|
|
| M train ridership up past expectations (1348690) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1348699) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by R32_3671 on Mon Apr 20 19:41:38 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. Not with all these Weekend GO's, but the (M) should run on weekends, the (R) is horrible on weekends |
|
|
| (1348710) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 20 21:25:46 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. News 12 reporting M service is steadily improving is a clear indication that this Should be a given operating weekend Queens Blvd service.Queens Blvd most likely can't handle M and R service on weekends. It's one or the other, but not both. If you are serious about this idea, look at the GO's every weekend, and you'll see that it would be impossible 75% of the time. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1348713) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by zac on Mon Apr 20 22:24:43 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. Yes, the M train to Brooklyn is frequently packed at around 6-7pm at Bway Laf. And they also arrive there in the am crowded too. That whole section of Brooklyn has revived itself and midtown is a more popular destination than downtown. |
|
|
| (1348714) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 20 22:50:29 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by zac on Mon Apr 20 22:24:43 2015. I agree.And Edwards! is right about extending M beyond weekend shuttles. But all the way to Queens? Queens Blvd needs the frequency, but too many GO's will result in M's not going to Queens most weekends anyway. So why bother? |
|
|
| (1348720) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Apr 20 23:22:09 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 20 21:25:46 2015. "Queens Blvd most likely can't handle M and R service on weekends. It's one or the other, but not both."Huh? It handles both on weekdays, with closer headways. |
|
|
| (1348724) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Apr 21 00:02:55 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Mon Apr 20 23:22:09 2015. Weekend construction. |
|
|
| (1348740) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Tue Apr 21 08:03:47 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. They probably won't do it until CBTC is up and running on QBL, as we all saw with the L line, it had a zillion G.Os installing that on the line, after that, it runs regular service on weekends most of the time. |
|
|
| (1348751) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 10:31:23 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. The M line's ridership has exploded immediately after the change in 2010 to make it a midtown train. The M stations had double digit increases in the 2011 stats, and continued to rise.Now Ridgewood is having an explosion of it's own in people wanting to move in, and a lot of that has to do with the M line change, as the commute has become so much easier. Bushwick had been on the rise for years even before that, but it's like a light switch went on with the 2011 stats and forward for the M stations in Ridgewood. That said, I don't know if it's necessary to have the M train run all the way to Queens Blvd weekends. While it's nice that the M line now goes to at least Essex/Delancey weekends, and would be even nicer if it went along 6th Ave too (pretty necessary), but as for sending it past into QUeens Blvd, I don't know if that's necessary. The two ends of the M line have completely different riders on either end. You have the people that get on in Ridgewood/Bushwick/Williamsburg and get off somewhere along the route in Manhattan, on the other end you have the Queens Blvd people that take the M the other way and get off somewhere in Manhattan. It's safe to say that's what most of the M's ridership does, two entirely different groups of people on either end of the line, with some, but not many taking the M from QUeens Blvd through Manhattan to get off somewhere in Williamsburg, Ridgewood or Bushwick, or people from that end of the line taking the M through Manhattan and back out to Queens Blvd. That said, it makes for a very efficient line, as it's a "peak direction" train in either direction weekdays as it rides through Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1348752) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 10:33:10 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by R32_3671 on Mon Apr 20 19:41:38 2015. Yes, the R is a terrible line to be running alone on Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (1348759) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 11:09:34 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 10:31:23 2015. So if it ran up 6th, but not into Queens, where would it turn? |
|
|
| (1348760) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by snarf368 on Tue Apr 21 11:18:08 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 11:09:34 2015. italianstallion said "So if it ran up 6th, but not into Queens, where would it turn? "57th Street & 6th Ave |
|
|
| (1348766) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 12:30:01 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 11:09:34 2015. It can't. I didn't make mention of having it do it. I said "it would be nice, but wasn't needed on Queens Blvd necessarily". |
|
|
| (1348769) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 12:37:24 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 12:30:01 2015. That was supposed to say "I didn't". Don't know how autocorrect turned that into "i can't". |
|
|
| (1348788) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Apr 21 14:14:36 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by snarf368 on Tue Apr 21 11:18:08 2015. Turning a service on the mainline during a GO of limited duration may be alright although I don’t think that’s even a good idea, but turning on what is essentially the mainline as a regular service pattern is definitely not good since if the train brakes down in the station, the entire line is blocked. |
|
|
| (1348803) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 15:10:25 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Tue Apr 21 14:14:36 2015. Why is this different from if a through train breaks down at 57th St? It blocks the line the same way. |
|
|
| (1348809) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Apr 21 15:53:41 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 15:10:25 2015. I guess that the idea is that at 57th Street-Seventh Avenue when the N, QB or Q trains terminated on the center express tracks, the local EE or RR, R or W trains on outside local tracks were free and clear to enter and exit the station. Such a station like 57th Street-Seventh Avenue, or the Brighton Beach station (basically a similar design) are rather flexible in operation for both the terminating trains and the through local trains. At worst in the case of trouble, trains can be routed around a problem. At least the riders could be let off of the train, or allowed to take the through trains to their destinations. In addition some of the terminating trains could be sent on the through tracks to other destinations until the problem train has been dealt with.In the case of the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue station being a simple two-track station with center platform, the terminating train blocks the movement of the local through train for a period of time. At worst in case of trouble, the through train CAN NOT be routed around the stalled train. In the very worst case scenario the through train might have to "wrong rail" back to a previously served station. Such an operation would foul the train traffic on the railroad, possibly requiring major changes for other trains. In addition, riders could easily be heavily delayed in such an operation. Basically there are fewer options available if something were to occur when the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue station with its two-track center platform setup is used as a terminal and as a through station at the same time. Look at the 59th Street-Lexington Avenue local station for the #6. Railroad north of the station is a center track that ends at a bumper. There an uptown terminating train can discharge passengers at the platform, relay on the center track, and when ready return to service on the downtown local track. While the through-trains are free to continue travel either uptown or downtown. Yes, the station is a 2-track local station with side platforms, but the extra center track provides flexibility when something goes wrong. I that is the major point being made. Mike |
|
|
| (1348826) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 19:01:03 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Michael549 on Tue Apr 21 15:53:41 2015. I agree there is less flexibility. But we have dozens of terminal stations in the city. How often does a train break down precisely in the wrong place at a terminal? I think it is rare. So the likelihood of a stalled train FUBARing the line at 57th and 6th is probably quite low. |
|
|
| (1348829) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 21 19:04:33 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 19:01:03 2015. There are no terminals like 57th and 6th anywhere in the system: only 2 tracks, where some trains continue and some trains reverse. The trains take too long to turn. |
|
|
| (1348831) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by R32_3671 on Tue Apr 21 19:15:01 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 21 19:04:33 2015. Run it to 145th st on weekends and have it run on CPW as a local |
|
|
| (1348832) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 21 19:15:54 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Apr 21 19:15:01 2015. Of course that works. NYCT doesn't want to pay for it. Maybe if ridership increases still more. |
|
|
| (1348837) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Apr 21 19:45:32 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. There are just as many people Now using the easter division to midtown today,than there has been in decades...Still prefer the passover division. |
|
|
| (1348839) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Apr 21 19:49:13 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Mon Apr 20 23:22:09 2015. But not with any service diversions. There are never weekday service diversions on Queens Blvd, almost always one on the weekend. That usually entails squeezing all the service in one direction onto one track, something which cannot be done with 4 separate lines at their current weekend headways. |
|
|
| (1348843) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 21 20:09:50 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 21 19:15:54 2015. They may has well just send its normal route to forest hills then and avoid confusion. |
|
|
| (1348849) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Apr 21 20:31:23 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 21 20:09:50 2015. Is there enough ridership on weekends, between Forest Hills and Queens Plaza, to justify running the "M"? |
|
|
| (1348850) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Apr 21 20:43:51 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Apr 21 20:31:23 2015. If not, then run it to Queens Plaza. |
|
|
| (1348852) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Apr 21 21:23:29 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 10:31:23 2015. Queens Plaza might be a nice turn-around on weekends, since the pocket track can handle an 8-car train. |
|
|
| (1348853) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Apr 21 21:25:11 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Apr 21 20:31:23 2015. Sounds good to me- at least to Queens Plaza! |
|
|
| (1348854) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Apr 21 21:38:20 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Apr 21 19:15:01 2015. That could have been useful during that GO a few years ago where the C was cancelled, A ran local in Manhattan, F ran via the C south of Jay St, and the G was extended to Coney Island. With the M going to 145, A could have still been express in Manhattan. But I guess it was cheaper to run a few extra A trains due to the local running than more than a few extra Ms. |
|
|
| (1348855) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Apr 21 21:47:32 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Apr 21 19:15:01 2015. What about to Queens Plaza? It's a shorter run, and even though a turning crew will be required on weekends, it's less travel time. |
|
|
| (1348861) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 23:01:41 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Apr 21 19:49:13 2015. Why should there be service diversions there forever? Won't there ever be a time when the line is in a state of good-enough repair that weeknight Fastracks can take care of maintenance? |
|
|
| (1348869) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Apr 22 01:50:58 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 23:01:41 2015. Not when entire signal systems are in the process of being replaced! |
|
|
| (1348872) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 22 02:11:41 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 20 22:50:29 2015. If QB can't handle (M) service on most weekends due to construction, then I would look at on weekends combining the (M) with the Manhattan part of the (B) and have on weekends the (M) run to 145th (normal route to 47-50, then local on CPW).That would give Broadway-Brooklyn passengers direct midtown service on weekends and those on CPW a 6th Avenue local option then as well (and those in Willamsburg a one-seat ride to the upper west side on weekends as well). That might be the compromise that needs to be made. |
|
|
| (1348873) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 22 02:13:37 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Tue Apr 21 14:14:36 2015. Which is why if you can't send the (M) to QB on weekends due to work, I would instead combine it with the (B) on weekends and have it run to 145th since it can terminate there on the center track of the lower level. That to me might be the best compromise. |
|
|
| (1348874) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 22 02:14:40 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Apr 21 19:15:01 2015. Which is EXACTLY what I would do!! |
|
|
| (1348875) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 22 02:15:37 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Apr 21 21:38:20 2015. The M was not running via 6th Avenue at the time that was last done I believe. |
|
|
| (1348884) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 22 05:47:50 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 23:01:41 2015. Won't there ever be a time when the line is in a state of good-enough repair that weeknight Fastracks can take care of maintenance?No. There never has been and never ever will be. Go back to the threads in January and February and you'll see GO's 6 out of 8 weekends that disrupted service. If you're interested, just track the GO's for the next two months and you'll see why M can't go all the way to Forest Hills. |
|
|
| (1348912) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Apr 22 09:40:02 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 23:01:41 2015. The L line rarely ever has G.Os ever since they put CBTC on that line.G.O's probably won't ever stop, but I honestly think there will be a time when the M could run on QBL most weekends. |
|
|
| (1348913) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Apr 22 09:47:10 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 22 02:13:37 2015. If most of the G.O's are CBTC related, then the M should stay how it is until that work is finished, can't just send the M to 145th then take it away when CBTC is ready on QBL.And I highly doubt the TA would run both the B AND the M on weekends. The Q does a great job covering the Brighton by itself on weekends, C is getting new trains so it should be able to handle CPW by itself on weekends once it does. |
|
|
| (1348918) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Apr 22 10:12:06 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 22 05:47:50 2015. Doesn't answer the question. I'm talking way beyond 2 months. |
|
|
| (1348919) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Apr 22 10:12:29 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Apr 22 09:40:02 2015. Yes, I agree. |
|
|
| (1348920) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Apr 22 10:26:42 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 21 19:04:33 2015. It seems to work OK on those weekends when the M is sent to 57th St. If they have a crew waiting to take the train south, then it really shouldn't take longer than when the 5 terminates at Bowling Green while the 4 continues, or when the J terminated at Broad St. while the M continued into Brooklyn. And the latter was done in rush hour. |
|
|
| (1348962) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 14:53:33 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Apr 21 21:25:11 2015. Q/P is not too bad since there is a relay track N/O the station togged the train out of the way. |
|
|
| (1348964) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 14:57:53 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Apr 22 10:26:42 2015. However neither the 5 at Bwlg Grn or the J at Broad had to dump and recharge on the mainline although some Js might have if a drop back crew were required. However, neither train had to change ends on a mainline track and risk having a problem on the other end. |
|
|
| (1348968) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 15:23:28 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 23:01:41 2015. If maintenance was done right like it was before the neglectful maintenance policies of the 1950s, there wouldn’t be the need for the massive fastrack G Os that have become a part of recent NYCT operations. Of course routine maintenance such as track signal and switch replacement and maintenance will be necessary from time to time, but the system should be able to return to the past practices of having G Os on underground portions operating only from 1201A to 500A Tues thru Sat and on elevated portions only between 900A and 300P Mon thru Fri. In past times, there was also a moratorium on G Os during the December holiday season and the important celebratory occasions. If the routine maintenance were done in a proper and efficient manner, then the massive lengthy service outages that are being implemented would be unnecessary! |
|
|
| (1348991) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 22 17:03:48 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Apr 21 19:15:01 2015. Making it 8 cars, 2 man crew, and that route extension - you are talking big bucks operationally. |
|
|
| (1349016) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Apr 22 18:33:39 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. Moe has definitely made it to the big time. |
|
|
| (1349021) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 22 18:44:20 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Tue Apr 21 23:01:41 2015. Maintenance is a continual, never ending process. |
|
|
| (1349046) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 22 19:27:58 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 22 18:44:20 2015. But more must be going on on the QB line than just routine maintenance. The 4/5/6 aren't narrowed to 2 tracks on 3 weekends out of 4. |
|
|
| (1349067) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 22 21:39:03 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Wed Apr 22 10:12:06 2015. It does answer the question. There never has been and never will be a time when there isn't a weekend GO either on Queens Blvd or the river tubes.M would need a Manhattan terminal on weekends. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
