Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Trainspotter

Council to MTA: Stop neglecting G train

Recommended Posts

Council to MTA: Stop neglecting (G) train

The City Council lashed out at the MTA Tuesday, accusing officials of neglecting G riders with shortened subway cars and a shortened line.

 

The council's Transportation Committee also passed a resolution calling on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to "immediately improve service on the G line and to not implement any additional service cuts."

 

Full story: amny_logo.gif icon_offsite.png - April 9, 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might be able to expect it back ot Continental all times except rush hour.

 

Since there is some capacity on the local tracks (the problem is fumigating trains at CTL), I wonder if they could even do it during rush hour by sending the (V)ictor to 179 via lcl, and leaving the (F)ox express east of CTL (to 179 of course) during rush only. Then there'd be no need for the handful of (E)chos to run from 179, they could all run out of Parsons.

 

If (G) service is too frequent to mesh with the QBlvd trains easily, terminate every other N/B train at Van Alst and relay on the middle track. That way Brooklyn and the crosstown don't lose service because of QBlvd. All (G)'s on QBLvd should be 6 cars though IMO. The 21st/Van Alst bound trains can be 4. The 4 car trains would still be useful because they connect to the (L)arry and therefore still provide a 2 seat ride to Manhattan for folks on crosstown stops

 

And of course extend it to Church S/B...

 

just my 2c...

 

now whos gonna pay for it since it costs a lot more than 2c?

 

:D:(:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since there is some capacity on the local tracks (the problem is fumigating trains at CTL), I wonder if they could even do it during rush hour by sending the (V)ictor to 179 via lcl, and leaving the (F)ox express east of CTL (to 179 of course) during rush only. Then there'd be no need for the handful of (E)chos to run from 179, they could all run out of Parsons.

 

If (G) service is too frequent to mesh with the QBlvd trains easily, terminate every other N/B train at Van Alst and relay on the middle track. That way Brooklyn and the crosstown don't lose service because of QBlvd. All (G)'s on QBLvd should be 6 cars though IMO. The 21st/Van Alst bound trains can be 4. The 4 car trains would still be useful because they connect to the (L)arry and therefore still provide a 2 seat ride to Manhattan for folks on crosstown stops

 

And of course extend it to Church S/B...

 

just my 2c...

 

now whos gonna pay for it since it costs a lot more than 2c?

 

:D:(:)

 

Indeed, that seems like a feasible plan. I for one like it. I don't know why the (R) & (V) Must terminate at Forest Hills-71 Av. I mean, The (R) used to run all the way to Jamaica-179 St with the (F) in the early 90s, why not utilize Jamaica-179 as a 2 train terminal again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, that seems like a feasible plan. I for one like it. I don't know why the (R) & (V) Must terminate at Forest Hills-71 Av. I mean, The (R) used to run all the way to Jamaica-179 St with the (F) in the early 90s, why not utilize Jamaica-179 as a 2 train terminal again.

 

Totally agree with you with the (R) terminating at 179 street. The real reason why they made 71st a terminal is because the station has the time and the tracks to do it. Plus, it leads straight into Jamaica Yard, so there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree with you with the (R) terminating at 179 street. The real reason why they made 71st a terminal is because the station has the time and the tracks to do it. Plus, it leads straight into Jamaica Yard, so there you go.

 

True but there are yard leads to Jamaica in both directions along QBlvd which is why I think my crazy idea just might work. The problem, however, is money.

 

Whether its that ®omeo or (V)ictor that gets extended would probably depend on ridership patterns, but I guess I'll adjust mine to say extend the ®omeo because then the stops past CTL would have a one seat ride to Broadway if they're willing to sit tight through all the local stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then there'd be no need for the handful of (E)chos to run from 179, they could all run out of Parsons.

 

Well, the handful of (E) trains run out of 179th because there isn't enough space at Parsons/Archer. The switch is too far from the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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