Milan Posted November 21, 2009 #1 Posted November 21, 2009 There have been lot of suggestions regarding the G line. i believe the reason for the problem is it does'nt go to manhattan the cheapest solution will be to build a short connection from court square station to 63rd street line. Then G should be CHURCH ave to WHITEHALL via 63 street line and broadway local.As a result W can be eliminated. only problem will be merger north of 57th&7th ave station.
North-Eastern T/O Posted November 21, 2009 #2 Posted November 21, 2009 There have been lot of suggestions regarding the G line.i believe the reason for the problem is it does'nt go to manhattan the cheapest solution will be to build a short connection from court square station to 63rd street line. Then G should be CHURCH ave to WHITEHALL via 63 street line and broadway local.As a result W can be eliminated. only problem will be merger north of 57th&7th ave station. Then what would run the rest of the from Bergan to Court Sq?
Zman Posted November 21, 2009 #3 Posted November 21, 2009 Then what would run the rest of the from Bergan to Court Sq? With his plan, the passengers would hitchhike. the cheapest solution will be to build a short connection from court square station to 63rd street line. Your "cheapest" plan would cost a few billion to build.
MattTrain Posted November 21, 2009 #4 Posted November 21, 2009 I don't understand this plan, period. Leave it as is, no need for Manhattan service.
Y2Julio Posted November 21, 2009 #5 Posted November 21, 2009 The whole point of the is that riders don't have to go through Manhattan.
Milan Posted November 21, 2009 Author #6 Posted November 21, 2009 The connection will be under 27th street between 44th drive &41st ave between court square(G)&21st -Queensbridge(F) stations. A 3-5 block subway construction should'nt cost BILLIONS even in ny. operationwise the new G will be church(or smith-9) to court square as at present then to 21st -Queensbridge/Roosevelt island/63rd-lex/ 57th st-7th ave local track.Then broadway local 57th-7th ave to whitehall,. replacing W line. All times.
7LineFan Posted November 21, 2009 #7 Posted November 21, 2009 A 3-5 block subway construction should'nt cost BILLIONSeven in ny. Oh I doubt that... Then what would run the rest of the from Bergan to Court Sq? He's saying run the from Church to Whitehall. So basically the present G line to Court Square then connect to the and then go down the Broadway line from Lex-63. Basically a loop route. Although I don't see why this would be needed.
Queens Surface Posted November 21, 2009 #8 Posted November 21, 2009 Yeah ,the saves a lot of time for people who need to get from Queens to Brooklyn without having to pass through Manhattan. So, there is no need to build a connection to the 63rd St. Tunnel.
nel070 Posted November 21, 2009 #9 Posted November 21, 2009 The whole point of the is that riders don't have to go through Manhattan. exactly
Milan Posted November 21, 2009 Author #10 Posted November 21, 2009 At present G is a pitiable 4 car forgotten line. After V came along it does'nt even go to the REAL queens. G is now a pastiche of shuttles to E&F&7(at court sq) to L (at Metropolitan) to A&C at Hoyt .Does'nt have free transfer to J&M.I believe people in say,Greenpoint ,will love to have a one-seat ride to midtown.Finally TA will never run a 4 car train on bway local ,so service on g will improve.
Y2Julio Posted November 21, 2009 #11 Posted November 21, 2009 If the MTA wanted the to run into Manhattan, it would have built it as such.
mark1447 Posted November 21, 2009 #12 Posted November 21, 2009 If you want Manhattan service just use the .. Simple as that..
metsfan Posted November 21, 2009 #13 Posted November 21, 2009 How about jamaica center to coney island? Still doesn't go into manhattan but more useful to more people... - A
mark1447 Posted November 21, 2009 #14 Posted November 21, 2009 How about jamaica center to coney island? Still doesn't go into manhattan but more useful to more people... - A Not good, to many trains, + CIY has a bunch of routes it is handling..
metsfan Posted November 21, 2009 #15 Posted November 21, 2009 Not good, to many trains, + CIY has a bunch of routes it is handling.. No need to store the there, just have it run there peak hours, and no idling like the etc does, just stop, open doors, let pax on/off, close doors, roll back out. - A
fishmech Posted November 21, 2009 #16 Posted November 21, 2009 The could use a sister service in the form of a new line about where the full-time portion of the is, that would head up to connect with the Queens Boulevard and maybe the , and down to connect with the Fulton Street and the .
Kamen Rider Posted November 22, 2009 #17 Posted November 22, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters
Luis1985 Posted November 22, 2009 #18 Posted November 22, 2009 id say leave the train the way it is now. if they want to extend the train to 8 cars in the future, even better, but honestly, its fine the way it is now.
Milan Posted November 22, 2009 Author #19 Posted November 22, 2009 This never gonna happen, thankyou for wasting our time by bringing it up they can't run longer trains, Jamaica Yard doesn't have enough cars. This is the purpose for which the G was built, a by-pass route between brooklyn and Queens without going to manhattan. I don't have a one seat ride to midtown from my neightborhood on the subway, and you don't see me complaining. Suggestion is to extend G and concurrently eliminate W. If you combine cars allotted for G and for W, there should be more than enough cars to run decent G extended service. Now there is excess service to Astoria(N&W) and lousy service on G. Also at present 3 lines(R N &W) between east of 60th street tunnel& 57thst-7 ave and 1 line on 63rd street line(F). After connection 2lines on 60th st line& 2 lines(F&G) on 63rd st line. Replacing Ditmars-57th st service with court sq-57th street will save money as it will be shorter. G ending at court sq as a permanent solution is ugly.
Rutgers Tube Posted November 23, 2009 #20 Posted November 23, 2009 At present G is a pitiable 4 car forgotten line.After V came along it does'nt even go to the REAL queens. G is now a pastiche of shuttles to E&F&7(at court sq) to L (at Metropolitan) to A&C at Hoyt .Does'nt have free transfer to J&M.I believe people in say,Greenpoint ,will love to have a one-seat ride to midtown.Finally TA will never run a 4 car train on bway local ,so service on g will improve. Suggestion is to extend G and concurrently eliminate W. If you combine cars allotted for G and for W, there should be more than enough cars to run decent G extended service. Now there is excess service to Astoria(N&W) and lousy service on G. Also at present 3 lines(R N &W) between east of 60th street tunnel& 57thst-7 ave and 1 line on 63rd street line(F). After connection 2lines on 60th st line& 2 lines(F&G) on 63rd st line. Replacing Ditmars-57th st service with court sq-57th street will save money as it will be shorter. G ending at court sq as a permanent solution is ugly. I take the Crosstown several days a week and I personally feel that the service accomplishes precisely what it set out to do when it was designed. Some of your points lack any sort of basis for argument. Like... who cares about Greenpoint? Not to knock the fine citizens of that neighborhood, but what makes them so important that they need a one-seat ride to Manhattan (when, in fact, many of the citizens are elderly Polish people who don't work at all or who work right in the neighborhood or nearby or young professionals who own vehicles) when other neighborhoods lack any sort of train service whatsoever? College Point and Bayside don't have any rapid transit train service. Why not send the out there? Also, the neighborhoods that the runs through offer much more availability in terms of train service than does the and through Astoria, especially considering the fact that service is not available late nights or weekends. Furthermore, view the 2008 subway ridership statistics at the following link: http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm If you compare ridership for the Crosstown vs. the Astoria lines, you'll notice that Astoria stops generally have much higher ridership. The two trains running out of Ditmars Boulevard are very much needed, and there is, by no means, excess service to and from Astoria. The only feasible improvements I can see which would provide more better service on the are making the trains 6-car consists (can R46's even run in A-B-A or A-A sets, or would they be A-B-B-B-B-A?) or longer and upgrading the signalling for CBTC. Running a train through Manhattan will not improve service and it's not as if service is poor simply because it does run there.
Grand Concourse Posted November 23, 2009 #21 Posted November 23, 2009 I believe the R46 cars are 'linked' A-B pairs. And it would not make sense to have a set with just the B cars in the middle as there aren't as many B cars to begin with and the c/r needs to be within 300 ft for full view. Any more than 300' and the c/r can't see beyond it. All the AA pairs are on the A line now, so the only set ups possible would be the current 4-car set or an 8-car train. But agreed about the W line, it serves its purpose. This G to Manhattan idea is just insane.
Kamen Rider Posted November 24, 2009 #22 Posted November 24, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters
IRT Bronx Express Posted November 24, 2009 #23 Posted November 24, 2009 Not good, to many trains, + CIY has a bunch of routes it is handling.. At one point, there were 6 lines heading towards Coney Island if you were to count Express and Local. IMO, the G doesn't need to go to Coney Island. It was extended to Church Ave recently, and there are enough trains going to CI.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.