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  
Harry

Pols: Let’s make a spot for the G train

Recommended Posts

 

post-5097-0-83455000-1359387912_thumb.jpg
How about a little respect for the (G) train? Straphangers and a pair of politicians will rally Sunday outside of the Lorimer St. stop and call for a comprehensive review of the line that only runs through two boroughs. Regulars on the truncated train between Church Ave. in Brooklyn and Court Sq. in Queens complain most about the frequency of trains and bad communication about service disruptions, according to the Riders Alliance advocacy group.

Read more: NYDailyNews

post-5097-0-83455000-1359387912_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, whatever gets me to work faster, I'm all for it. Its like they treat the (G) like the forgotten stepchild anyway lol

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The area along the line is developing quickly. I think they should either increase the frequency or run full length trains.

Edited by Grand Concourse
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MTA better listen cause knowing that was near my territory there was always crowds at the transfer to the L also just curious what made the (V) train come about? (not advocating to delete the (M) line back to the old way etc etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a quick breakdown the (V) train was implemented as part of changes which occurred when the 63rd Street tunnel connection to Queens Bvld was constructed and opened in an attempt to relieve overcrowding on the 53rd Street corridor in Manhattan, in addition to supplementing the permanant re-route of (F) train service through the new connection. It also served to replace (G) train local service along the QBL to Forest Hills which was by that time cut back to Court Square. It was a very controversial part of changes in transit that created alot of uproar in many neighboorhoods affected by these changes back in 2001. I'll stop here, it's really an issue that is very complex, I'm sure anyone here can literally write a book on this one.

Edited by realizm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the (G) runs every ten minutes and ranks above average on service regularity. I guess there's other issues besides the present headway today as stated by the news posted by the OP. Hopefully come around the 2020s, they'll be enough cars for full length trains to accommodate growing ridership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, while the crosstown line has it's issues, I do think it gets a bad reputation unduly. 

 

When people I meet tell me they avoid the (G) like the plague, I try to stand up for the little guy. I take the line almost every weekend multiple times, and if you know what the schedule is supposed to be, you'll find its almost always on time. 

 

The headways are a little rough, probably should keep to 10 minutes or less all the way up to 11pm. 

 

I'd like to see it extended out further into queens again, although this may just be a bias on my part because it would give me a one-seat ride into brooklyn. During weekends, though, when the (R) is all there is in terms of Queens Blvd local service, the G could be a huge help. Run full length trains every 10 minutes out to forest hills, halve the headways on the QBL local.

 

The (R) is universally late and crowded on weekends - especially with the construction on the Flushing line. Lengthen the trains and the route on weekends and help two lines at once. The equipment is there to do this - all the M line trains are sitting idle on the weekend anyway. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion there could be more two points that if considered could explain current circumstances with headways on the (G) if solutions are to be proposed and implemented:

 

1) The (G) on the Culver Viaduct must obviously share capacity with the (F) on the local tracks. Because of the demands for increased headways on the (F) during rush hours, this causes the erratic headways straphangers are experiencing on the (G).

 

As a historical footnote for the record: The Culver Viaduct was historically never exactly designed to handle such traffic solely on the local tracks. The express tracks actually were not designed to handle solely BMT Culver Line traffic in itself but actually the proposed Ft Hamilton Ave line traffic coming from proposed tunnel connections from Staten Island - part of the IND Second System that never became a reality.

 

2) Court Square Station (And Church Ave station for that matter) can only handle but so much with it's switches and signaling system currently installed for train turnarounds. It was'nt part of the intentions or the original IND engineers back in the day to have Court Square serve as an around the clock terminus.

 

That was why Queens Plaza was constructed by the IND in such a way (before the track configuration was changed when the 63rd Street Connector was constructed) with the provision for adequate ability for terminating and rapid turnaround of Crosstown local trains. That ability was lost during that construction of new tunnels into the QBL for the 63rd Street tubes.

 

The MTA has to figure out how to accomidate for yesterday's track and tunnel layout of these sections of the QBL and the Culver Viaduct to be able to fully accomidate the needs of the riders that depend on the (G) I'm sure one way or another. Unfortunately only so much can be done. I guess the obvious short term solution as already mentioned is to opt for 8 car trains.

 

* My comment does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the MTA Capital Construction Program or it's MTA transit employees. Thank you.

Edited by realizm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion there could be more two points that if considered could explain current circumstances with headways on the (G) if solutions are to be proposed and implemented:

 

1) The (G) on the Culver Viaduct must obviously share capacity with the (F) on the local tracks. Because of the demands for increased headways on the (F) during rush hours, this causes the erratic headways straphangers are experiencing on the (G).

 

I'm pretty sure rush-hour headways on the G are OK. They come every 5 or 6 minutes. If the trains are too crowded at those headways, they should be extended to full length trains. I think it's during the off-peak periods when the line really becomes troublingly infrequent. 

 

 

 

That was why Queens Plaza was constructed by the IND in such a way (before the track configuration was changed when the 63rd Street Connector was constructed) with the provision for adequate ability for terminating and rapid turnaround of Crosstown local trains. That ability was lost during that construction of new tunnels into the QBL for the 63rd Street tubes.

 

The MTA has to figure out how to accomidate for yesterday's track and tunnel layout of these sections of the QBL and the Culver Viaduct to be able to fully accomidate the needs of the riders that depend on the (G) I'm sure one way or another. Unfortunately only so much can be done. I guess the obvious short term solution as already mentioned is to opt for 8 car trains..

 

Queens plaza can still turn trains. D5 north of the station is used to relay the Holiday Vintage Train, for instance, which runs between Queens Plaza and 2nd Av. 

 

The problem with D5 is that a northbound train on crosstown comes into the station on the local track, D2 - has to pull out of the station at 10mph crossing over D4 to get into D5. Then, to go back southbound, 10mph across D3 to get over to D1. With the E and the M running pretty tightly stacked up through the station during rush hours, the delays caused by crossing trains would be significant. 

 

The reason the (G) can't run to Forest Hills, as it happens, is Forest Hills itself. 

 

Take a look at the subway map. There are only 2 Terminals that handle more than 2 lines. Jamaica Center barely counts, since the J and the Z are closely related, and the E is running on separated tracks upstairs, and Stillwell has 8 tracks and 4 platforms to handle its 4 lines. 

 

Forest Hills, as a terminal, can turn about 20 trains per hour, and during rush hours this is barely enough for the local service. 179th, for instance, the F's terminal, can turn 63 trains per hour. Since the trains terminating at forest hills need to be fumigated before they can duck into the yard leads and relay, this causes the delay. You can't, just cant, turn 3 lines at a terminal configured like Forest Hills. 

 

There's a solution here that isn't that crazy.

 

There's a spur line that was built off the QBL near Rego Park, some are calling for it to be connected to that unused LIRR branch and connected down to Howard Beach. That's nice, but I'll call it a pipe dream and move along.

 

What's less of a pipe dream is the following:

Build a stub terminal on that branch in rego park, and turn the (G) there.

If the rest of the line's construction ever gets underway to howard beach, you've already got the first section built. Send the (G) to forest hills and the (R) down that line. It doesn't matter, really. The moral of the story is - if you want the crosstown line to go deep into queens once more, full time - you need another terminal.  

Edited by itmaybeokay
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queens plaza can still turn trains. D5 north of the station is used to relay the Holiday Vintage Train, for instance, which runs between Queens Plaza and 2nd Av.

 

The problem with D5 is that a northbound train on crosstown comes into the station on the local track, D2 - has to pull out of the station at 10mph crossing over D4 to get into D5. Then, to go back southbound, 10mph across D3 to get over to D1. With the E and the M running pretty tightly stacked up through the station during rush hours, the delays caused by crossing trains would be significant.

 

 

All good points. However I just wanted to add (correct me if I'm wrong): That D5 track I don't believe can accomidate for the relay of more than one full length train (if even that) at a time since the reconstruction that occurred in that area.

 

Understood on your point regarding the capacity issue on 71st - Forest Hills. That was why I believe the MTA tried (unsuccessfully) to try and have (R) trains terminate at 179th Street to address that particular problem after the opening of the 63rd Street connector concerning continued (G) service to Forest Hills.

 

I'm pretty sure rush-hour headways on the G are OK. They come every 5 or 6 minutes. If the trains are too crowded at those headways' date=' they should be extended to full length trains. I think it's during the off-peak periods when the line really becomes troublingly infrequent.[/quote']

 

OK. But what I meant by erratic headways is when during rush hours we would see two or even three (F) trains at a time back to back before a (G) train arrives at a given Brooklyn station. In that sense.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All good points. However I just wanted to add (correct me if I'm wrong): That D5 track I don't believe can accomidate for the relay of more than one full length train (if even that) at a time since the reconstruction that occurred in that area.

 

I'm not sure D5 ever could hold more than one full length train, but you are correct that it can only hold one. Still, that would be enough to relay service there, frustrating but just have the following train hold at court square until the relay track is unoccupied. Point is, that's not the obstacle to service, it's the interference this would cause with the express. 

 

OK. But what I meant by erratic headways is when during rush hours we would see two or even three (F) trains at a time back to back before a (G) train arrives at a given Brooklyn station. In that sense.

 

To me, I don't see that as a problem. Sure, it's frustrating, believe me I know. But the traffic patterns support the decision, 2/3 of riders, easily, are trying for an F to go to manhattan. What would be nice is if, for instance, the inner tracks at Hoyt/Schermerhorn had a connection to the lower level tracks near Bergen St. You could add rush hour N/B put-ins there, and have some S/B trains terminate there. Increase service, and avoid messing with the (F).

 

Even a crossover between the middle tracks just before the platforms at Hoyt would be enough to turn trains there.

 

In the existing setup, you could run a few rush hour trains between Bedford-Nostrand and Court Sq, which would still increase service in the section between Metropolitan and Court Sq, which is the most used part of the crosstown line not shared with other trains. I think that's a possibility they ought to explore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (G) should also gets countdown clock top prioty because (G) is especially slow on weekend than (C) when you're waiting for trains.

 

At Church Av, (F) comes more than (G).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that if Tom Prendergast were to fund some money for the (G) Train's weekday evenings, late night, and all weekend service to/from Forest Hills-71st Av, Queens to be reinstated, create an <F> Express Service running express in Brooklyn weekdays only between Bergen St and Kings Highway (6:00 AM-12:30 PM Southbound, and 1:00-7:30 PM Northbound or the opposite) with the (F) Local Service terminating at Kings Highway (6:00 AM-8:00 PM), and to renovate the Bergen St lower level platforms by turning it as an express stop when The Culver Viaduct Rehabilitation Program is completed. These would see much more service improvements along the Culver Line, we just gotta pray to ourselves that the (G) would run full-platform length 8 (R-46, R-68/A) to 10 (R-160A-2/B Alstom) car trains without the need for running up and down the platform for a short 4 or 5-car train.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (G) is too... well "unneeded" or insignificant. It is not used enough.

 

This is a pervasive attitude among those who don't use the line, and it's pretty entitled, don't you think? 

 

"The lines that I use are significant, and needed. Others, eh." 

 

There are entire neighborhoods, a huge swath of brooklyn, for which this train is the only subway option. 

 

 

Yes - as the only line which doesn't enter manhattan, it's ridership is, naturally, lower than others. It's also very short, about 5% of the total transit system's length, so obviously it's ridership will be lower than the long, sweeping F line it shares trackage with. 

 

But make no mistake: The development of the subways shaped the growth of the city around them - not the other way around. If service would improve, the areas served would become more desirable, population would go up, ridership would go up. 

 

Here's what the area surrounding the Flushing line looked like over queens blvd when it was built. 

 

img_77458.jpg

 

If we're reactionary, and slash service to a skeleton of itself on lighter-used lines, neighborhoods will suffer and blight. If we're forward thinking, and expand the system to serve commute patterns that aren't yet heavily trafficked, new nodes on the urban landscape may spring to life. 

  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points have been made. I believe the (G) has been unfairly maligned.

 

It is actually IMO the most reliable line, probably along with the (J)--it comes when IT SAYS IT WILL COME.

 

I would set my watch by that train...I have ridden it for nearly 20 years. It was my main commuting train for over 5-6 years too.

 

Many of the problems (over the weekends) have to do with the lack of a crossover at Hoyt and Schermerhorn to turn around trains when there is Culver construction.....as a result, trains have to terminate at Bedford Nostrand, and a one track shuttle has to run every 25 mins between Hoyt and Bedford Nostrand.

 

That being said, the line doesn't actually need 8 full cars. 4 is actually enough most of the time, except rush hours. But even then, it's not as if people are being left out of the train unable to board it (like on the (L) ). A good compromise is to give it back 6 cars, like it had a decade ago. Either that or simply increase the headway during rush hours.

 

The (G) would be an excellent line for countdown clocks.

 

I really don't like Court Sq as a terminal---I didn't know that QP can turn trains.....if so, I think the MTA should restore that and have the (G) terminate there.

 

I also really would push for a transfer to the (2) and (3) at Hoyt St in Brooklyn....this would not be an expensive or difficult transfer at all. All told, I heard there is a tunnel that goes have the distance already. Let the (G) be more than a glorified shuttle for the (A).

 

 

So to summarize in order of importance:

  1. creation of crossover at Hoyt Schermerhorn so trains can terminate for G.Os.
  2. either more TPH or restoration of 6 car trains --I would actually prefer more TPH.
  3. tunnel to transfer to the (2) and (3) at Hoyt Schermerhorn (this also benefits Fulton st riders too)
  4. Countdown clocks
  5. A terminal OTHER than Court Sq

Side wishes:

 

Out of station transfer to (J)(M)(Z) at Hewes St

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
img_77458.jpg

 

If we're reactionary, and slash service to a skeleton of itself on lighter-used lines, neighborhoods will suffer and blight. If we're forward thinking, and expand the system to serve commute patterns that aren't yet heavily trafficked, new nodes on the urban landscape may spring to life. 

 

You have to understand how many years ago that was. That was in the 20's. And then, the IRT and BMT ran into money trouble...

 

Nowadays, the (G) does not produce much profit and does not run through many dense areas. Plus, your average train is kind of empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, there's development in Queens, look at the new high rises by the river. It's only a matter of time till they add on to the (G) ridership. So you can't just dismiss the (G).

If ridership is so important, then why not just keep the (A) terminated at Howard Beach (when they reopen the rest of the rockaways to the mainland)? Far Rockaway is the only line that sees the most ridership of the stations south of HB. Run 4 car trains and have the (H) take people to Howard Beach.

Edited by Grand Concourse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain "profit" in this context?

 

Early on, these were private companies and were clearly for profit.

 

But this is the MTA--things are a bit more complicated: state budgets, charters, etc.

You have to understand how many years ago that was. That was in the 20's. And then, the IRT and BMT ran into money trouble...

 

Nowadays, the (G) does not produce much profit and does not run through many dense areas. Plus, your average train is kind of empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the existing setup, you could run a few rush hour trains between Bedford-Nostrand and Court Sq, which would still increase service in the section between Metropolitan and Court Sq, which is the most used part of the crosstown line not shared with other trains. I think that's a possibility they ought to explore. 

 

 

I guess that's feasible, if ridership demands merit that north of Bedford, and if Court Square can handle the additional TPH in such a scenerio. I think MTA Transit did use that middle relay track at the Bedford-Nostrand station during some GO's in recent memory, where they had the (G) run in two sections in Brooklyn if my memory is correct. It's been a good 3 years almost since I had to actually put up with such weekend work service patterns on the (G) in my travels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (G) needs extra service. I take the line every day, and in the short stint after sandy where the line did have full length trains, they were full. Personally, I'd prefer extra service before more trains, but somehow the (G) needs an increase in capacity.

 

As for this Bedford shortrun idea, many people use the transfer at Hoyt Schemerhorn, including myself, turning trains @ Bedford would help few.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't like Court Sq as a terminal---I didn't know that QP can turn trains.....if so, I think the MTA should restore that and have the (G) terminate there.

 

Yes the station was originally built for that capability in mind, if you recall, we used to have revenue weekend service patterns where the (G) would terminate at Queensboro Plaza instead of Forest Hills, prior to when the construction on the 63rd St connector commenced, around 1995. That was what itmaybeok and myself were talking about, that infamous D5 relay track north of QP that was used for that very purpose, which was severed for the realignment to the current ROWs we are familiar riding with for the express trains coming out of this station and out of 21st-Queensbridge.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Profit" is how much money is made or lost for the route. I know the (MTA) is a non-profit organization but the routes that keep losing or making little money will not have service additions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the MTA is actually a public benefits corperation. They only recieve partial funding from Albany and Washington with the brunt of their operating expenses and employee payroll paid for by fare revenue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Profit" is how much money is made or lost for the route. I know the (MTA) is a non-profit organization but the routes that keep losing or making little money will not have service additions.

 

The subway only costs about $1.40 per rider to operate - if you don't count the cost of servicing debt and pensions, the subway makes money.

 

Not to mention, you can't exactly measure revenue per line because the system is under one flat fare.

 

To add onto what everyone else is saying, the (G) needs better connectivity in general as well. Court Square is much less useful as a terminus than Queens Plaza. At this point I'm pretty sure a connection with the (J)(M)(Z) is a dead horse that doesn't need more beating, and non-IND transfers in downtown Brooklyn suck as well. For a line whose intended purpose is to give people a chance to go between boroughs without using Manhattan, it's not particularly easy to use. Now that the MTA has been building new transfers all over the place (Bleecker on the (6), Metrotech on the (A)(C)(R) ), they might make the (G) easier to get to. I won't hold my breath for a second, though.

 

That being said, they could probably extend car-lengths to at least six or eight cars.

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.