R32 Anthony Posted January 16, 2009 Share #1 Posted January 16, 2009 How about this. We all know that the F line has express tracks from Jay Street to Ditmas Ave. (Not counting the middle track above McDonald Ave.) I would love to see the G terminate at 18 Avenue (especially connecting to the M and R trains at 4 Ave) at all times. I would like to see the F use the lower level of Bergen street, skip Carroll Street, Smith 9th, 4Ave, stop at 7 Ave. then go express to Church Street during rush hours. I think they should get rid of the V line because the E can provide service to Queens and restore the G line to 71 Avenue. 6 Ave riders can either transfer at West 4 Street for the E or take the B or D to 7Ave. for the E. At Queens Plaza they can transfer to the G or R service. I think that make sense. Let me know what you guys think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 Anthony Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share #2 Posted January 16, 2009 How about this. We all know that the F line has express tracks from Jay Street to Ditmas Ave. (Not counting the middle track above McDonald Ave.) I would love to see the G terminate at 18 Avenue (especially connecting to the M and R trains at 4 Ave) at all times. I would like to see the F use the lower level of Bergen street, skip Carroll Street, Smith 9th, 4 Ave, stop at 7 Ave. then go express to Church Street during rush hours. I think they should get rid of the V line because the E can provide service to Queens and restore the G line to 71 Avenue. 6 Ave riders can either transfer at West 4 Street for the E or take the B or D to 7 Ave. for the E. At Queens Plaza they can transfer to the G or R service. By doing this, the MTA can put more trains on the G line, serving those communities. I think that make sense. Let me know what you guys think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbirdbassist Posted January 16, 2009 Share #3 Posted January 16, 2009 The isn't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostnyc123 Posted January 16, 2009 Share #4 Posted January 16, 2009 yeh not that i agree with it but tha is here to stay for awhile, if tha had any plan to get rid of that line it would be in tha service cuts although why tha and before tha is beyond me but nice idea tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 16, 2009 Share #5 Posted January 16, 2009 Why do you want to get rid of the V? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
via White Plains Road Posted January 16, 2009 Share #6 Posted January 16, 2009 How about this. We all know that the F line has express tracks from Jay Street to Ditmas Ave. (Not counting the middle track above McDonald Ave.) I would love to see the G terminate at 18 Avenue (especially connecting to the M and R trains at 4 Ave) at all times. I would like to see the F use the lower level of Bergen street, skip Carroll Street, Smith 9th, 4Ave, stop at 7 Ave. then go express to Church Street during rush hours. I think they should get rid of the V line because the E can provide service to Queens and restore the G line to 71 Avenue. 6 Ave riders can either transfer at West 4 Street for the E or take the B or D to 7Ave. for the E. At Queens Plaza they can transfer to the G or R service. I think that make sense. Let me know what you guys think. Leave the the way it is....the is not going to terminate @ 18th Avenue only Church Avenue. Also we also have like a few threads of the vis Culver Express and via Culver Local Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 Anthony Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted January 16, 2009 The reason why I think the should go is because the can free up the trains, by putting more service on the and . 6 Avenue riders can switch to the at W. 4 St., or and to 7 Ave.for the , or transfer to the at 34 Street for stops in Queens. I rather get rid of the and hopefully save the instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 16, 2009 Share #8 Posted January 16, 2009 The reason why I think the should go is because the can free up the trains, by putting more service on the and . 6 Avenue riders can switch to the at W. 4 St., or and to 7 Ave.for the , or transfer to the at 34 Street for stops in Queens. I rather get rid of the and hopefully save the instead. Both lines are needed. Ridership on the V is actually increasing. There is no need to extend the G to 18th Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 16, 2009 Share #9 Posted January 16, 2009 You have a similar thread on the same subject. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 Anthony Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted January 16, 2009 You are right about the ending at Church Street like it did in the early 1970's. I though 18 Avenue only because I get off at Ditmas to go to Trainworld to pick up my subway cars. I rather see more service on the than because of all those communities in Brooklyn (Such as Greenpoint) can have a solid subway line. If the plans on terminating the at Court Square, then of course leave the alone. I rather see the go and add more service on the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 Anthony Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted January 16, 2009 You have a similar thread on the same subject. Why is that? I created this idea tonight for the first time. I am responding to those who disagree and I am just re-explaining my OPINION. Get rid of the if it means saving the and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted January 16, 2009 Share #12 Posted January 16, 2009 No need for a Culver Express train, the making all stops is enough. The at Church Avenue as a southern terminal is good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted January 16, 2009 Share #13 Posted January 16, 2009 You are right about the ending at Church Street like it did in the early 1970's. I though 18 Avenue only because I get off at Ditmas to go to Trainworld to pick up my subway cars. I rather see more service on the than because of all those communities in Brooklyn (Such as Greenpoint) can have a solid subway line. I rather see the go and add more service on the . ur right. i mean i rather see the go because the has enough service as it is. its just extra service on the Queens Blvd-6 Av Line. so what if the goes via the 63 St Tunnel (Former (Q6) line), and the goes via the 53 St Tunnel???, the still makes the same stops south of Rockefeller Center. customers can transfer from the to the at Forest Hills-71 Av or Roosevelt Av-Jackson Heights to reach Manhattan. Customers south of Roosevelt Av can transfer from the to the at 34 St-Herald Sq. for service via 53 St, use the . from 6 Ave Stations to the 7 Av-53 St, take the uptown . To 5 Ave-53 St, customers can take the uptown to 7 Av-53 St and transfer to the Queens-bound . To Lex Ave-53 St, customers can take the uptown to 7 Av-53 St and transfer to the Queens-bound , or if ur at 34 St-Herald Sq and need to reach 51 St-Lex Av, take the Queens-bound * to Lex Av-59 St and transfer to the Downtown . THEY HAVE ALTERNATES!!!!! The can still go to Church Av and still terminate at Forest Hills-71 Av as well. its a good line. i dont see why we should keep the . If they take out the , take out the as well. The are just back-ups. * Weekdays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlushingExpress Posted January 16, 2009 Share #14 Posted January 16, 2009 How about this. We all know that the F line has express tracks from Jay Street to Ditmas Ave. (Not counting the middle track above McDonald Ave.) I would love to see the G terminate at 18 Avenue (especially connecting to the M and R trains at 4 Ave) at all times. I would like to see the F use the lower level of Bergen street, skip Carroll Street, Smith 9th, 4Ave, stop at 7 Ave. then go express to Church Street during rush hours. I think they should get rid of the V line because the E can provide service to Queens and restore the G line to 71 Avenue. 6 Ave riders can either transfer at West 4 Street for the E or take the B or D to 7Ave. for the E. At Queens Plaza they can transfer to the G or R service. I think that make sense. Let me know what you guys think. ur idea stinks, period [no offense]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted January 17, 2009 Share #15 Posted January 17, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 17, 2009 Share #16 Posted January 17, 2009 No more wild ideas. This idea reminds me of the wild stuff they have on RD that people fight over daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelham Bay Dave Posted January 21, 2009 Share #17 Posted January 21, 2009 They should and will keep the it keeps supplement service for the Lines. The more I work the Queens Blvd Lines the more I think the should be offically cut back to Court SQ since 4 cars don't do the queens Lines any justice it just delays the Lines while people run for the and hold the doors. As A T/O I fell in love with the Line and I hate working the QNS Section but I don't think I can leave the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 23, 2009 Share #18 Posted January 23, 2009 They should and will keep the it keeps supplement service for the Lines. The more I work the Queens Blvd Lines the more I think the should be offically cut back to Court SQ since 4 cars don't do the queens Lines any justice it just delays the Lines while people run for the and hold the doors. As A T/O I fell in love with the Line and I hate working the QNS Section but I don't think I can leave the line. You think they should increase the frequency on the G after it is "officially" cut from the QBL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelham Bay Dave Posted January 24, 2009 Share #19 Posted January 24, 2009 I don't know too much about the itself but they should add more cars to the line at least and extend the line to Church Ave. This is a line I won't pick too many issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 24, 2009 Share #20 Posted January 24, 2009 I don't know too much about the itself but they should add more cars to the line at least and extend the line to Church Ave. This is a line I won't pick too many issues. But didn't they cut the number of cars per train in order to increase frequency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.