Like calling the F train the A train (subway changes Feb. 22

SAMMY FINKELMAN wrote:

> My feelings are a little expressed by this guest editorial:
>
> << If you take the Q line, which used to be the D line, and call it the
> B line, which is now the W in Brooklyn, that could confuse a lot of
> people hopping on the wrong train...Q becomes B. That's like calling
> the F train the A train. It doesn't make any sense. >>
>
> - Krista Kolanovic, a passenger interviewed by the New York Times as
> quoted in an article by Michael Luo on page B4 of the Thursday,
> December 25, 2003 New York times, continued from page B1.

Of course not. The F train should be called the D train. (Or the E train
should be called the A train.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3FEECDC0.530A@worldnet.att.net...
> SAMMY FINKELMAN wrote:
>
> > My feelings are a little expressed by this guest editorial:
> >
> > << If you take the Q line, which used to be the D line, and call it the
> > B line, which is now the W in Brooklyn, that could confuse a lot of
> > people hopping on the wrong train...Q becomes B. That's like calling
> > the F train the A train. It doesn't make any sense. >>
> >
> > - Krista Kolanovic, a passenger interviewed by the New York Times as
> > quoted in an article by Michael Luo on page B4 of the Thursday,
> > December 25, 2003 New York times, continued from page B1.
>
> Of course not. The F train should be called the D train. (Or the E train
> should be called the A train.)
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

I am glad that when they re-arranged The MAP a few years ago that they
switched the northern terminus' for the B & C trains. It seems that much
more logical to have the B & D and A & C trains together for the uptown
portions of their routes.

With these new changes there will be an adjustment period; and it will
hopefully work out for the best. I am still waiting on the V train
extension into Brooklyn.

-Patrick

Patrick Rice wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3FEECDC0.530A@worldnet.att.net...
> > SAMMY FINKELMAN wrote:
> >
> > > My feelings are a little expressed by this guest editorial:
> > >
> > > << If you take the Q line, which used to be the D line, and call it the
> > > B line, which is now the W in Brooklyn, that could confuse a lot of
> > > people hopping on the wrong train...Q becomes B. That's like calling
> > > the F train the A train. It doesn't make any sense. >>
> > >
> > > - Krista Kolanovic, a passenger interviewed by the New York Times as
> > > quoted in an article by Michael Luo on page B4 of the Thursday,
> > > December 25, 2003 New York times, continued from page B1.
> >
> > Of course not. The F train should be called the D train. (Or the E train
> > should be called the A train.)
> > --
> > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
>
> I am glad that when they re-arranged The MAP a few years ago that they
> switched the northern terminus' for the B & C trains. It seems that much
> more logical to have the B & D and A & C trains together for the uptown
> portions of their routes.

But it (a) messes up the logic of the letter-labels and (b) removes the
option of selecting Eighth Avenue vs. Sixth Avenue for the northern
termini, forcing a change at Columbus Circle.

> With these new changes there will be an adjustment period; and it will
> hopefully work out for the best. I am still waiting on the V train
> extension into Brooklyn.

Maybe someday all the river crossings _and_ all the Coney Island lines
will be working at once.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

I'll make a note o dat.

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> SAMMY FINKELMAN wrote:
>
> > My feelings are a little expressed by this guest editorial:
> >
> > << If you take the Q line, which used to be the D line, and call it the
> > B line, which is now the W in Brooklyn, that could confuse a lot of
> > people hopping on the wrong train...Q becomes B. That's like calling
> > the F train the A train. It doesn't make any sense. >>
> >
> > - Krista Kolanovic, a passenger interviewed by the New York Times as
> > quoted in an article by Michael Luo on page B4 of the Thursday,
> > December 25, 2003 New York times, continued from page B1.
>
> Of course not. The F train should be called the D train. (Or the E train
> should be called the A train.)
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

SAMMY FINKELMAN wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels
>
> PD> I am glad that when they re-arranged The MAP a few years ago that
> PD> they switched the northern terminus' for the B & C trains. It seems
> PD> that much more logical to have the B & D and A & C trains together
> PD> for the uptown portions of their routes.

I did not write that. In fact, I refuted it.

> They didn't just rearrange the map. They changed where the trains
> actually ran, too. :)
>
> Of course I remember the CC train running along the Concourse. Of course
> maybe it makes asense for the A and the C tio run together all the way.
>
> What they did in Brooklyn they said was based on traffic usage. Maybe
> they were figuring a Brooklyhn express is better paired with a Manhattan
> local than an express. That way fewer people would need to change trains
> and they especially would not need to change trains twice (or go local
> all the way)
>
> The brighton loine has more traffic so it got the B.
>
> Or maybe the idea was, that, for a while only the New Utrecht (West End)
> line will be running to Coney island. So it got the D.
>
> This is a bigger change than in the Bronx and Washington Heights
> becvause it is the main train that switched (unless you consider the Q
> now the main train along the Brighton route.
>
> PD> With these new changes there will be an adjustment period;
>
> Yes, people will adjust - although for Brooklyn, it would be easier just
> using a whole new letter altogether.
>
> PD> and it will hopefully work out for the best. I am still waiting on
> PD> the V train extension into Brooklyn.
>
> I know they want to do that - and they have to do that before they close
> something in Dekalb - or maybe they are not going to do that?

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

> BAH!
>
> If people would know their stop by LINE, not by TRAIN, this wouldn't be
> an issue. Why can't someone say, "Take a Brighton train to Church Av"
> instead of "Take a (Q/B/D/M/QB/QJ) or whatever train" all these
re-lettering
> problems would go away.

Oh? I have some friends recently moved to Brooklyn from Los Angeles, who
refer to the Lines as "The Green Line" "The Red Line" "The Orange Line" and
the "Yellow Line" -- referring to the 4 and 5, 2 and 3, the F, and the N/R/W
respectively. People bring different perceptions on these things to the
table.

I just tell him to look at the mosaics on the platform walls like any good
immigrant, so he can never go wrong. I can't wait until he reports whether
he's found a mosaic-appropriate movie theater at Astor Place.

Cheers,
Jim

"Jim Guthrie" <jguthrie1@nyc.> wrote in message
news:UaWHb.83759$0P1.13847@twister.nyc....
>
> "The Green Line" "The Red Line" [...] referring to the 4 and 5, 2 and 3

A nontrivial fraction (~10%) of the male population can't use this
distinction. Including me.

In article <05CD585.053301627F.uuout@relaynet.org>,
sammy.finkelman@relaynet.org (SAMMY FINKELMAN) writes:

>
>No, run it into Manhattan and then up Second Avenue - even if there is
>only one stop north of Houston Street. Or maybe it cpould go onto the
>Williamburg Bridge and terminate at Metropolitan Avenue - or it could
>replace the Z.

Talk about the "G" it a pain that it doesn't go to Queens during the weekday
anymore, for folks in Brooklyn (Like myself), its quicker getting to LIC.

Vince
Take out words goodguy to e-mail
Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS
New Lower prices
AND our new E-BAY STORE.

I am one that is in favor of extending the G train to Church Avenue - 24/7/365
- freeing up the express tracks, and offering two transfer options between the
F and G at 4th Avenue, and R and M. (The G train would remain with its current
headways and frequency of service, but use full-length cars.)

I am one that is in favor of keeping the F train in Brooklyn as a local train -
24/7/365 - as this is less confusing to the riders. Under this scheme, F trains
would enter service at Kings Highway, Avenue X, and at Coney Island. (The F
train would remain with its current headways and frequency of service.)

I am one that is in favor of extending the V train to Brooklyn along the Culver
route. During the rush hours, V trains would be extended to Kings Highway -
serving as the express train in the peak direction. During the day times, the V
train serves as an express train to Church Avenue. During the night times - the
V train would travel to Second Avenue.

In this way when the V train is not running to Brooklyn there is isn't any
express service. Riders that are used to the frequency of service provided by
the F train and the simplicity of their route home - still have that. Riders
that want an express service through Brooklyn that takes them to the same
Manhattan destinations have that. In addition, the G train gets a much better
terminal, and another transfer connection.

Of course all of this implies money. There are not enough subway cars for
full-length G trains, or to extend the V train to Brooklyn (under any scheme).
If is nice to dream of stuff that is possible and "do-able".

Mike

Michael549 wrote:

> In addition for a very long period of time, the TA seemed to support a kind of
> "superiority complex" for certain routes. Some routes and stations recieved
> newer subway cars, signage treatments than other lines. I remember that sign
> panels that consisted of a white background with black lettering plus the
> circled route - appearing on all of the letter lines BEFORE they ever appeared
> on any of the "former IRT" routes. In fact it is only the current style of
> signage (black background - white letters) that have been consistently placed
> on all of the numbered lines (formerly IRT). Before those signs - whatever
> signs existed on the number lines were a haphazard collection, with some
> stations having almost no signage at all.

Black on white is used for long-term interim changes, such as when the
Broadway IRT was deranged by WTC reconstruction.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net