Comments on: A 96th St. update and weekend service advisories

By: john b

john b — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:27:19 +0000

yeah if you’re going to live in new amsterdam you better learn the old names for the subway lines. jeez, the nerve of some people.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:52:58 +0000

No, because in London the lines have easy-to-remember, one-word names already.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:25:09 +0000

There’s something decidedly un-New York about calling the subway lines by their colors. They do that in Boston and DC, but here, we have numbers and letters. Maybe it’s just one of those arrogant New York things.

No one in London, for example, ever calls the Piccadilly Line “Dark Blue.”

By: rhywun

rhywun — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:20:33 +0000

Oh, I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me at all–I love the rich history of NYC. I must be a New Yorker now because when Benjamin wrote “West Side IRT” I didn’t even bat an eyelash. BUT at the same time, I am an advocate for making the system easier to use, and as an example I rather like “Red Line” even though I know it’s extremely gauche and touristy.

By: Franklin Bynum

Franklin Bynum — Mon, 04 May 2009 01:34:49 +0000

Red line? The horror.

I’m with Ben here, you can either learn them or figure out what we’re talking about without knowing the terms.

And even if the TA doesn’t use those terms on the numbered and lettered routes, they still use the old names of the lines (e.g. “6 AV LCL/CULVER LCL”) which the printed subway map (not the one on the website) even includes. They’re still very much in use among enthusiasts and professionals and even on a lot of signage (emergency exit maps, for one).

You’ve lived here ten years. Great. I’m sure you’ve missed a lot of other finer details, too. Everyone does. It’s an old, complicated city. Learn the letters and be happy about it instead of telling us to stop.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Sun, 03 May 2009 23:28:56 +0000

I’d have to disagree that many people are familiar with those terms any more. I hear them from conductors once in a while but nowhere else. I’ve lived here over 10 years and I’ve never heard a person (other than a conductor, or a transit enthusiast) use them. Most people would say “the 1/2/3″ or “the Broadway line”. I’ve even heard “the Red line”…

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:01:39 +0000

There’s only one subway stop at 96th St. and Broadway. It’s not that hard to figure out then what I mean by the West Side IRT.

I’d actually say that most people from NYC who ride the subway have a general sense of what the IRT/BMT/IND indicate. It’s used on the trains; it’s used in talking about them. At no time are my posts ever so obtuse that you wouldn’t be able to figure out to which I refer.

By: tyler

tyler — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:59:25 +0000

I wish folks (You included) would stop using the IRT / BMT terminology… it’s VERY confusing if you don’t know what it means. It’s not referenced ANYWHERE on maps or guides… ONLY by “old timers” that still use the terms.

Yeah, I get it… it’s easy to say IRT and mean a whole group… but, guess what, A LOT of people don’t know what it means!!!

Oh, AND they shouldn’t have to learn. These designations don’t exists. It’s just confusing to many many people.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:19:27 +0000

What I got from the original post is that it would be less accessible than planned, which is exactly true. It’s like promising better access to the west side and then omitting the most useful station: it’s better than “nothing”, but it’s not as good as promised.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:27:39 +0000

Increasing accessibility by 100% just means it’s going to be fully accessible. It’s not right now, so increasing it by 100% would mean that it’s at 0% accessibility right now…which is true.

I suppose it is kind of poorly-worded.