|
|
| Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th (842381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 6 |
||
|
| (843415) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 12 18:46:08 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 14:24:00 2009. From a previous message: "That may have been true, and may continue to be true, but as noted the main purpose of this is to relieve a very serious overcrowding problem on the F by bringing in express service on the Culver Line between Jay Street and Church Avenue that apparently is very sorely needed, while at the same time appeasing Park Slope local riders who still want their service."As I said before, if you want to reduce the over-crowding, and supply Culver express service, the simplest suggestion would be to extend the V-train as the express train to Church Avenue (regular V-train hours) - to Kings Highway (rush hour peak direction express). This action does not entail the re-configuring of any other lines, keeps Park Slope folk happy, does not require any changes to Bergen Street, or other myriad changes. Of course, the money for any changes have to be found, the viaduct renovation work completed, additional subway cars acquired, etc. Mike Mike |
|
|
| (843433) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 19:31:23 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 13:20:32 2009. How do we know those will be the same demands come 2012-'13, when the Culver Viaduct project will be complete?I don't recall any plans to relocate the Financial District, Penn Station and/or PABT in the near future. So I'd say it one more time. You're cutting service where it's most needed (PABT, NYP <-> Financial District) and adding service where demand is less. |
|
|
| (843435) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 19:34:10 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 16:09:04 2009. As for switching the C to 168th from Bedford Park Blvd., I suspect that had more to do with the C being a full-time line (seven days a week) while the B (which replaced it in The Bronx) is a part-time line (five days a week). They likely needed more service to 168 on the C than to Bedford Park Blvd.It was just a yard issue. The way it is now is more convenient for NYCT. It wasn't done for the convenience of the passengers. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (843442) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Oct 12 19:47:43 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by f179dj on Mon Oct 12 17:47:20 2009. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, I believe was attributed to Mark Twain.I recall this one, which I've seen attributed to Lyndon Johnson: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." |
|
|
| (843447) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 20:00:03 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 14:24:00 2009. Actually, there is no very serious overcrowding problem on the F on the Brooklyn side. Most of the overcrowding is due to delayed trains, not because of service level. And even then, it's not like the upper Lex or Queens Blvd. OTOH, the overcrowding on the L is due to service level.Short turning the F at Church and let the V go to CI during rush might help. |
|
|
| (843450) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Oct 12 20:07:08 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 20:00:03 2009. I agree. |
|
|
| (843470) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Oct 12 21:29:46 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Oct 12 15:14:42 2009. Agree. The R32's looks were ruined during GOH. When they GOH'ed the Redbirds, they emerged from Morrison Knudsen or the CI shops with the same overall look. They didn't completely gut the interiors of the R26-33 cars to install the A/C units like they did with the R32, 38 and 40 cars. Why they did that with the R32, 38 and 40 cars, I don't know, but I do believe those cars looked much better before they were GOH'ed. |
|
|
| (843484) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by rtype3995 on Mon Oct 12 22:04:54 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:35:58 2009. lrg, that's because local 100 is such a weak union........now i dont know if you"ll get people walking out; that money is too good to be walking out on...........marc, i do think the numbers in terms of mileage are kind of screwed up too......those r-32's i have to say are some of the best things going(even though they are getting rid of all of them)............ in the end, if anything is going to improve, ta needs money.......if there's no money, it's all a moot point........ |
|
|
| (843536) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Mon Oct 12 23:15:51 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Oct 12 19:47:43 2009. "'Lies, damned lies, and statistics' is part of a phrase attributed to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, among others, and later popularized in the United States by, among others, Mark Twain: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. The phrase is not found in Disraeli's works nor is it known within his lifetime and for years afterward. Many coiners have been proposed. The most plausible, on current evidence, is Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911)." Cribbed from Wiki. |
|
|
| (843599) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Oct 13 09:39:21 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 17:48:40 2009. I vivdly remember the pre-GOH R-32s and agree that they looked much better as delivered. |
|
|
| (843664) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 13 14:23:38 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 19:31:23 2009. Wado:Even by cutting out the C from the Financial District-Penn Station/PABT scenario, there are still multiple options for riders from the financial district to get to Penn Station in particular: From Fulton: 2/3 at Fulton Street and the A at Broadway-Nassau. In this scenario, even the V at Bway-Nassau is an option as it would stop at 6th Avenue-32nd Street, one block east of Penn Station (and if the underground concourse between 6th and 7th avenues and Penn Station on 32nd-33rd Streets reopens by the time this would take effect in 2012-'13, then even those passengers can simply walk underground from the V. From Chambers-WTC: Same options as Fulton (2/3 at Park Place, A/V at the express platform), plus the E train on the WTC Terminal tracks. If additional service between Penn Station/PABT and the financial district is needed on the 8th avenue line, a limited number of "Diamond C" trains could be added in both directions between 168-WTC Terminal during rush hours since that's where those trains would most likely be needed with the World Financial Center closer to that station than Broadway-Nassau. That would solve that problem and allow the C trains to go 168-Church Avenue at all times (again, 24/7 as I would do it) with the V replacing the C going to Euclid (and becoming a 19/7 line). Aside from the other side benefits previously mentioned, there is another important one that could easily come up as Columbia University expands over the next 15 years or so: Giving both Park Slope and East Village residents who work or go to school at Columbia among others a much easier two-seat ride there, being able to take the C train to Columbus Circle instead of 14th Street on the F with a much shorter walk to what during AM rush hours would likely be a much-less crowded 1 train at 59th as opposed to 14th street, with the reverse likely true (at the point of transfer) during PM rush hours. |
|
|
| (843693) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 13 16:22:51 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by italianstallion on Mon Oct 12 17:48:39 2009. That's for now:A lot can change over time, and if you do have the F go express again (see my other posts), I suspect re-opening Bergen LL would be important in that regard, especially since you would have the C and G trains being the locals on the Culver Line (at all times) once the Culver Viaduct work is complete. That station as noted elsewhere might very well need to be worked on anyway, and any work beyond what is necessary might only be to improve the lighting and adding signage (tiling the LL might not even be necessary in this case), plus moving the storage area as well. |
|
|
| (843712) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Oct 13 17:44:08 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 20:26:31 2009. I would agree. That sort of flip would be to a benefit of a few, and a detriment to many.I should also add that when the  ran out here after the fire, the majority of the passengers got off at Jay Street and crammed themselves onto the limited amount of  trains that were still operational. If anything, there needs to be a count or a survey like the one done on the Brighton Line to see if demand for this actually exists.
|
|
|
| (843722) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Tue Oct 13 18:45:21 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Oct 13 17:44:08 2009. Thank you x10. I see no need for a 6th/8th Avenue route swaps in the Brooklyn corridors. |
|
|
| (843729) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Oct 13 19:09:30 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 13 14:23:38 2009. From Fulton:How about the morning rush? You'll have to choose between three stations and one is a block away. Most people will go to the 2/3 making crowding even worse. And you forgot about PABT on this one. From Chambers-WTC: How would you fit additional Diamond C service? On top of creating more confusion with two kinds of C trains. Giving both Park Slope and East Village residents who work or go to school at Columbia among others Again, a tiny tiny tiny fraction. |
|
|
| (843885) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Oct 14 03:59:05 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Oct 13 17:44:08 2009. Kriston:Even if this were to be done, it would not be until 2012-'13 when work on the Culver Viaduct is completed. That would give the MTA plenty of time to do surveys to see about making such changes. The people who got off the V onto the A when the service was altered that way after the 2005 were not anticipating that service pattern at all then, and even though we knew it was going the same route (south of Jay Street) as the C, they were not prepared for it. This would be far different, especially since we have had the F on numerous occasions in recent years run the C route on G.O.'s in Brooklyn on weekends since that fire, plus unlike 2005, there would be plenty of notice if the change actually did happen. |
|
|
| (843892) | |
No, Wallyhorse, you can't do that |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Oct 14 06:22:44 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Oct 14 03:59:05 2009. What about the M/V combo? |
|
|
| (843911) | |
Re: No, Wallyhorse, you can't do that |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Oct 14 08:00:21 2009, in response to No, Wallyhorse, you can't do that, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Oct 14 06:22:44 2009. I still like that M/V combo idea as well. Nothing has changed there. That, however, can become an Orange M train going to 71st-Continental with the F and V up 6th Avenue while the current V, as I would do it, goes to the 8th Avenue Line south of West 4th and the C joins the F via the Rutgers Tunnel to Church Avenue.Since other than the M/V Combo line this can't take effect until the Culver Viaduct work is completed in 2012-'13, there is plenty of time to go over this with. |
|
|
| (843912) | |
Re: No, Wallyhorse, you can't do that |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Oct 14 08:01:28 2009, in response to Re: No, Wallyhorse, you can't do that, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Oct 14 08:00:21 2009. I said:>>Since other than the M/V Combo line this can't take effect until the Culver Viaduct work is completed in 2012-'13, there is plenty of time to go over this with. >> I meant "Since other than the M/V Combo line this can't take effect until the Culver Viaduct work is completed in 2012-'13, there is plenty of time to go over this." Forgot to take out "With" at the end. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 6 |
||
