Jump to content

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


Harry

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I understand exactly how many years ago that was, friend. I don't suggest they run subways into farmland, I suggest they improve existing service to improve quality of life in areas, and continue to improve the city. 

 

The G runs through Long Island City, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bed Stuy, Clinton Hill, Gowanus - which are all areas that have seen an INCREASE in population and property values in the past decade or so. 

 

In reference to profit, I think you'd find that improved service would result in improved ridership. Degraded service would result in reduced ridership. For an example of this, read the history of the subways, specifically the 1970's and 80's. 

 

In reference to "Plus your average train is kind of empty"

I'm sorry, but that quote instantly reveals the fact that you do not ride the line often. I was in a packed train saturday at 1pm. Most of the crowds cleared out at metropolitan, and that's the point: The G provides a vital link to other subway lines. 

 

I understand the point that money, improvements, resources need to be fairly divied out - and therein lies my point: I think that the (G), fairly, needs more. And - that's exactly what the rally asked for: a comprehensive review of the line, and any actions warranted as a result. 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally allow me to clarify: I do not wish to be argumentative or belligerent, but I feel the (G) needs to be fought for sometimes. I think a lot of the critics cite second and thirdhand observations and claim it to be useless.  It's my favorite line in the system, and I don't live or work on it. It has a lot going for it, and it can do so much more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Indeed, at Court Square, the seats are all occupied with standees, let alone by the time it reaches Metropolitan Ave for the connection to the (L) where the cars are definitely packed to passenger capacity. Trains going northbound and southbound alike, it does'nt matter. The Crosstown Line is a very heavily used line for a route that never makes it to Manhattan. I seriously doubt that the IND had ever anticipated that the ridership would increase on the Crosstown Line to such levels as we see it today in 2013 from when it opened in 1933. (Hmmmm, that's 80 years of revenue service....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Are you serious? Have you ever rode the (G) during the week and especially Rush Hours?

 

Try getting on at Metropolitan where everyone pushes you just so they can get a seat.

 

Even at Court Sq the train gets packed already, and it hasn't even move an inch.

 

Long Island City, Carroll Gardens, and all around Greenpoint are developing quickly. With all these new apartment buildings getting built and more people buying houses, people rely on the (G) more. Especially if it saves time to avoid Manhattan

 

 

itmaybeokay beat me to it. Dammit lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

 

 

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.  

This, times 1000. At least get the ball rolling on the Rockaway branch reclamation (don't let those douchebags trying to build a vanity on the ROW get it), and combined with no more fumigation at Forest Hills for trains returning to service allowing the extra tph, the people of Queens would be rather happy. They'd have to make the G at least 6 75-footers or 8 60-footers to cover the service, though. I'm willing to bet on that.

 

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

Agreed. That Hoyt transfer is a two-block walk, and the station depths would allow a mezzanine connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no need for the 6 75'-car trains. They aren't breaking up 4 car sets to become additional ab cars to tack on and there aren't enough AA R46 pairs for the G as is now. I also don't think they should order more 8car 60' trains after the R179 order is done. It's bad enough they are going to keep the C as 480' trains for another 40 years, but to expand that to the G? Nah, it's either 300' or 600' trains imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no need for the 6 75'-car trains. They aren't breaking up 4 car sets to become additional ab cars to tack on and there aren't enough AA R46 pairs for the G as is now. I also don't think they should order more 8car 60' trains after the R179 order is done. It's bad enough they are going to keep the C as 480' trains for another 40 years, but to expand that to the G? Nah, it's either 300' or 600' trains imo.

If it makes it back to QB and goes to at least 63 Drive, it would probably become too crowded for 300 foot trains, but I'm not sure if 600 won't be overkill for non-rush hours. If they can then extend it down to Howard Beach, well then it becomes a good JFK link for Queens Boulevard areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then perhaps have a short turn somewhere and send back some trains. I personally think the G should be either 300' or 600'. Makes borrowing trains easier and simple.

I agree, but budgets being what they are, they would compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ GC theres more than enough cars and A-A units, they would just have to add 2-3 sets of 8 car R32s to the mix, if they do add more cars, a set of 42s and those stored 32s will be comming out of storage and the 10 thats in work service and they did take 4 R32s out of storage and they are at CI 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Ignoring the foamerizm...

 

Quill, your comments about the (G) are quite ignorant. Your average train is anything but empty, I was on a crushloaded (G) train. I mean crushloaded. The train came like that at Myrtle, and it stayed like that until Fulton Street when the Brooklyn Tech students got off. It was still crowded going into Hoyt. Obviously, shortturns won't work as the trains are full in both directions on the whole line. Even on weekends, trains can still have decent ridership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With our luck this push will backfire and the MTA will just cut back the (G) further or something.
The only way the MTA would be able to do this is taking away the Church Avenue extension, otherwise no other cutbacks are possible. (other than yet another service reduction)

 

Subway trains run on electricity, except the (G), which runs on community demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way the MTA would be able to do this is taking away the Church Avenue extension, otherwise no other cutbacks are possible. (other than yet another service reduction)

 

Subway trains run on electricity, except the (G), which runs on community demand.

You mean you actually don't think they'd make the (G) go back to terminating at Smith and 9th when the renovation is done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wouldn't put it past em to change that.

 

 

Then look at it from this perspective: With this fare hike in the works, slated for March 2013, it would not be the logical thing for the MTA to pull off for a plethora of reasons. It will not happen any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wouldn't put it past em to change that.

Now that riders can finally directly transfer to 4th av on the G, I don't see why they'd go back to Smith 9th again. Plus the crew room is at Church av and (before Smith 9th was shut down) sometimes I saw G trains continuing via express tracks to relay back from Church. They may as well keep the G at Church permanent since it's never going to QB (even though it really should late nights and weekends).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see crowded full length trains of the (G). It would be so fascinated over its expand ridership and crowds. I look forward to seeing that in the future. Just like how we already saw how ridership increased hugely on the (L) and it need more trains than just the R143s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/36/5/dtg_gtrainupdate_2013_02_01_bk.html

 

 

The Metropolitan Transit Authority now says it will consider adding more trains, giving riders better information about service changes, and allowing free above-ground transfers to users of the beloved and beleaguered Brooklyn Local after months of telling riders to talk to the hand — the same day it voted to make the trains temporary extension into Kensington permanent.

 

The agency told The Brooklyn Paper on Monday that the train, which has seen ridership increase since the expansion that gave Brooklynites one-seat service from Park Slope to Greenpoint without having to suffer the indignity of going through Manhattan, now has a chance to get the improvements riders feel it deserves.

 

“We’ll look at it very carefully,” MTA spokeswoman Deirdre Parker said on Monday morning. “We’ll review it step-by-step. We’ll look at the suggestions.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it makes it back to QB and goes to at least 63 Drive, it would probably become too crowded for 300 foot trains, but I'm not sure if 600 won't be overkill for non-rush hours. If they can then extend it down to Howard Beach, well then it becomes a good JFK link for Queens Boulevard areas.

 

The G isn't going back to the QBL - there is virtually no demand for it there and there is no capacity to turn it.

 

JFK is more than adequately served by the existing AirTrain connections at Jamaica and Howard Beach.

 

^Ignoring the foamerizm...

 

Quill, your comments about the (G) are quite ignorant. Your average train is anything but empty, I was on a crushloaded (G) train. I mean crushloaded. The train came like that at Myrtle, and it stayed like that until Fulton Street when the Brooklyn Tech students got off. It was still crowded going into Hoyt. Obviously, shortturns won't work as the trains are full in both directions on the whole line. Even on weekends, trains can still have decent ridership. 

 

Bear in mind that the loading guideline for an R68 during rush hours is 175 people. That's per car. I think most of us would consider that quite crowded, but that's the guideline that NYCT schedules for. If, at the most crowded point on the line, the average car of the average train (averaged over an hour, I think, or maybe a half hour) is carrying less than 175 people, there's no need to add more service.

 

If there's been a severe service delay, it's possible that one train is crush loaded. Chances are there's another train right behind it that's much emptier.

 

And given the short trains, the end cars tend to be more crowded than the middle cars. Even if the end cars are overcrowded on a particular train, the train as a whole probably isn't.

 

The off-peak loading guideline is for 125% of a seated load. Since an R68 has about 75 seats, a fully loaded car has 94 passengers. I'm not sure I've ever seen an off-peak G train with as many as 94 passengers per car.

 

I'd love to see crowded full length trains of the (G). It would be so fascinated over its expand ridership and crowds. I look forward to seeing that in the future. Just like how we already saw how ridership increased hugely on the (L) and it need more trains than just the R143s. 

 

There has been ridership growth on the G, but not nearly as much on the L. If G trains were expanded to full-length, rush hour headways would immediately jump to 10 minutes, since loads would be well below the guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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