Jump to content

Mayoral hopeful Paul Massey wants to F with the G train

Around the Horn

By Around the Horn,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts

Around the Horn

Around the Horn

Posted
Posted

Well, Paul Massey is in over his head... clearly hasn't ever seen a track map either.

Republican mayoral candidate Paul Massey says he’s got a plan to work around the impending L train closure — with a G train loop through Manhattan using existing tracks.

“The mayor's plan appears to be to complain about the MTA,” Massey said in a statement. “My plan is to deal with the problem before it becomes a crisis.”

The plan, which will be rolled out Wednesday, calls for running the G train beyond its Court Square terminus in Queens and into Manhattan on the same tracks as the F train, where it’d then travel downtown along with the F and the M to W. 4th St.. From there, it’d follow the F to Jay St. in Brooklyn, where it would split off to close the Brooklyn-to-Manhattan loop at the existing Hoyt–Schermerhorn G stop.

 

The MTA declined to comment, but in the past the agency has said G train loop proposals would merely increase train traffic on an already congested local line, the F/M. The agency had also said signals at W. 4th St. might not be compatible, though Massey’s camp says their loop uses the signals in ways they are already used during repairs.

Jon Orcutt, communications director of TransitCenter, said he thought the plan “was worth a discussion with MTA operations.”

“We think it’s excellent that Massey has engaged some serious transit wonks to advise his campaign,” he said of the plan, which offers detailed track switch plans.

 

But there could be concerns about balancing the desire for a one-seat ride from Brooklyn on the G — which already offers many transfers to Manhattan-bound lines, Orcutt noted — with congestion along the F line.

 

“Given that there is already a battle for space on the F between express and local, yes,” he said, “and probably elsewhere in that map.”

The plan would require new switches at Queens Plaza in the short term, and would involve the G trains continuing to 36th St. and, from there, reversing direction onto the tracks shared with the R. Long term, Massey suggests a new two-track tunnel at Queens Plaza to avoid that.

The candidate is also proposing a brand new station along the JMZ line on the Williamsburg waterfront, near the former Domino Sugar factory that is being developed, built on and under the Williamsburg Bridge.

“I think it's a better deal for South Williamsburg than the BQX,” Orcutt said of de Blasio’s trolley proposal.

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayoral-hopeful-paul-massey-f-g-train-article-1.3263892

GOP mayoral candidate Paul Massey reveals proposal for NYC transit fixes

As commuters face down the MTA’s “Summer of Hell,” Republican mayoral hopeful Paul Massey rolled out a five-pronged infrastructure proposal Monday — including extending the G train to Manhattan and the PATH train to Staten Island.

"I'm here because I have a plan," Massey continued, "along with the leadership and management skills to fix this mess."

Massey’s plan was short on details, with the candidate promising to roll those out in the coming days and saying the plans would “fundamentally reshape the way people and goods move throughout the city."

He proposed system-wide MTA maintenance upgrades to signals and switches, an overhaul of traffic management policies, and price cuts of 50% for off-peak MTA fares.

In addition, he offered the outlines of a five-pronged infrastructure plan.

That includes building a G train loop to Manhattan, which Massey said he believed would help offset the closure of the L train for maintenance in 2019.

He also proposed extending the PATH train, which runs between New York City and New Jersey, to Staten Island over the Bayonne Bridge. That would require a massive extension of PATH, operated by the Port Authority, through 7 miles of Jersey City and Bayonne.

 

And crossing the existing bridge would also pose a problem. The brand-new elevated span was built to accommodate light rail, according to the Port Authority. PATH is a heavy rail line.

 

A spokeswoman for Massey later said that running PATH over the Bayonne would require “a new infrastructure.” Another option, she said, would be to use an existing freight right of way that runs through Bayonne, though there is no existing freight rail connection directly between Bayonne and Staten Island.

Others have previously suggested expanding the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail — which terminates less than a mile from the start of the Bayonne Bridge — over the bridge to Staten Island. That line is operated by NJ Transit.

Massey wouldn’t say what it would cost, but a shorter, 2-mile PATH extension to Newark Airport previously approved by the Port Authority is slated to run $1.7 billion.

Other proposals in the plan include a “transformational investment program” targeting major highways, bridges and tunnels that are traffic hotspots; a plan to integrate the South Street Seaport with surrounding areas from which the FDR Drive separates it; and plans for green corridors to be built over sections of highways, like the promenade above the Brooklyn Queens Express in Brooklyn Heights.

Massey deemed the mayor ineffective at battling congestion and infrastructure problems.

"Mayor de Blasio once remarked that he wasn't interested in being a 'pothole mayor,'” he said. “It shows."

 

 

If you want a laugh, here's the map his office put out. (And yes that is a B39 SBS on 14 Street)

gtrain21n-3-web.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BM5 via Woodhaven

BM5 via Woodhaven

Posted
Posted

That (G) is way too windy, and will max out any capacity that is left on those tubes (which means anything that happens will cause a great mess). You can't add any more capacity on those tubes during the rush anyway where every (G) is going through one tube into Manhattan. It's better off that it allows connections to Manhattan services, while extending the length. 

 

Don't know if I would SBS it, but a B39 to anywhere but Delancy/Essex is much better than the current rendition. I'd say it'd encourage some more Brooklyn-Manhattan bus travel, on top of riders needing ADA access. 

 

Having a 6 Avenue or Nassau Street service serve the lower Canarsie stations would be a good idea, if the split service wouldn't make service infrequent on the (J) east of Broadway Junction. But it would, and any addition would have to be made around the (M), and then there's the issue with track capacity. TBH though, when the Williamsburg Bridge was built, the builders should have anticipated more train traffic (and at least have added a third track).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lance

Lance

Posted
Posted

Pandering. Simple pandering. I'm not sure why anyone's surprised a mayoral candidate is pushing for transit improvements as part of their campaign. It's an easy way to score votes and then not have to do anything because the MTA is a state-run agency. With the upcoming Canarsie closure, that low-hanging fruit has become even more low-hanging, hence this idea.

 

It was a dumb idea the first time it was floated and it remains just as dumb today. In order to even get the (G) over to the Cranberry or Rutgers St tunnels, significant work would have to be done to level out the paralleling Fulton St tracks to facilitate a diamond crossover. On both ends of the Hoyt-Schermerhorn St station, the tracks dip below each other to either hit the Culver or Fulton St lines. Then there's the problem of the northern part of the loop. Moving from Queens Plaza to 21 St-Queensbridge as illustrated on the above map would require a reverse move near 36 Street since the likelihood of any new station at Queens Plaza is infinitesimal at best. That would almost always delay all trains in the area, including this shoehorned (G) train.

 

Even if all of those obstacles were overcome, there's still the matter of fitting the (G) with the various existing services. The (F) and (M) are already a bit cozy with over 20 trains per hour serving 6th Avenue during the height of the rush, which doesn't count the planned increase of service during the Canarsie shutdown. There are similar problems if this proposed route was to take the Cranberry tubes. The main problem here is that the Crosstown line as built was never intended to be a loop service. Trying to create one through half-assed means will not solve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Interested Rider

Interested Rider

Posted
Posted

Most of you do not know that now there are three candidates running for mayor in the Republican primary in September. Mr. Massey is from Westchester and in following his previous statements, his comment on the G is not unexpected. A third candidate has entered the race and when I did a search on the internet, I found out that this one has run for office in a couple of other states and now has set his sights on running for mayor in New York City.

If Mr. Massey took the time to check this forum before he opened his mouth, he would been better off then coming up with something like this.

May I ask a question: "How many Republican voters live in that area will vote for him" based on his statement? From my perspective, he may have turned off more of them who live in other areas as it proves, he knows less about the system than most of the others running for mayor..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallyhorse

Wallyhorse

Posted
Posted

Pandering. Simple pandering. I'm not sure why anyone's surprised a mayoral candidate is pushing for transit improvements as part of their campaign. It's an easy way to score votes and then not have to do anything because the MTA is a state-run agency. With the upcoming Canarsie closure, that low-hanging fruit has become even more low-hanging, hence this idea.

 

It was a dumb idea the first time it was floated and it remains just as dumb today. In order to even get the (G) over to the Cranberry or Rutgers St tunnels, significant work would have to be done to level out the paralleling Fulton St tracks to facilitate a diamond crossover. On both ends of the Hoyt-Schermerhorn St station, the tracks dip below each other to either hit the Culver or Fulton St lines. Then there's the problem of the northern part of the loop. Moving from Queens Plaza to 21 St-Queensbridge as illustrated on the above map would require a reverse move near 36 Street since the likelihood of any new station at Queens Plaza is infinitesimal at best. That would almost always delay all trains in the area, including this shoehorned (G) train.

 

Even if all of those obstacles were overcome, there's still the matter of fitting the (G) with the various existing services. The (F) and (M) are already a bit cozy with over 20 trains per hour serving 6th Avenue during the height of the rush, which doesn't count the planned increase of service during the Canarsie shutdown. There are similar problems if this proposed route was to take the Cranberry tubes. The main problem here is that the Crosstown line as built was never intended to be a loop service. Trying to create one through half-assed means will not solve anything.

This (G) would frankly be a nightmare and is very ill-advised.  As noted before, if anything, I would be encouraging riders to take the (G) the other way to Fulton Street (especially if heading to lower Manhattan) and either take the (A)(C) at Hoyt-Schermerhorn or via a new OOS transfer from Fulton the 2/3/4/5/B/D/N/Q/R at Atlantic-Barclays.  

 

Nah he just wanted a chance to win the million offered by Cuomo lol. "NEXT!" is right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

:lol:  :lol:

 

Why not extend the (G) back to 71 Av full time?

 

In this case, I would actually have the (G)(M) and (R) (as locals) all join the (F) (that would be express all the way) going to 179 (with it so as needed, any local train switching to the express track after Parsons Boulevard and skipping 169, mainly so (G) riders can switch to the other lines plus the (R) at Queens Plaza or via another new OOS transfer the (7)(N) or (W) at Queensboro Plaza as I do think Court Square is a potential disaster waiting to happen (if nothing else, this spreads out the transfers between Court Square and Queens/Queensboro Plaza).  This would be way better than what Massey proposed.

I would rather Wallyhorse run for mayor. At least we know he’s serious.

:D

 

lmfao! paul massey can't be wallyhorse?

:lol:

 

Wallyhorse would surely find a way to cut service along Fulton Street in a plan like this!

Actually, I would leave Fulton alone, especially if I'm encouraging (G) riders to use Hoyt-Schermerhorn to transfer as noted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept