsider that, now that it has finally been bored through, before the final construction. How much are they really saving by making the tunnel one track narrower, there?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All I think should happen is that the M runs all day to 71st everyday except at night from 12am to 5am. The R is getting rediculous. It's very slow and the headways can be 15-20 mins on weekends. If the M comes there can be a local that runs every 8-10 mins on the QBL. Then at night the E runs local and maybe even attempt to have the R run last nights from that useless shuttle in Brooklyn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about (M) to Chambers?

 

 

If having the (M) terminate at 21st Queensbridge, 42nd Street, 50th Street, 57th Street, making it go along Central Park West were all bad ideas, what makes you think Chambers would be a good one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lance

Because whereas 57 St, 47-50 Sts, 42 St or any other stop on the Sixth Avenue line would be a terrible place to turn the (M) with through service running (the (F)), turning the (M) at Chambers St doesn't get in the way of any other line since the (J) also terminates at Chambers St. The problem with Chambers St, besides the varying routes for weekdays vs. weekends, is that sending the (M) there won't solve the issue at hand, which is to bring Myrtle riders to midtown on the weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If having the (M) terminate at 21st Queensbridge, 42nd Street, 50th Street, 57th Street, making it go along Central Park West were all bad ideas, what makes you think Chambers would be a good one?

 

 

Chambers is designed as a terminal and a through station, and unlike those other stations, other services wouldn't be impeded:

 

1. The (F) has to use 57th Street and Queensbridge, so having an (M) terminate there would pretty much delay it. On occasions when the (M) has ended at 57th Street, downtown (F) trains have had to run via 53rd Street.

2. Ending the (M) at 42nd Street is dumb, since there would be a lot of switching going on. Also, (M) trains would pretty much block the way on every track. The downtown (D) can't switch from the express track to the local track above 42nd street, only the downtown (F) could, and yet there would be still too much switching.

3. 50th Street is impossible, unless you want to wrong rail trains for two stations.

4. CPW West is way too far up, and I don't think an extra line is needed on weekends.

 

Chambers Street is ideal, and maybe Essex, but anything else would be inefficient.

 

Or maybe keep the (M) running as a shuttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To W. 4 Street?

The (D) is pretty lower frequency than the (F), right?

 

 

It's not going to work. West 4th Street has plenty of trains moving in and out.

 

Chambers is designed as a terminal and a through station, and unlike those other stations, other services wouldn't be impeded:

 

1. The (F) has to use 57th Street and Queensbridge, so having an (M) terminate there would pretty much delay it. On occasions when the (M) has ended at 57th Street, downtown (F) trains have had to run via 53rd Street.

2. Ending the (M) at 42nd Street is dumb, since there would be a lot of switching going on. Also, (M) trains would pretty much block the way on every track. The downtown (D) can't switch from the express track to the local track above 42nd street, only the downtown (F) could, and yet there would be still too much switching.

3. 50th Street is impossible, unless you want to wrong rail trains for two stations.

4. CPW West is way too far up, and I don't think an extra line is needed on weekends.

 

Chambers Street is ideal, and maybe Essex, but anything else would be inefficient.

 

Or maybe keep the (M) running as a shuttle.

 

 

What is the point of that? People want the orange (M) not the brown (M).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these permutations are interesting, but the real issue is basic service to underserved areas. Is there enough potential demand to warrant full time (M) service? The answer is yes. Rapid development neighborhoods along the (M) and population growth warrants consideration of it. Moreover, QB service also needs better service. What we learned is that there's money when it's politically feasible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Headways on the (R) are not 15-20 mins on weekends. Its 12 mins during GO's (when the (N)(Q)(R) share the bridge or tunnel), otherwise 10 mins. It used to be 8 before the cuts, and needs to be again. The line having a reputation of being "slow" is not a reason to have the (M) up there. The (R) is NOT slow in Queens, especially when its by itself. The 8 mins should solve the QB crowding (6 mins holiday weekends late fall with the holiday suppliment). As far as stations between Marcy and Myrtle, its either more (J)'s or the (M) going past Myrtle. That being said, what's the excuse when gentrification goes past Myrtle and now there's crowding between Myrtle and Bway Jnct, as will happen in the next 10 years? That bolsters the more (J)'s argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lance

It's not a bad idea on paper. However, as stated up-thread, it should be determined if more (R) trains can help the Queens Blvd line before bringing the (M) all the way from Myrtle Av-Broadway to Continental Av. It's much cheaper in the long run. If it's determined that the (R) cannot handle the ridership on its own even with decreased headways, then let's talk about 19/7 (M) - Queens Blvd service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, the (R) can indeed handle it by itself, its just the two stations with malls nearby (Woodhaven, 63Dr, Grand) that fill up the train. Once its past Roosevelt (when everyone gets off for express service as the main destinations of note in Manhattan are also served by the (F) and in some cases the (E)), its not empty, but there are seats. Its just full from 63Dr to Roosevelt. That alone doesn't scream (M) to me. And yes I operate the (R) for a string of weekends in a row during Christmastime (I did it last summer too when a job was open over there), and while the platform is full its not exactly 42nd-GC at 5PM on the Lex. The stations in Manhattan are always full of people during the weekends, but down there the (N) and (Q) is down there as well, and at least two if not all three services stop at any given Manhattan station. I guess from the railfan's perspective people should be able to sit on a train no matter where they get on except during rush hours. But that is not what management thinks.

 

Of course this is pure fantasy, but if express trains stopped at Woodhaven the call for (M) service up there would be nonexistent, as the people would be able to board these trains directly, instead of using the (R) to shuttle to Roosevelt (lol).

 

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restoring weekend (G) service on QB should happen before weekend (M) service runs on QB, much cheaper. Weekend (G) service could be done along with existing (R) service. If the (R) doesn't show up, the (G) would show up and get people to/from the (E).

 

Except you also have Broadway-Brooklyn riders looking for midtown, which along with the QB problem is why extending the (M) makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TwoTimer: Do you think that running the (E) local between CTL and Roosevelt Ave. both directions would be reasonable to add service to the shoppers at Rego Park/Woodhaven Blvd./Grand Ave.? I think it is a good way to boost some traffic at the shopping centers since sometimes the wait time for the (R) is really unreasonable.

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.