|
|
| Station naming (NYC) (828772) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (828772) | |
Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 00:31:27 2009 Noting that many lines stop the same street (but at different avenues), and in one case, there are two stations sharing the same name in two different areas entirely---why isn't there more disambiguation in station naming (i.e., 36 Street-Long Island City and 36 Street-Sunset Park), or Chambers Street-City Hall and Chambers Street-BMCC)?Information is appreciated. |
|
|
| (828784) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 00:38:47 2009, in response to Station naming (NYC), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 00:31:27 2009. IMO:In some, many, or all cases: 1. Different companies built them 2. Stations do have subtitles on station signage, if not on the map 3. Said subtitles may or may not be used by C/R in official or unofficial manner 4. Possible desire to keep things short and sweet - remember, extra letters/words means extra costs in a whole lotta ways 5. Not wanting to mess with what for the most part works - don't create a solution for a problem that less than a significant amount of people are having 6. People are supposed to be smart enough to know wtf they are going - while some things have been dumbed down, not everything has yet |
|
|
| (828787) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Sep 2 00:41:39 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 00:38:47 2009. MTA generally doesn't rename stations often. 36 Street was built by two different companies at different times. At the time, there was no train like the current (R) which would've stopped at both of them. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (828797) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Wed Sep 2 00:51:29 2009, in response to Station naming (NYC), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 00:31:27 2009. BMT36st-SunsetPark IND 36st-LIC Chambers St-BMCC IRT/BMT(1913 Dual Contracts) Chambers St-City Hall |
|
|
| (828801) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 00:58:24 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by G1Ravage on Wed Sep 2 00:41:39 2009. Off the top of my head, they've only renamed stations that are terminals, or have a paid sponsor, or have political connections with a high up boss, or which formerly had a multi-part name that was shortened and then restored. There may be more cases. |
|
|
| (828818) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Wed Sep 2 01:40:17 2009, in response to Station naming (NYC), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 00:31:27 2009. A few years ago there was an exhibit about the NYC subways in the lobby of an office building on Sixth Avenue and Fifty-something street.One of the displays was about signage through the years, and included a study done probably in the late sixties that mentioned some problems with station names. Among the problems pointed out, with examples: 1. "Same thing, different names: Broadway Junction, Eastern Parkway, Broadway - East New York" 2. "Different things, same name: Van Siclen Avenue (J), Van Siclen Avenue (C), Van Siclen Avenue (3)" This first problem was eventually fixed; the second one, and many others like it, remain. When the F began using 63rd Street, the Lexington Avenue signs at the F, N/R/W, and E/V stations were replaced with one that include 63 St, 59 St, and 53 St. Also at that time, "21 Street" became "21 Street - Queensbridge". When Fifth Avenue (E,F; now E,V) was renovated, the new wall tiles included 53 St. One recently-missed opportunity was when the Roosevelt Avenue - 74 Street complex was redone. The entire station, both above and underground, should have been renamed "Roosevelt Avenue - 74 Street". |
|
|
| (828856) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 07:11:32 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 00:58:24 2009. What about 42 Street-Bryant Park?While not signed at the station, all of the R160s on the J and M trains refer to the Myrtle Avenue station after Flushing Avenue as Myrtle Avenue-Broadway. |
|
|
| (828861) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 2 08:09:07 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 00:38:47 2009. 'People are supposed to be smart enough to know wtf they are going'Well, yes - but have you noticed tha NYC gets a certain number of tourists? The multiple Chambers Streets, for example, are in an area of the city that tourists might well visit. I once delibertaely tricked my wife - we were staying by Chambers St 1,2,3 station, but returning from midtown one evening I got us on to an A train instead. She was very puzzled when we emerged from a station at Chambers St that she didnt't recognise. |
|
|
| (828865) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Sep 2 08:13:55 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by gbs on Wed Sep 2 01:40:17 2009. Twenty-first Street - Queensbridge always had that name. |
|
|
| (828866) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Sep 2 08:15:53 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 07:11:32 2009. So as not to confuse it with the other stations along Myrtle Avenue, namely Myrtle/Wyckoff. |
|
|
| (828903) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Wed Sep 2 11:21:17 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Sep 2 08:13:55 2009. No, the original signs said only "21 Street", even though there was a blank space underneath with room for "Queensbridge", which the newer signs now have. |
|
|
| (828905) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 11:26:22 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by gbs on Wed Sep 2 01:40:17 2009. Also at that time, "21 Street" became "21 Street - Queensbridge".Wouldn't that fall into my category of "renaming terminals"? |
|
|
| (828909) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Sep 2 12:12:07 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by gbs on Wed Sep 2 01:40:17 2009. Also when they redid Broadway-Lafayette, I could not understand why they did not alternate Broadway and Lafayette on the station tiles, since that is the official name of the station, but just I to repeat "Broadway". |
|
|
| (828910) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Sep 2 12:14:19 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 2 08:09:07 2009. Chambers has particularly irked me. At least they could have renamed Chamber of Horrors to "Brooklyn Bridge" since there is a transfer there. |
|
|
| (828921) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed Sep 2 13:35:13 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 2 08:09:07 2009. 'People are supposed to be smart enough to know wtf they are going'Sometimes the best thing to do is to give directions that are very simple. Very good when that tourist (or local) comes back and accuses you of giving confusing and/or wrong directions. Make sure they're paying attention. |
|
|
| (828922) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 2 13:42:08 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Wed Sep 2 13:35:13 2009. 'People are supposed to be smart enough to know wtf they are going''Sometimes the best thing to do is to give directions that are very simple.' True - but it would be nice if the NYCT system could be made a little less confusing in the first place, e.g. by doing something about all those duplicate station names.... |
|
|
| (828923) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed Sep 2 13:42:26 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Sep 2 08:15:53 2009. Not to mention Myrtle/Willoughby. Which is not on the line.But sometimes people ask for that station. |
|
|
| (828927) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed Sep 2 13:54:35 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 2 13:42:08 2009. I agree. The most confusing station is King's Highway in Brooklyn.On the Q, F, N and D lines. Fortunately not that many people ever want to go there. |
|
|
| (828929) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Sep 2 14:01:12 2009, in response to Station naming (NYC), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 2 00:31:27 2009. Terrapin actually gave you the basic answer-people are expected to know where they are going and adding/changing signs costs money.The only ORIGINAL station naming distinction that I can think of that dates from the original days of the subways is 23rd Street - Ely Avenue in Queens. According to different sources, that station was given two names for two reasons: 1) To differentiate it from the 23rd Street station on the 6th Avenue IND; and/or 2) To avoid confusion for people who still knew 23rd Street in Queens by its original name, Ely Avenue. |
|
|
| (828935) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 22:13:21 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 2 13:42:08 2009. I don't think it is all that confusing. Have you found it confusing? Have you heard that others have? |
|
|
| (828950) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Sep 2 22:59:06 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 22:13:21 2009. You are not really in a position to judge, given that you grew up here.Yes, it can be confusing. I had problems when I first came to New York, despite having travelled >90% of the London Underground. |
|
|
| (828954) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 23:17:30 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by JohnL on Wed Sep 2 22:59:06 2009. You are not really in a position to judge, given that you grew up here.Excuse me!?! How DARE you accuse me of being a New Yorker! I certainly did NOT grow up here. And I had no problems with the NYC Subway when I first came to NYC, despite never before living anywhere with any type of rapid transit system. And yes, I made my earlier statement while keeping in mind tourists/visitors/non-residents. If I'm not in any position to judge, it's only because I know how to read, count, and follow directions. But I suspect most people do too, which is why I said what I said, that I don't think the station names are confusing. Ok, I'll throw you a bone. On one of my trips to NYC in the early 1990's, when I was riding the subway for only maybe the 10th or so (could have been even fewer) time since I passed the age of 8, I did pass through a station that had a similar name to another station or part of the city and I was worried that I was missing my stop. The stop I wanted was actually further down the line. (And I did stay on.) I was probably between the ages of 11 and 14. And like I said, I had only been on the subway probably 10 times or less. I think that was the only time I was confused by a station name. From the time I started visiting here more often in my late teens, and then eventually moving here a few years later, I never had any problems. Heck, the first time I ever rode the subway "by myself" was probably when I was 17 or so, much later than most people here, I would guess. |
|
|
| (828957) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Wed Sep 2 23:27:18 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 23:17:30 2009. How DARE you accuse me of being a New Yorker!Yes, how dare JohnL insult us real New Yorkers. |
|
|
| (828977) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 01:45:11 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Mitch45 on Wed Sep 2 14:01:12 2009. Sometimes people don't know the difference between 23/Ely and 23/8. Or High St/B'klyn Bridge and B'klyn Bridge/Chambers. |
|
|
| (828997) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 3 03:44:25 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 2 22:13:21 2009. 'I don't think it is all that confusing. Have you found it confusing?'In a word, yes. Having grown up with the London Underground and Harry Beck-style maps of it, I found NYCT quite hard to use at first - and I've been a railfan more or less from birth. It's true that tourists from out of town are unlikely to use the four Kings Highway stations, but the duplicate names are only one of the problems - station entrances that give access to only one direction are another. Even I, as an experienced railfan, got caught out that way once. Admittedly I had a FunPass so it just meant an 18-minute delay, but it was a nuisance for all that. Of the urban rapid transit systems I've used, I'd say only Tokyo's was more confusing than NYCT. The other 'majors' - London, Paris, Berlin (despite the S-Bahn/U-Bahn business), Madrid - are all easier to understand. I've never been to Moscow, but its metro's layout - a series of radial lines all linked by a single circumferential line - looks pretty easy to follow on the map, though of course one has to grapple with the Cyrillic alphabet there. |
|
|
| (829006) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Thu Sep 3 05:46:03 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 01:45:11 2009. Well, there's nothing that can be done for those folks. |
|
|
| (829016) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 07:31:50 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Mitch45 on Thu Sep 3 05:46:03 2009. And it seems those folks ride the subway alot! |
|
|
| (829037) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 09:39:21 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 3 03:44:25 2009. I don't understand how the King Highways are confusing. Did someone tell you to "take the subway to Kings Highway"???? Or did they more likely tell you to "take the F to Kings Highway"? The person telling you should know the correct line. So what's confusing about it?The rest of the stuff you mentioned doesn't have to do with station names. |
|
|
| (829038) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 09:40:27 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 07:31:50 2009. No, you're probably wrong. |
|
|
| (829086) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 11:26:56 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 09:40:27 2009. By saying I'm prbably wrong means I'm probably right. |
|
|
| (829099) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 12:36:42 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 11:26:56 2009. No, as I clearly wrote, it means you're probably wrong.As an aside, you have never turned out to be right any time that I have said that you are definitely wrong. And you've been definitely wrong many, many times. So the likelihood of my being correct this time as well is high. |
|
|
| (829103) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 12:38:38 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 12:36:42 2009. Probab;y wrong means I'm probably right.:-P |
|
|
| (829108) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 12:47:22 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 12:38:38 2009. No, as I clearly wrote, it means you're probably wrong. As an aside, you have never turned out to be right any time that I have said that you are definitely wrong. And you've been definitely wrong many, many times. So the likelihood of my being correct this time as well is high. |
|
|
| (829111) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 12:49:57 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 12:38:38 2009. Indeed. |
|
|
| (829131) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 13:34:40 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 12:49:57 2009. Nope. If you haven't noticed, agreeing with Douce Man usually means you're wrong. |
|
|
| (829137) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 13:43:32 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 12:47:22 2009. YAWN! You're sounding like a parrot again.Recite by rote instead of by quote. |
|
|
| (829138) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 13:45:15 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 13:34:40 2009. And you don't seem to notice if you're probably wrong, you're probably right. |
|
|
| (829140) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 14:03:10 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 13:43:32 2009. No, as I clearly wrote, it means you're probably wrong. As an aside, you have never turned out to be right any time that I have said that you are definitely wrong. And you've been definitely wrong many, many times. So the likelihood of my being correct this time as well is high. |
|
|
| (829141) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 14:04:20 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Thu Sep 3 13:45:15 2009. No, not at all. What I know is that you are almost always wrong, and have always been wrong when I've said that you are definitely wrong. And that's happened many, many times. |
|
|
| (829150) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 14:57:00 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 13:34:40 2009. By saying 'probably' you are making a weasel statement.The use of the word 'probably' implies that there are other possible outcomes; there are two acceptable possible outcomes in this scenario-either daDouce is right, or daDouce is wrong. Your own statement implies that he possibly could be correct. Your further arguments have no bearing on your initial statement, and amount to an ad hominem attack. |
|
|
| (829154) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 15:06:01 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 14:57:00 2009. No. I said probably because it is likely, but not guaranteed. It was and is the totally correct word to use. And you in turn should know that agreeing with douce man usually means you are wrong as well. |
|
|
| (829160) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 15:28:56 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 15:06:01 2009. You really have no ability to think, do you? You've made a false argument and can't admit it. You can't admit to the possibility that someone could be right, while you would be wrong. |
|
|
| (829165) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Fri Sep 4 00:57:00 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 15:28:56 2009. You're hurting the boys feelings with all that rational argument. |
|
|
| (829166) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by terrapin station on Fri Sep 4 00:57:18 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 3 15:28:56 2009. I said that he is probably wrong in this instance, and since he is usually wrong overall, by agreeing with him, you are thus likely wrong as well. That is not a "false argument". |
|
|
| (829199) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Sep 4 06:35:17 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 14:04:20 2009. ...I've said that you are definitely wrongYou said: No, as I clearly wrote, it means you're probably wrong. No, you're probably wrong. Are you denying what you've said? |
|
|
| (829200) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Sep 4 06:36:41 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by d_mind on Fri Sep 4 00:57:00 2009. More like backing him into a corner. |
|
|
| (829201) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Sep 4 06:37:59 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 3 15:06:01 2009. Weasel |
|
|
| (829202) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Sep 4 06:40:36 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by terrapin station on Fri Sep 4 00:57:18 2009. There you go again saying I'm probably wrong.By using that you're implying I'm probably right.. |
|
|
| (829204) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by terrapin station on Fri Sep 4 06:46:37 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by daDouce Man on Fri Sep 4 06:40:36 2009. I'm implying nothing. I am clearly stating that you are probably wrong, and people who agree with you are likely wrong as well, since you are usually wrong. |
|
|
| (829207) | |
Re: Station naming (NYC) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Sep 4 07:08:36 2009, in response to Re: Station naming (NYC), posted by terrapin station on Fri Sep 4 06:46:37 2009. You're right.You're not implying anything. You said I'm probably wrong so I'm probably right. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
