|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1426025) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 14:56:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 30 13:53:28 2017. From a previous message:"OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that S-P never said there was anything wrong with the split terminals for the B. So is your argument that if it was OK to do it with the B from 1979 to 1989, then it's OK to do it with the N in 2017?" --- Let's look at the argument that he raised. Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 20:06:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 19:49:35 2017. Yes, they should be signed that way. As for the A, that is how it is there. The A alternates between Lefferts and Mott all day, every day. The divergence is listed on the map. So is the limited divergence to B116. Thus, there is less confusion than with the unadvertised N to 96th. Even more so, most passengers who board the wrong A will be on it for many stops before the point at which they would have to get off to correct their error. Not the case for the N to 96th where there are only a few busy stops leading to the split. ----- Mike's Point: Spider-Pig is basically saying that having a split route with the same labels is fine because the divergence is listed on the map, and that riders will be on the trains for many stops. In effect he is saying that a split is fine with him because it is some distance away from the CBD. ----- Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:37:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:27:29 2017. Once again a fallacious appeal to authority. The number of stops past the split is irrelevant. It is the fact that the split between the N and Q is in the CBD and not some distance past it. ----- Mike's Point: Spider-Pig basically now says that the important issue is that the split occurs in the CBD, and not some distance past - as in the case of the A-trains noted above or maybe #5 trains in the Bronx. ----- The MTA split the B-train between two terminals during the rush hours for a ten year period IN THE CBD! From August 30, 1976 to April 13, 1986 the B-train served BOTH the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue terminal (as the sole route going there), AND the 168th Street-Washington Heights terminal making local stops with the CC local on Central Park West. The riders simply learned which B-train to take for their destinations. AIM asks, "So is your argument that if it was OK to do it with the B from 1979 to 1989, then it's OK to do it with the N in 2017?" YES! Just label those N-trains as N-trains! There is no need to label these trains as "Q-trains" leaving Brooklyn for Manhattan and then re-labeling them as N-trains for the return trips to Brooklyn. There is simply no need this disguise or the effort behind the disguise - I've said this from the start. The offered reasons in support of this practice - I've said repeatedly are silly. In 1979, we did not even have automated announcements on the trains or electronic computerized signage maps! In this case the N-train is no more different than the other train lines that have split terminals, or trains that short-turn. Just label the trains properly. Mike PS1 - And to respond to another poster - I do not remember talk of labeling any of the branches of the B-train with the letter V. I've participated several online transit forums in and since the 1980's (boy do I feel old now), and I do not recall that. PS2 - The things one could do with a 300-baud modem in the early 1980's - wow! When the 1200-baud modems came out - speedy! Yes, today there are several orders of magnitude difference. But still wow! |
|
|
|