SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Fresh Pond]

My only gripe with that terminal is that the floor is too slippery. Maybe a marble floor wasn't the best of ideas.

 

While I agree with you that they spend wayyy too much on it, it will be much more useful once connections to the 1, R, Chambers/WTC and Dey Street Passage open and the stores are filled.

Federal money paid for the lion's share of it.

[Lance]

My only gripe with that terminal is that the floor is too slippery. Maybe a marble floor wasn't the best of ideas.

You think?    The lobby in the building I work at has all marble walls and floors. If you don't have shoes with strong grips, it's probably been a very long week.

I went to the WTC Transportation Hub(Oculus) today around 12pm for the first time, coming from Liberty St. The wide open area was pretty empty. I did go through the West Concourse before, last year, coming from Brookfield Place and the other time from Vesey St. The exit to Vesey St was closed off so I had to navigate my way around to Brookfield Place. I wasn't expecting a Grand Central Terminal like crowds but I did saw a lot of PATH commuters though and there were like a few people in the Oculus area. Just look how empty it was:

I don't know why you were expecting those kinds of crowds. The area is still a construction site for the most part. When Westfield opens their mall, it should see some more traffic. Even more when more of the complex opens.

 

They should build a transfer between Cortlandt Street , Cortlandt Street , and WTC/Chambers/Park Place on the .

I keep hearing conflicting information regarding this transfer. Some sources are saying the three stations will remain separated while others say otherwise.

[onthe1train]

An in-system transfer between the and is probably viable and makes sense. The only other place in Manhattan that you can transfer between the and the others is Time Square.

 

It'd be best to keep the separate since it's too far for a new passage and you can transfer to the at Chambers and the at South Ferry.

Edited May 6, 2016 by onthe1train

[TheNewYorkElevated]

European graffiti artists have been leaving their mark on the subway here. I have seen 2 Facebook posts of it. Anyone else noticed? 

[paulrivera]

The train is running... But so are the shuttle buses. LMAO no wonder the MTA cries broke, RTO calls off the GO but they don't tell Surface.

[S78 via Hylan]

The train is running... But so are the shuttle buses. LMAO no wonder the MTA cries broke, RTO calls off the GO but they don't tell Surface.

Those could be shuttle buses to provide service to Wilson Av.

[paulrivera]

Oh, that's what that was then. My mistake.

 

Still, it's a nice surprise that the is actually running its full route this weekend. It was supposed to be suspended between Myrtle Wyckoff and Broadway Junction IINM (or was it Canarsie...)

[Lance]

Oh, that's what that was then. My mistake.

 

Still, it's a nice surprise that the is actually running its full route this weekend. It was supposed to be suspended between Myrtle Wyckoff and Broadway Junction IINM (or was it Canarsie...)

It was supposed to be suspended between Myrtle Av and Rockaway Pkwy.

[N6 Limited]

If you take the southbound QB Line this weekend you can see the ramp from the Roosevelt Ave Upper just north of the station, the tunnel is lit up nice and bright.

[Javier]

QB?

[Union Tpke]

QB?

 

queens boulevard line

[jon2305]

Looks like there starting to SMS the R62As on the . Already I've seen a few sets with freshly clean end bonnets and trucks overhualed.

[N6 Limited]

How come West 4th street doesn't have cellular service yet? It's a transfer station with 7 lines!

 

Also, I noticed toward the south end of the upper level, just north of the first set of stairs you see that the ceiling looks like a bunch of planks all the way across, could that be a corridor to the closed West 4 st exits and stairs to the mezz?

[Threxx]

How come West 4th street doesn't have cellular service yet? It's a transfer station with 7 lines!

 

Also, I noticed toward the south end of the upper level, just north of the first set of stairs you see that the ceiling looks like a bunch of planks all the way across, could that be a corridor to the closed West 4 st exits and stairs to the mezz?

 

The station is just that: a transfer station. In terms of riders actually using the station to embark/disembark, the ridership doesn't compare with other Midtown stations. If it weren't for its status as a transfer station it'd probably be just another regular station.

[MTA Bus]

How come West 4th street doesn't have cellular service yet? It's a transfer station with 7 lines!

 

Also, I noticed toward the south end of the upper level, just north of the first set of stairs you see that the ceiling looks like a bunch of planks all the way across, could that be a corridor to the closed West 4 st exits and stairs to the mezz?

I think the Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn stations will get service last.

[N6 Limited]

I think the Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn stations will get service last.

It seems like the only lower Manhattan station with service is Fulton St.

[P3F]

The station is just that: a transfer station. In terms of riders actually using the station to embark/disembark, the ridership doesn't compare with other Midtown stations. If it weren't for its status as a transfer station it'd probably be just another regular station.

Nope. It's 20 out of 422, which is a ton of ridership. (14 million people in 2015, to be exact.)

[Javier]

You know what really erks me? I see people complaining, "why is there so much construction on my train on the weekends?" They make it seem like the MTA is purposely cutting service for no good reason. I swear, people in NY always complain about everything.

[CenSin]

How come West 4th street doesn't have cellular service yet? It's a transfer station with 7 lines!

Does anyone here make a distinction between “lines” and “routes”? I think of lines as physical paths such as West End, 6 Avenue, or Grand Concourse. Routes, on the other hand, are planned trips that run along one or more lines to get from one terminal to the other such as the route, which uses the Archer Avenue, Queens Boulevard, 53 Street, and 8 Avenue lines.

 

EDIT: A Google search turned this up: http://humantransit.org/2011/02/watching-our-words-route-or-line.html

watching our words: route or line?

 

The word for the path followed by a transit vehicle is sometimes route, and sometimes line.  Whenever you have two words for the same thing, you should ask why.

 

Most of the words used in transit discussions also have a more common meaning outside that context.  That common meaning often forms a connotation that hangs around the word, often causing confusion, when we use the word to talk about transit.  In saying the word, we may intend only the transit meaning, but some people may be hearing the more common meaning.  Regardless of our intentions, the commonplace meaning of a word is often still there, as a connotation, when the word’s used in a transit context.  The words route and line are a good example.

 

A route, in its common meaning, is the path traced by some kind of person or vehicle.  When a package or message is going through a postal system, we say it’s being routed.   The person who delivers newspapers to subscribers in the morning is following a paper route.  School buses typically follow routes.

What these meanings of route have in common is that the route isn’t necessarily followed very often.  A package going through a delivery system may end up following a specific route that no package has followed before.  Paper routes and school bus routes run only once a day, and not at all on some days.  These common uses of route imply a place where some kind of transport event happens, but possibly not very often.

The word line, on the other hand, has a clear meaning from geometry: a simple, straight, one-dimensional figure.  In common usage we often use line for something curved, like the laugh-lines and worry-lines on a face, and transit lines may be curved as well.  But in any case, the word line doesn’t imply an event, as route does.  A line is a thing that’s just there, no matter what happens along it.

Lurking inside these two words, in short, is a profound difference in attitude about a transit service.  Do you want to think of transit as something that’s always there, that you can count on?  If so, call it a line.  We never speak of rail routes, always rail lines, and we do that because the rails are always there, suggesting a permanent and reliable thing.

If you’re selling a transportation product, you obviously want people to think they can count on it.  So it’s not surprising that in the private sector, the word is usually line:  Trucking and shipping companies often call themselves lines, as do most private bus companies and of course, the airlines.  This doesn’t mean that all these services are really line-like – some may be quite infrequent – but the company that chose the word wants you to think of it as a thing that’s reliably there, that you can count on.

So in general, when talking about transit, think about the more commonplace meaning of the word you’re choosing.  In this case:

• Use route to indicate the site of a (possibly very occasional) transportation event.  The word route reminds many of us of school transportation, newspaper deliveries, and delivery systems that may operate only infrequently.
• Use line when you want to imply something that has a continuous physical presence and availability – for example, a transit line where service is coming so often that you don’t need a schedule.

To put it even more simply, the word route lowers expectations for the frequency and reliability of a service.  The word line raises those expectations.

Often, transit agencies themselves will use these words in a way that’s not quite conscious of these connotations.  In Australia, for example, bus services are usually routes, but rail services are lines.  This usage carries a hint that we should have intrinsically lower expectations of bus service as compared to rail.  In many cases, that’s not true: many bus “routes,” for example, run frequently all day while commuter rail  “lines” may run only a few times at rush hour.

Of course, these connotations can be a nuisance. Sometimes you don’t want any connotation.   Sometimes you just want the meaning.

 

Unfortunately, words without connotations tend to sound abstract and dull.  I could insist on saying “fixed vehicle path” instead of route or line, just as I could say “nonmotorized access” when I mean walking or cycling, but you wouldn’t get through this book if I did.  Language that strikes us as evasive or bureaucratic is often the result of word choices that try to avoid all connotation.  Such language is precise but uninspiring, and long passages of it are just plain hard to read.

To keep our speech vivid and engaging, we have to use words with connotations, and do our best to choose those connotations consciously.  I’ll do that throughout this book, and note where there may be a connotation problem.  As for route and line, my broad intention is to raise expectations of transit rather than lower them, so I generally use line.  However, when I speak specifically of a service that doesn’t run very frequently, I use route.

Edited May 10, 2016 by CenSin

[Lance]

I generally use "line" for both. Either that or "train" for the numbered/lettered lines. I'm aware the MTA's naming conventions state that it should the route or the Lexington Ave line, but "take the route to Fulton St..." sounds very weird to me.

[CenSin]

I generally use "line" for both. Either that or "train" for the numbered/lettered lines. I'm aware the MTA's naming conventions state that it should the route or the Lexington Ave line, but "take the route to Fulton St..." sounds very weird to me.

I blame it on the dumbing down of terms to the lowest common denominator meaning. My writer friends will tell me… the elimination of nuances in words is detrimental to communication between humans. Misunderstandings will eventually arise leaving words open to interpretation by the listener/reader. Used sparingly, it can be an appreciable tool in literature. But abused, it creates situations where additional (possibly lengthly) clarifications are necessary where none was needed before when only the word/phrase was unambiguous.

[onthe1train]

To me, saying something like "the line" sounds weird as well. Typically it's either "the train" or just "the ". 

 

I think official nomenclature also lists them as "services", while "line" refers to physical trackage, and "train" is a colloquialism for "service". I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "route".

Edited May 10, 2016 by onthe1train

[Lance]

I think official nomenclature also lists them as "services", while "line" refers to physical trackage, and "train" is a colloquialism for "service". I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "route".

That's what it was. I don't know why I had route on the mind. Still sounds weird though.

 

I don't think it's so much dumbing down anything, but rather the complexity of the subway itself, its ever-changing routes and the need to convey that information as quickly as possible. Even the MTA itself doesn't follow its own nomenclature.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Lance

[GojiMet86]

When I talk to others, I just say what the service it is. "You have to take the N" or "Transfer to the 6 at Union Square", but I rarely say line in that capacity. I use it often for what it is supposed to be: the physical structure. The N runs on the Astoria, the Broadway, the 4th Avenue, and the Sea Beach lines.

[Javier]

Question; let's say that the 1 has a G.O that cuts off access to 207th and 240th Street yards, and is only able to run up to 137th Street. The lets the borrow some of its R142 fleet (the is also suspended in this case, as well as the .) Does that mean R142's can now stop at SFL since crews that are from the are operating the fleets?