|
|
| Re: M train ridership up past expectations (1348690) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1349069) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Apr 22 21:50:58 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 15:23:28 2015. You can thank LaGuardia for starting the 1950's neglect. There was little money left after he bought the BMT and IRT, tore down the older els, yet kept building the IND. All this on a nickel fare. Then the war comes, forcing people to use mass transit, so he takes credit for running the subways at a profit- even with the five cent fare. Too bad he died in 1947 and didn't live to see the financial mess he had created. |
|
|
| (1349088) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Apr 22 23:57:42 2015, in response to M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 20 16:43:13 2015. With 6th Avenue, 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd receiving major signal upgrades for CBTC over the next 5 years, there is NO chance of the M expanding its service past Essex St until 2020. |
|
|
| (1349104) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Apr 23 05:37:50 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Apr 22 09:47:10 2015. The idea of extending the (M) to 145 is it would be a compromise if it can't run on QB on weekends to give (M) riders in Brooklyn midtown service.It also allows for an experiment to see if a 6th Avenue local is warranted on CPW on weekends that once the (M) is able to go to QB, if warranted the (B) could then run from say 2nd Avenue to 145 on weekends. This is mainly about getting the (M) to midtown on weekends to where it can turn at a suitable terminal and not potentially jam up the road. 145 seems to be the best place to do it in this case, and such also allows for events at Yankee Stadium on weekends even extending the (M) (and later (B)) to Fordham Road if warranted. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1349240) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 23 18:05:40 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Apr 22 21:50:58 2015. He was also responsible for the dictatorial practices of Robert Moses. If Laguardia hadn’t allowed Moses’ foot in the door, Moses wouldn't have been able to achieve enough power to ruin neighborhoods the way he did. |
|
|
| (1349274) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 23 19:37:15 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 22 17:03:48 2015. Even if it ran to Ctl on weekends, it would still probably require 8 car trains and 2 person crews. |
|
|
| (1349278) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 23 19:52:18 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Apr 23 05:37:50 2015. The problem with having either the M or a truncated B running to/from 145 St is that direct access to CPW is only from the exp tks on 6 Av requiring switching move either at W 4 St or 34 St between the lcl and exp tracks. |
|
|
| (1349280) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Apr 23 19:58:05 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 23 19:52:18 2015. Weekends that's not a big problem. There aren't that many Fs and Ds. |
|
|
| (1349334) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 24 01:41:05 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by AlM on Thu Apr 23 19:58:05 2015. Right.The move would be between 34th and 42nd. On weekends, that would not be too big of an issue since the (D) and (F) do not run nearly as frequently as on weekdays. Besides giving (M) riders midtown service and CPW local riders a 6th Avenue line option on weekends, this also would help with preventing the (F) from getting overcrowded on weekends with a second 6th Avenue local between Essex-Delancey and 47th-50th Street before going to the CPW line. |
|
|
| (1349344) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 24 05:25:57 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Mon Apr 20 23:22:09 2015. did you check The Weekender?It's like this most weekends. Thanks. |
|
|
| (1349391) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 24 11:59:35 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Apr 24 01:41:05 2015. Apparently the D runs frequently enough that the schedule dept felt that they couldn’t be scheduled to stop at Dekalb except during midnight hours. |
|
|
| (1349426) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Apr 24 17:09:21 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 24 11:59:35 2015. The D service we have now is roughly a third of what was operating in the past.As a matter of fact,that seems to be the norm all over the system, ever though ridership calls for service increases all over the system.. |
|
|
| (1349473) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 24 21:26:59 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by italianstallion on Mon Apr 20 23:22:09 2015. did you check the weekend GO's?Would M's be able to go to Forest Hills this weekend? |
|
|
| (1349495) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sat Apr 25 00:31:32 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 14:57:53 2015. Would turning the M at 57th & 6th be operationally similar to when the 5 train ran to Atlantic midday? |
|
|
| (1349510) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Apr 25 05:48:17 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sat Apr 25 00:31:32 2015. At any given time, Atlantic was a either a terminal or a thru station. At no time did some trains terminate there while others continued. |
|
|
| (1349518) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Apr 25 09:19:20 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Apr 25 05:48:17 2015. Do you mean the express tracks at Atlantic were either terminal or through? |
|
|
| (1349539) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Apr 25 12:48:50 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 21 10:31:23 2015. Eh, I wouldn't say it's anymore efficient compared to almost any train that passes through Manhattan in the middle of the route. |
|
|
| (1349558) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Apr 25 15:05:13 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by AlM on Sat Apr 25 09:19:20 2015. Correct. Middays when the Lex Av trains terminated at Atlantic, there was no express service in Bkln. As an addition, I will add that for a brief period, in the 1980s, there were 1 or 2 #6s that were extended from Bkln Br to Atl and were turned north on the S/B exp tk. When that occurred, any S/B Lex expresses were routed to the S/B lcl tk between Atl and Fkln. Since there was an alternate track on which to operate service. a breakdown on the exp tk would not stop service completely as a breakdown at 57/6 would. |
|
|
| (1349561) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Sat Apr 25 15:15:10 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Sat Apr 25 15:05:13 2015. Interesting to see a 6 in Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1349579) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 25 16:49:39 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Sat Apr 25 15:05:13 2015. I believe there was also a Number 6 train that operated out of Flatbush during the peak period as a Brooklyn express... express on Lexington avenue and express along Pelham..I rode this train railfaning one evening. Wondered why there wasn't more,operating four tph or something? |
|
|
| (1349606) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Sat Apr 25 20:47:28 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 25 16:49:39 2015. I have never heard of this before! Interesting! Any more information on this? |
|
|
| (1349609) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 25 21:04:59 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Apr 25 20:47:28 2015. Not that I know of...all I can say is I rode the train that evening all the way to Hunts Point... |
|
|
| (1349611) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Apr 25 21:14:44 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 25 16:49:39 2015. It may have merely been a rerouted 6 that was sent to Bkln to cover a hole in #5 service. I never recall any such service being scheduled for the PM, only the AM ones I mentioned. |
|
|
| (1349615) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Sat Apr 25 21:39:42 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Sat Apr 25 21:14:44 2015. were the two 6s to Atlantic mentioned anywhere on any signage, maps or documents? |
|
|
| (1349616) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 CHRIS on Sat Apr 25 21:47:20 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Apr 25 12:48:50 2015. Who said it was? Compared to the old V, that dead ended in lower manhattan and the old brown M that dead ended at chambers, the Orange M is quite efficient |
|
|
| (1349643) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 26 02:37:56 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Sat Apr 25 15:05:13 2015. And that is why if you can't run the (M) to 71-Continental on weekends, I would have the (M) operate to 145 then since that is the easiest place to terminate. That (again) also would allow to see if once the (M) is able to run to 71-Continental on weekends full-time having a truncated (B) train run from 2nd Avenue to 145 on weekends. |
|
|
| (1349644) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 26 02:43:09 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Apr 21 20:09:50 2015. It was noted elsewhere right now on most weekends, they are doing CBTC work that prevents having four lines operate on weekends then. That's why I would on weekends have the (M) operate to 145 since it's easier to terminate there (plus there's the added benefit of a 6th Avenue option on the CPW local then) until that changes, with the (B) then on weekends running 2nd Avenue to 145. |
|
|
| (1349646) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Apr 26 04:26:38 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 26 02:37:56 2015. right.M to Forest Hills on weekends is usually impossible. I know someone with 20 years in title who picks the R on weekends even though he could be off. I asked him why and he said the GO's are so common, usually 3 out of 4 weekends a month, and he gets a dropped trip or early report and late clear, meaning more money. |
|
|
| (1349680) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 09:48:13 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by gp38/r42 CHRIS on Sat Apr 25 21:47:20 2015. But there are also problems with very long lines that begin and end at remote terminals; the possibility of incidents that affect the traffic at both ends is greater, and the recovery more difficult. |
|
|
| (1349746) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 26 16:47:41 2015, in response to Re: M on Weekends, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Apr 26 04:26:38 2015. Exactly, and why I would have the (M) go to 145 since:1. That is the easiest place to terminate. 2. It gives Broadway-Brooklyn riders weekend Midtown Service. 3. It gives the MTA data to see if once the (M) can run to 71-Continental on weekends whether or not to keep what would be the (B) portion of the weekend (M) in place by having a truncated (B) run from 2nd Avenue to 145th depending on what level of ridership there is on the CPW part of this re-routed (M). Given there have been those clamoring for a CPW local option from the 6th Avenue line on weekends to help the (C), this would be a perfect excuse to send the (M) to 145 to see if it's worthwhile to have such service full-time once the (M) is able to go to 71-Continental on weekends. |
|
|
| (1349764) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Apr 26 17:21:47 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by AlM on Sat Apr 25 09:19:20 2015. Do you mean the express tracks at Atlantic were either terminal or through?Yes, that is actually what is meant in reference to the #4 and #5 trains, for example in the mid-1960's and 1970's - when mid-day #4 and #5 trains terminated there. For a moment also I found the statement confusing on the first reading, but the message stream concerned the #4 and #5 express trains on the express tracks at Atlantic Avenue. Mike |
|
|
| (1349769) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 17:29:58 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Apr 25 21:39:42 2015. AFAIK, not in any signage or maps but they were certainly included on the timetables issued by the schedule dept. |
|
|
| (1349796) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:57:30 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 26 02:43:09 2015. Running a service that has to operate from./to the lcl tks on 6 Av and Xover to the exp tks either at W4 St or 34 St requires switching moves that would interfere with both the F and D services at either of those locations. Another thing is that the MTA prefers consistency in its service patterns and multiple terminals at one end of either the B or the M defeats that concept. |
|
|
| (1349806) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Apr 26 19:38:28 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:57:30 2015. There aren't that many F's and Ds on weekends. No worse than the switching moves they do every day on the N/Q/R. As for the differing terminals, that is probably a major reason, along with money, why the M doesn't go to 145th. |
|
|
| (1349854) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 27 08:40:41 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:57:30 2015. Weekend switching on 6th Ave shouldn't be too hard, and there's always another letter (V?) for a new service pattern (145th to Metropolitan), even if it only runs weekends. But the big question: is the C overcrowded?Interestingly, if the C and this hypothetical V ran together on CPW, that would make for both lines having short trains but for entirely different reasons. |
|
|
| (1349981) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Mon Apr 27 23:47:15 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 27 08:40:41 2015. But the big question: is the C overcrowded? And the follow-up: if so, can it be alleviated with running more and/or longer trains? |
|
|
| (1350047) | |
Re: M train ridership up past expectations |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Apr 28 16:49:30 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by K. Trout on Mon Apr 27 23:47:15 2015. Somehow I truly doubt that on the weekends that there are huge crowds of folks getting off the C-local train at 59th Street-Columbus Circle, crowding the platforms and waiting only for the D-train headed down Sixth Avenue. Or in the reverse, huge crowds of uptown D-train riders exiting the D-train at 59th Street-Columbus Circle.I do know that C-train service especially in Brooklyn should be improved, the wait times between trains can be long. A very good case, I could be made for the J and M trains at Essex-Delancy Streets and the transfer between F-train. Or between the #2 and #4 trains when the #5 is not running on the weekends due to a G.O. The last MTA New York City Travel Survey was conducted in 2008, maybe a more recent survey will help resolve some issues. Mike |
|
|
| (1350095) | |
Re: M on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 29 05:27:48 2015, in response to Re: M train ridership up past expectations, posted by Michael549 on Tue Apr 28 16:49:30 2015. That's why I would run the weekend (M) to 145 as an experiment.By the time the (M) would be able to be run to 71-Continental most weekends, the MTA would have sufficient data to see if a 6th Avenue CPW local is warranted to continue between 145 and most likely 2nd Avenue on weekends (either as a truncated (B) or a revived (V) train that would be weekends and holidays only). |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
