yesterday's PATH shutdown

The 11:00 Channel 2 news last night said that with 33 St shut down,
trains were running from WTC to Hoboken and from JSQ to Hoboken. They
didn't mention WTC to Newark -- was that because it was normal, or
because it wasn't running at all?

On May 1, 7:37 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
> The 11:00 Channel 2 news last night said that with 33 St shut down,
> trains were running from WTC to Hoboken and from JSQ to Hoboken. They
> didn't mention WTC to Newark -- was that because it was normal, or
> because it wasn't running at all?

Dunno, check MTA.info next time.

On May 2, 5:09 am, Bob Scheurle <njtb...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:34:38 -0700 (PDT), JohnAnon <JohnA...@nyc.>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 1, 7:37 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
> >> The 11:00 Channel 2 news last night said that with 33 St shut down,
> >> trains were running from WTC to Hoboken and from JSQ to Hoboken. They
> >> didn't mention WTC to Newark -- was that because it was normal, or
> >> because it wasn't running at all?
>
> NWK-WTC was operating normally.
>
> >Dunno, check MTA.info next time.
>
> That would be a waste of time, since the MTA doesn't run PATH.

DOH! It should be reported there, since it is a subway.

On May 2, 5:09 am, Bob Scheurle <njtb...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:34:38 -0700 (PDT), JohnAnon <JohnA...@nyc.>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 1, 7:37 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
> >> The 11:00 Channel 2 news last night said that with 33 St shut down,
> >> trains were running from WTC to Hoboken and from JSQ to Hoboken. They
> >> didn't mention WTC to Newark -- was that because it was normal, or
> >> because it wasn't running at all?
>
> NWK-WTC was operating normally.

So the news report was misleading. But hey, I expect that from Channel
2 News.

> >Dunno, check MTA.info next time.
>
> That would be a waste of time, since the MTA doesn't run PATH.

... and since it was a retrospective question. Even if it were the
right place to look, do they maintain information about past service
interruptions?

On May 4, 1:31 pm, Bob Scheurle <njtb...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 05:44:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> <gramma...@> wrote:
>
> >> >> The 11:00 Channel 2 news last night said that with 33 St shut down,
> >> >> trains were running from WTC to Hoboken and from JSQ to Hoboken. They
> >> >> didn't mention WTC to Newark -- was that because it was normal, or
> >> >> because it wasn't running at all?
>
> >> NWK-WTC was operating normally.
>
> >So the news report was misleading. But hey, I expect that from Channel
> >2 News.
>
> Doesn't seem misleading to me.  They reported the lines that were shut
> down and the alternate service available.  Why would they mention other
> lines?  For example, if there's a delay on one NYC subway line, should
> the news list every other line to say they're operating normally?

There are only 4 PATH lines. Two (33-JSQ and 33-HOB) were disrupted.
The news reports stated that WTC-HOB was operating. Why wouldn't it
also state that WTC-JSQ-NWK was operating? That would be useful
information for half the 33 passengers.

On May 4, 2:33 pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 2, 5:09 am, Bob Scheurle <njtb...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:34:38 -0700 (PDT), JohnAnon <JohnA...@nyc.>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On May 1, 7:37 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
>
> >>>>The 11:00 Channel 2 news last night said that with 33 St shut down,
> >>>>trains were running from WTC to Hoboken and from JSQ to Hoboken. They
> >>>>didn't mention WTC to Newark -- was that because it was normal, or
> >>>>because it wasn't running at all?
>
> >>NWK-WTC was operating normally.
>
> > So the news report was misleading. But hey, I expect that from Channel
> > 2 News.
>
> So hypothetically, if the #1 train is not running north of 215th St, the
> TA should announce that:
>
> The #1 is not running north of 215th St, but the
> 2,3,4,5,6,7,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,J,L,M,N,Q,R,Z and ALL S's are running normally?

No, because none of those provides alternative serice to the area.

> What's the point?

You like to argue?

On May 4, 11:13 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:

> I don't. Try to put yourself in other people's places.

Do you have a 'reduced-fare' MetroCard?