|
|
| Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders (1385067) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016, in response to One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by andy on Tue Feb 9 23:45:09 2016. So just how does this plan (similar to Wallyhorse's idea) help the numerous L-train riders that live in the western section of the L-train. The closer to Canarsie section of the L-train actually has the fewer riders on the L-line. Your proposal simply takes those L-trains AWAY from the L-line - leaving the stations with the higher ridership on the western portion of the line served by fewer trains!Exactly how that helps the more numerous L-train riders at the western stations - has yet to be explained by anyone. In addition, by sending those re-routed L-trains all about Manhattan (up to 96th Street and back) - the "bang per buck" of those trains actually helping L-train riders is "watered down". And for all that effort - L-train riders would still be transferring between the L-train, and the A, C, J, and Z trains just in the same way that they have been doing for decades. Can such a routing of trains be done. Sure! Should such a routing of trains be done. NOPE! It does not benefit the majority of L-train riders - especially those in the higher ridership western stations of the L-line. If there were a complete tunnel closure - L-trains would be needed to service the "Brooklyn only segment", and at least 2-3 L-trains would be needed to run a shuttle service on the "Manhattan only" segment. Just because you "can" cut off your arm - does not make that a good idea! Mike |
|
|
|