|
|
| Re: G southern terminal changed to Church (345497) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 16 of 20 |
||
|
| (348588) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:10:02 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 11:36:42 2006. Interesting....but you just want to keep that brown M don't you! |
|
|
| (348592) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:11:32 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 06:14:36 2006. My September 2005 MAP (yes, I know, I need an update) says, in the 5 service deatils, "some rush hour trips to Utica or New Lots." |
|
|
| (348594) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:14:08 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 5 10:32:51 2006. Back then, I could find a seat during rush hour about 60% of the timeAnd how many rides did you take to get this scientific percentage? and half the seats were empty at other times. You obviously didn't/don't ride that line often do you? Even the M is standing room only rush hour, and usually packed, and the J is a busier line that the M. Both the M and J are often standing room only even on the weekends depending on the time of day. You make it sound like it has the ridership of the Culver Shuttle or something, which couldn't be farther from the truth. And this didn't happen since "2004", it was like this from at least the early 80s' when I first became a regular rider, and only getting busier. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (348603) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:20:07 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:11:32 2006. Actually, I just noticed the October 2006 MAP (PDF online version) mentions BOTH the 5 rush hour trips to Utica or New Lots, and the E rush hour trips to 179th/Hillside. |
|
|
| (348604) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Tue Dec 5 22:20:29 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by SickTransitGloria on Tue Dec 5 11:47:44 2006. It is not required that express tracks be used simply because they exist. |
|
|
| (348606) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 5 22:21:48 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:14:08 2006. "And how many rides did you take to get this scientific percentage?"Every other workday day for ten weeks in the Sept-Oct timeframe. I had meetings at the health department. I boarded at around 7AM to arrive in Lower Manhattan. I did not ride it home, however - I took a different route, because I left from midtown, not downtown. I obviously rode it more than you did, because your description as it relates to late summer and fall of 2004 is a fantasy, not reality. I don't know what it's like today though. I hope your description is accurate; judging from your infantile reaction to my post, though, I have my doubts. |
|
|
| (348614) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:31:37 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 12:25:24 2006. Good point. Well, they don't terminate there -- they just vanish into thin air. |
|
|
| (348615) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Dec 5 22:32:36 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:00:05 2006. But that actually appears on station signs. |
|
|
| (348617) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:33:20 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 5 14:05:39 2006. And 57/7. |
|
|
| (348619) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:34:54 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Dec 5 22:32:36 2006. And on the service guide panel on the map. |
|
|
| (348621) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 22:37:32 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 06:14:36 2006. Why sign them as (5) trains anyway? If they were signed as (4) trains, most people wouldn't notice. |
|
|
| (348622) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:38:22 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:11:32 2006. OH. You're right. I stand corrected. That's what I get for relying on memory. |
|
|
| (348625) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:40:26 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 22:37:32 2006. That might not be a bad idea -- once in Manhattan, change the signs from 5 to 4.Similarly with the 2 to New Lots -- once in Manhattan, sign it as a 3. |
|
|
| (348626) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 22:41:03 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:10:02 2006. Interesting....but you just want to keep that brown M don't you!Well, the (M) is a nice coincidence in lettering: (B)righton (J)amaica (M)yrtle (S)huttle |
|
|
| (348633) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:44:45 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:33:20 2006. Yes and no. While the Q terminates there, the N (express) continues on to Astoria. |
|
|
| (348637) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:47:01 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 22:41:03 2006. Not really a coincidence. MTA gave the M and J (and S) those letters deliberately to coincide with the line names. The B name predated its move to the the Brighton line. |
|
|
| (348647) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:53:21 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 5 22:21:48 2006. I obviously rode it more than you did, because your description as it relates to late summer and fall of 2004 is a fantasy, not realityI rode the line everyday for 4 years, and alongside it everyday on the M for 9. |
|
|
| (348648) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 5 22:54:10 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:53:21 2006. Not at the times when I did. |
|
|
| (348650) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 22:54:33 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:44:45 2006. This brings up the interesting question of whether 49/7 is an express station or not. If it is, does the Q train run on a spur, rather than express tracks? |
|
|
| (348652) | |
Re: Combine the M-V part ix |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 22:57:44 2006, in response to Re: Combine the M-V part ix, posted by Fytton on Tue Dec 5 06:31:30 2006. So why not the Z? Skip stop needs to be extended longer than just one hour. And it is the rush hours therefore the Z doesn't run other times and the Z going Brooklyn is also rush hours only and that is why the Z should go down there.The J is needed more up in Jamacia, the Z can cover Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (348655) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 5 23:01:03 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:47:01 2006. Not really a coincidence. MTA gave the M and J (and S) those letters deliberately to coincide with the line names.Well, the range (J)(K)(L)(M) was free for the Eastern Division, and the allocation within that range was probably less than coincidental. It, however, did rely on the coincidence of the IND running out at (HH). |
|
|
| (348658) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:02:31 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 06:14:36 2006. Yeah I would be in favor of that. |
|
|
| (348659) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:03:28 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:40:26 2006. Well they could w/a touch of the screen. |
|
|
| (348660) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:04:10 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 5 22:47:01 2006. I think it's more of a nice coincidence.A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H were already used for the IND. The MTA just picked up from there, starting with the Eastern Division. I was skipped, as too much like a 1. J and K was given to the Jamaica line, L to Canarsie, and M to the Myrtle.... and so on. |
|
|
| (348661) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Dec 5 23:04:15 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 22:40:26 2006. Might be difficult to do given the software -- wouldn't you have to reset the entire thing to change routes? |
|
|
| (348663) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:05:22 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 22:00:05 2006. Yeah, but only 3 trains per direction, a few more 5's goes to Utica in just an hour. |
|
|
| (348664) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 23:05:42 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Dec 5 23:04:15 2006. Someone who works with it daily can fill us in on the details, but I think it's just a matter of tapping a few buttons on the screen. |
|
|
| (348665) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:06:06 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 5 23:05:42 2006. I'm sure G1 can fill us in. |
|
|
| (348666) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:06:56 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 5 22:54:10 2006. Yes, but ridership did not go down from the time I rode, the entire system's ridership went up. |
|
|
| (348667) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:07:18 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 5 12:10:55 2006. I'm not saying send all 5's to Flatbush, just 1 out of 3 is all I ask. |
|
|
| (348670) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:08:38 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:06:56 2006. ...and especially in those neighborhoods. |
|
|
| (348671) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:08:45 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 08:19:10 2006. You mean building that single track to connect to the Alabama launch pad? |
|
|
| (348675) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:14:38 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:08:45 2006. No, not using the Alabama Launch Pad. Not entering Fulton at all. The express would leave the local at East New York (Broadway Junction), and instead of going towards Alabama station, would go over Jamaica Ave instead towards Cypress Hills station, once there, over the Manhattan local track, and decend to the middle of the Jamaica El through the Cypress Hills station.This would allow the express to completely skip all the curves, and have a faster more direct route to the Jamaica EL, all while the local does what it's supposed to do, serve the neighborhood along Fulton St. There's no need to drag the express over to and above Fulton St.And the Alabama Ave luanch pad would remain....a launchpad.... |
|
|
| (348682) | |
Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church) |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Tue Dec 5 23:18:19 2006, in response to Re: 5 to Utica vs Flatbush (was G Southern Terminal Changed to Church), posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:07:18 2006. It would be more efficient, probably to send 2/3 trains with more tph that way, to Flatbush Av, than sending 2/5 trains. Then at some point you run into the terminal difficulties identified. |
|
|
| (348685) | |
Re: G runs to Forest Hills nights and weekends |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:20:44 2006, in response to Re: G runs to Forest Hills nights and weekends, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 5 00:20:20 2006. So you don't ride the G as often, yet you say you know more than he does? |
|
|
| (348687) | |
Re: Combine the M-V part ix |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Tue Dec 5 23:21:33 2006, in response to Re: Combine the M-V part ix, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 22:57:44 2006. Wouldn't that upset the skip-stop timing? |
|
|
| (348691) | |
Re: Combine the M-V part ix |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:25:32 2006, in response to Re: Combine the M-V part ix, posted by smooth on Tue Dec 5 23:21:33 2006. Probably. Skip stop only works well when both letters depart from the same station. It can work without that, but it won't run like a Swiss watch. I'm afraid both the J and the Z would both have to go to Bay Parkway, and what's wrong with that? Again, remember the Z is just a J with a different letter that skips some stations at some point. I don't know what the M's headways are vs the J/Z. |
|
|
| (348692) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:26:32 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:14:38 2006. But still, it would be a single track connected directly to the express? Whereever it goes thru, that's fine and would be much better than to go local thru those curves for sure. |
|
|
| (348694) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:28:58 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 5 11:54:03 2006. How so? There's not that much traffic compared to other 2 track segments like the 2/3 from Boro Hall to Park Place.Worse comes worse the J/M/Z are well prepared for segmented shuttles. |
|
|
| (348695) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:31:12 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 08:28:01 2006. Not a problem about the Eastern segment as it could be connected by one seperate track to Canal to be a longer layup track and they could convert that side for a mini yard or perhaps even the futue extention of the SAS. Going thru the old Manny B connection would not only make better use of the Nassau segment, but also be cheaper than to build a new segment down Water St. |
|
|
| (348696) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:31:33 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:26:32 2006. But still, it would be a single track connected directly to the express?Yes, it would be a single track el over Jamaica Ave, not at grade at Cypress Hills (over the Manhattan track), and connected to the express track at East New York, completely avoiding the local route along Fulton St. It would be similar to the way the express takes a shortcut route on Queens Blvd, and also in the South Brooklyn subway. |
|
|
| (348697) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:37:04 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by W Broadway Local on Sat Dec 2 00:34:16 2006. But 53rd lex was becoming too crowded, the E/F had to be split or else someone could get pushed off the platform. One express and one local evens the load while express riders wishing to avoid that busy station enjoys a 'hassle free' ride. |
|
|
| (348698) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:38:29 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:31:12 2006. or perhaps even the futue extention of the SAS. Going thru the old Manny B connection would not only make better use of the Nassau segment, but also be cheaper than to build a new segment down Water St.I agree. I was astonished when they chose the Water St alignment as opposed to the preexisting, and completely underutilized Nassau option. All the infastructure is all already there, unused. |
|
|
| (348700) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:45:01 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:31:33 2006. Of course. Ah yes it is a good idea to keep it above the Manhattan bound track to avoid any 'traffic'. |
|
|
| (348701) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 5 23:45:51 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:38:29 2006. Exactly and that would force Fulton and Broad St to be open 24/7. The way it should be. |
|
|
| (348712) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Dec 6 00:08:15 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 3 22:00:32 2006. Reextending the Myrtle back to Jay would be a big help. It would give a fast alternative, especially when you miss the connection down the stairs at Essex, and particularly if the M is not running, or it has gotten lost on 4th Ave. somewhere.Of course, the ideal situation would be both Myrtle and 6th Ave. Then, accessibility over here would be equal to other areas. They would have had that if they had run the MM as planned. I don't know why they didn't begin running it as a replacement when the Myrtle was closed. |
|
|
| (348715) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k6 on Wed Dec 6 00:34:16 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Dec 4 22:21:11 2006. (M) does terminate at Broad (at least some of them) during the late PM rush hour and early evening (after it stops going to Brooklyn) |
|
|
| (348716) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k6 on Wed Dec 6 00:36:59 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by Eric B on Wed Dec 6 00:08:15 2006. Myrtle should be re extended over(or on) the Brooklyn Bridge not just to Jay Street |
|
|
| (348719) | |
Re: G southern terminal changed to Church |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Dec 6 00:54:31 2006, in response to Re: G southern terminal changed to Church, posted by TheGreatOne2k6 on Wed Dec 6 00:34:16 2006. I'm looking at both schedules right now and it doesn't look like the (M) terminates at Broad Street when the (Z) is running. |
|
|
| (348721) | |
Re: Combine the M-V part ix |
|
|
Posted by smooth on Wed Dec 6 00:55:12 2006, in response to Re: Combine the M-V part ix, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 5 23:25:32 2006. Right. If they both J/Z originate at the same point, it works well, but if one goes through DeKalb Av and the other doesn't.... |
|
|
|
Page 16 of 20 |
||
