Jump to content

Decision made in (L) closure


RailRunRob

Recommended Posts

With most of them not even staying on past Metropolitan or Bedford/Nostrand heading Southbound.

Not disputing what you've stated, but I will say that I've been having to attend various meetings around the city for work purposes, and the City seems to understand that travel patterns are changing, but the (MTA) doesn't.  The link I posted above shows how bad the (G) is.  When you have people taking the (L) when the (G) should be more convenient, that isn't exactly good, esp. considering how the (MTA) complains about how overcrowded the (L) is.  I would think long and hard about how the (G) could be more useful long-term after this (L) project.  It's actually the one thing I have to credit the de Blasio administration for.  The meetings I've attended have made it clear that city wants to prioritize transportation in non-traditional areas, and the (MTA) needs to follow suit and meet demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not disputing what you've stated, but I will say that I've been having to attend various meetings around the city for work purposes, and the City seems to understand that travel patterns are changing, but the (MTA) doesn't.  The link I posted above shows how bad the (G) is.  When you have people taking the (L) when the (G) should be more convenient, that isn't exactly good, esp. considering how the (MTA) complains about how overcrowded the (L) is.  I would think long and hard about how the (G) could be more useful long-term after this (L) project.  It's actually the one thing I have to credit the de Blasio administration for.  The meetings I've attended have made it clear that city wants to prioritize transportation in non-traditional areas, and the (MTA) needs to follow suit and meet demand.

Where does it state how bad things are? It said ridership rose 17% which is still within guidelines packed trains are a city-wide issue not talking Lexington ave issues here. The (G) could carry between 4,060 -5,800 people per hour with the current rolling stock config's enough to handle 150k a day. That's about to double you don't feel that's enough to handle   (G) riders and (L) refugees west of Myrtle Ave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not disputing what you've stated, but I will say that I've been having to attend various meetings around the city for work purposes, and the City seems to understand that travel patterns are changing, but the (MTA) doesn't.  The link I posted above shows how bad the (G) is.  When you have people taking the (L) when the (G) should be more convenient, that isn't exactly good, esp. considering how the (MTA) complains about how overcrowded the (L) is.  I would think long and hard about how the (G) could be more useful long-term after this (L) project.  It's actually the one thing I have to credit the de Blasio administration for.  The meetings I've attended have made it clear that city wants to prioritize transportation in non-traditional areas, and the (MTA) needs to follow suit and meet demand.

 

On the flipside, the (G) isn't all that convenient to begin with unless you're bypassing Manhattan altogether. The (G) isn't also as bad as articles claim to be(yours didn't even say it was bad), especially since I frequent the line 4 out of 7 days of the week (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday). With the fact that the (G) will be running full 8-car trains when the (L) is shutting down, it's usefulness will increase. The standees only last till Metropolitan, and that's still a pretty short ride. Trains tend to be relatively seated afterwards with a few standees.

 

The (G) isn't the only line getting its increases, the (J) and (M) will be getting the brunt of all of the (L)'s Manhattan ridership and will also be seeing an increase in trains.

 

What bothers me about these (L) train riders is that they refuse to acknowledge bus service in their areas, especially since there's a lot of ways to get around in the areas affected to neighboring subway lines, most of which are within 10 minutes of a bus ride. They refuse to adapt and would rather stick with one mode of transportation(except for the natives, who've said they'd change their commute around for this, the transplants are the primary ones bitching).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flipside, the (G) isn't all that convenient to begin with unless you're bypassing Manhattan altogether. The (G) isn't also as bad as articles claim to be(yours didn't even say it was bad), especially since I frequent the line 4 out of 7 days of the week (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday). With the fact that the (G) will be running full 8-car trains when the (L) is shutting down, it's usefulness will increase. The standees only last till Metropolitan, and that's still a pretty short ride. Trains tend to be relatively seated afterwards with a few standees.

 

The (G) isn't the only line getting its increases, the (J) and (M) will be getting the brunt of all of the (L)'s Manhattan ridership and will also be seeing an increase in trains.

 

What bothers me about these (L) train riders is that they refuse to acknowledge bus service in their areas, especially since there's a lot of ways to get around in the areas affected to neighboring subway lines, most of which are within 10 minutes of a bus ride. They refuse to adapt and would rather stick with one mode of transportation(except for the natives, who've said they'd change their commute around for this, the transplants are the primary ones bitching).

But that's the thing though... Historically the (G) has run like crap and it seems as if the main reason is because it doesn't go through Manhattan, so the (MTA) doesn't think it's a priority.  You can't completely blame (L) riders for refusing the alternatives.  The (MTA) has made it that way.  For example, the B32 runs every 30 minutes while the (L) runs like water.  If you force people into certain situations, and they get used to it, it's difficult to get them to change.  Yes, the (G) may not be packed, but if you have people avoiding the (G) to take the (L) because it is more frequent, then that's a problem. Long term the (MTA) should look at where (G) riders are going and try to understand how they can make better use of that line to take some of the burden off of the (L).  

 

Where does it state how bad things are? It said ridership rose 17% which is still within guidelines packed trains are a city-wide issue not talking Lexington ave issues here. The (G) could carry between 4,060 -5,800 people per hour with the current rolling stock config's enough to handle 150k a day. That's about to double you don't feel that's enough to handle   (G) riders and (L) refugees west of Myrtle Ave?

Well somebody is paying attention... I'm considering putting you on ignore permanently.  Your feigned ignorance to use sarcasm is past annoying... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's the thing though... Historically the (G) has run like crap and it seems as if the main reason is because it doesn't go through Manhattan, so the (MTA) doesn't think it's a priority.  You can't completely blame (L) riders for refusing the alternatives.  The (MTA) has made it that way.  For example, the B32 runs every 30 minutes while the (L) runs like water.  If you force people into certain situations, and they get used to it, it's difficult to get them to change.  Yes, the (G) may not be packed, but if you have people avoiding the (G) to take the (L) because it is more frequent, then that's a problem. Long term the (MTA) should look at where (G) riders are going and try to understand how they can make better use of that line to take some of the burden off of the (L).  

 

Well somebody is paying attention... I'm considering putting you on ignore permanently.  Your feigned ignorance to use sarcasm is past annoying... 

Right on! I give you math and suddenly it's annoying. Why would I comment on something if I don't have some knowledge of the subject? Not really into talking just to hear myself. I don't know what's worst honestly my sarcasm or your lack of accountability and question dodging. Do whatever you think is best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on! I give you math and suddenly it's annoying. Why would I comment on something if don't have some knowledge of the subject? Not really into talking just to hear myself. I don't know what's worst honestly my sarcasm or your lack of accountability and question dodging. Do whatever you think is best.

You're asking things that I've already answered (and very clearly I may add in previous posts).  What's obnoxious is having someone who constantly feigns ignorance.  Now you asked me "Where does it state how bad things are?" and I responded very clearly in previous posts what I was referring to when talking about the (G).  I see no need to keep repeating my position nor what I'm referring to.  You want your questions answered? Take the damn time to read my posts and stop asking me to repeat myself over and over again for the hell of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's the thing though... Historically the (G) has run like crap and it seems as if the main reason is because it doesn't go through Manhattan, so the (MTA) doesn't think it's a priority.  You can't completely blame (L) riders for refusing the alternatives.  The (MTA) has made it that way.  For example, the B32 runs every 30 minutes while the (L) runs like water.  If you force people into certain situations, and they get used to it, it's difficult to get them to change.  Yes, the (G) may not be packed, but if you have people avoiding the (G) to take the (L) because it is more frequent, then that's a problem. Long term the (MTA) should look at where (G) riders are going and try to understand how they can make better use of that line to take some of the burden off of the (L).  

 

Well somebody is paying attention... I'm considering putting you on ignore permanently.  Your feigned ignorance to use sarcasm is past annoying... 

 

The (G) had 12 minute headways, which was then raised to 10, and now 8. It's frequency has been good since those headway improvements. However, the (L) has always been more delay-prone.

 

I still fail to believe that folks avoid the (G) to take the (L), primarily because most of the reasons I've heard why folks take the (L) is to avoid the backtracking, especially when the (E) & (M) gets backed up often, which makes more sense. The (L) is more direct as well.

 

Also, they have a ton of bus routes to choose from, and then you have BusTime(which is apparently nonexistent for the North Brooklyn crowd), so they don't really have an excuse about bus service especially when you have routes like the B38, B26, B52, B24, Q54, Q59, B54, B48, B43, B62, B44 SBS, B46 and many, many more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asking things that I've already answered (and very clearly I may add in previous posts).  What's obnoxious is having someone who constantly feigns ignorance.  Now you asked me "Where does it state how bad things are?" and I responded very clearly in previous posts what I was referring to when talking about the (G).  I see no need to keep repeating my position nor what I'm referring to.  You want your questions answered? Take the damn time to read my posts and stop asking me to repeat myself over and over again for the hell of it.

Well if you answered the question of if you felt the (G) was adequate then I'm sorry I was only viewing from your post this morning. I don't have to tell you but sometimes the thread especially with multi pages you might miss something. The post after mines Sith (Sorry to put your name it) also kinda alluded to the points as well. 8 car trains (580 to 1,160 ppl per train) And the (G) not being that bad along with other his points. So you can see where maybe I didn't see fault. So having you repeat wasn't the intent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (G) had 12 minute headways, which was then raised to 10, and now 8. It's frequency has been good since those headway improvements. However, the (L) has always been more delay-prone.

 

I still fail to believe that folks avoid the (G) to take the (L), primarily because most of the reasons I've heard why folks take the (L) is to avoid the backtracking, especially when the (E) & (M) gets backed up often, which makes more sense. The (L) is more direct as well.

 

Also, they have a ton of bus routes to choose from, and then you have BusTime(which is apparently nonexistent for the North Brooklyn crowd), so they don't really have an excuse about bus service especially when you have routes like the B38, B26, B52, B24, Q54, Q59, B54, B48, B43, B62, B44 SBS, B46 and many, many more.

Yes, but let's be honest... How many people are really running to local buses these days?  For most they are after thought, even with BusTime.  We've talked about how delay prone a lot of the buses you've mentioned are in Williamsburg.  I feel as if the (G) is somewhat like the (R)...  Looks great on paper, but not so great in reality.  Even if the (G) actually adheres to those 8 minute headways, the (L) still feels like a better choice.  Perhaps when all lines have countdown clocks, that perception will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA has created this culture of subway first (subway only, is more like it) in this city, so you get what you get, as far as the failing to consider (the existence of) buses is concerned....

The funny thing is that despite that, people want to avoid the subway where possible.  I stayed in the city last night, and took Metro-North to work... Was surprised to see how many people got on at 125th with me because they didn't want to take the subway...  :lol:

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.