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

[Grand Concourse]

Because to support an extension in Queens to either NB, Rockaways, etc. it'll probably require a 5th line. The G was the odd line out when the V was created and then merged into the M. There's no way they are changing the R as it is way too long and slow as it is. The M is limited to the number of 8 car trains available. So thus the G is the most likely choice. And it isn't just your line (are you going to be like that rtrainblues guy and mope after the Brooklyn R service to Manhattan was restored?). 

[Threxx]

Because to support an extension in Queens to either NB, Rockaways, etc. it'll probably require a 5th line. The G was the odd line out when the V was created and then merged into the M. There's no way they are changing the R as it is way too long and slow as it is. The M is limited to the number of 8 car trains available. So thus the G is the most likely choice. And it isn't just your line (are you going to be like that rtrainblues guy and mope after the Brooklyn R service to Manhattan was restored?). 

 

I feel I can speak for most riders, especially after what happened today w/the signal troubles. There's no need to extend the anywhere. If an extension in Queens was to happen, then I would support this, but ATM there's no need for it.

 

And anyway, by the time the Rockaway RoW or something opens, a new line could run, possibly using 63rd Street & Broadway to service it. Another possibility, while this is very far fetched, is to run a second line from the SAS up through 63rd Street to the Rockaway RoW, supplementing the and solving capacity problems. 

[RollOver]

I really don't agree with GC on what he said about the . The already runs every 6-8 minutes at rush hour only. It can run every 7 or 8 minutes on the weekends like it used to before those June 2010 cuts.

 

EDIT: Besides, it only shares trackage with the in Manhattan between the 60th Street tube and the Prince Street station stop.

[Grand Concourse]

The problem is the R is delayed prone and making it longer is going to make it worse. The R should get better headways, but otherwise, leave the line alone.

 

@threxx, I have serious doubts about the SAS. Even if they get thru phase 2, it'll be a miracle if they were to start phase 3 to just Houston if not 14th. So I'm not counting on that anytime soon.

Also I think only the portion south of 63rd can go to/from Queens. North of 63rd can only go strait down 2nd av or turns onto 63rd towards Midtown. IE: can't have a direct UES to Queens route.

[itmaybeokay]

I feel I can speak for most riders, especially after what happened today w/the signal troubles. There's no need to extend the anywhere. If an extension in Queens was to happen, then I would support this, but ATM there's no need for it.

 

And anyway, by the time the Rockaway RoW or something opens, a new line could run, possibly using 63rd Street & Broadway to service it. Another possibility, while this is very far fetched, is to run a second line from the SAS up through 63rd Street to the Rockaway RoW, supplementing the and solving capacity problems. 

 

I can't be the only person who lives off a Queens Blvd local stop and regularly travels to brooklyn. Literally, the only inconvenient thing about the to me is the transfer at court square. 

[realizm]

I can't be the only person who lives off a Queens Blvd local stop and regularly travels to brooklyn. Literally, the only inconvenient thing about the to me is the transfer at court square. 

The moving sidewalks between 23rd/Ely and Court Square is really fun though. I used to love running through it like this was the 500 yard dash looking for a gold medal, while watching the  wtf reactions from the other commuters lol. It sure saved my tail catching that train without missing a beat. Lol I even ran across it in the wrong direction just for the fun of it. Yeah I'm quite a character.

 

The installation of that moving sidewalk in itself was a good move on the part of the MTA Capital Construction team. That corridor is one really long walk. They should consider this at other locations IMO such as the 14th St 6th Ave/IRT 7th Ave/BMT 14 St-Canarsie Line transfer with that long journey of a walk and at Times Square/42nd St with that mission of a march between the IND 8th Ave line and the BMT Broadway, TS Shuttle, Times Square and IRT 7th ave stations etc etc.

[Grand Concourse]

Yes totally agreed about those moving sidewalks for those locations. I dunno if you can fit two side by side for the TS-8th av one at 42nd and the 14th st corridors, so it may have to be 1 way depending on the rush hours.

 

lmfao, i too enjoy walking in the wrong way on those things. Fun to beat out the stationary folks going in the same direction.

[bobtehpanda]

The problem is the R is delayed prone and making it longer is going to make it worse. The R should get better headways, but otherwise, leave the line alone.

 

@threxx, I have serious doubts about the SAS. Even if they get thru phase 2, it'll be a miracle if they were to start phase 3 to just Houston if not 14th. So I'm not counting on that anytime soon.

Also I think only the portion south of 63rd can go to/from Queens. North of 63rd can only go strait down 2nd av or turns onto 63rd towards Midtown. IE: can't have a direct UES to Queens route.

 

As an off topic addendum: even if they do get to building SAS Phase III, it's poorly designed as it is - it's only two tracks, links with very few lines directly [ and ] and extremely sparse stop spacing in the middle of Midtown  (IMO 53rd should be replaced with 51st for the and 59th or 60th for the - there is no way that the curve radius for the interlocking is bigger than three blocks.) When they build SAS though, they're going to need to build moving sidewalks, especially at 42nd and at whatever stop intersects with the .

 

There is one place I don't approve of those moving walkways, and it's at Jamaica Station's LIRR mezzanine - they're actually so out of the way that they're slower than walking, and they also block off access to half of the stairs on the mezzanine.

 

Moving sidewalks usually should only be the size of a standard escalator - three or four feet across sounds about right. Most of the heavily used passageways are wide enough, but a lot of them have too many turns, or, in the case of Times Square-PABT, have extremely long slopes at the end.

 

14th St on the needs those for its giant full-length mezzanine, though, because walking to get to the transfer is a pain.

[realizm]

Yes totally agreed about those moving sidewalks for those locations. I dunno if you can fit two side by side for the TS-8th av one at 42nd and the 14th st corridors, so it may have to be 1 way depending on the rush hours.

 

lmfao, i too enjoy walking in the wrong way on those things. Fun to beat out the stationary folks going in the same direction.

 

I nearly busted my ass the first time i tried to do it.

 

On the long corridors in Manhattan, I concur, it would definitely not be easy installing two way moving sidewalks. Dumb IND engineers. They come up with grand plans for the second system yet they can't seem to make provisions for such simple things such as moving sidewalks. What they want commuters to do? Rollerskate or scooter through the corridors? Major oversight on their part.

[Culver]

I've noticed this talk of the G/M/R being together on the same tracks being a problem. Now, if we look at tph numbers, the three lines at their peak combine for 27 tph. Such a frequency of trains should be possible on a local track, especially when considering that the E and F trains combine for 30 tph on an express track. I'm sure we all know what the hold up is on the local track, the damn turning of trains involving crews checking every carriage of a train. One solution is to saturate the living crap out of the QB line and send the M to 179 and extend the G to 71*. Combine that with no more damn passenger fumigation at 71 for trains that will just leave the station to relay and you might squeeze in the frequencies. Mind you, I don't think extending the G to 71 as of now has any use. I simply suggest this as a possible solution; though one that would need more cars for G and M service. If the Rockaway branch ROW was to be fully restored and the tunnel from 63 Dr used, then the M could be sent to Howard Beach and the G/R to 71.

 

*Considering the subway situation in Queens, this might not even be overkill in terms of service there.

[CenSin]

I've noticed this talk of the G/M/R being together on the same tracks being a problem. Now, if we look at tph numbers, the three lines at their peak combine for 27 tph. Such a frequency of trains should be possible on a local track, especially when considering that the E and F trains combine for 30 tph on an express track.

I have mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again: it's naïve to look at just T.P.H. and determine that everything will work out. The more incongruent the schedules are, the lower the T.P.H. of the track. Here's some food for thought: a , , and all bound for Queens Plaza heading east show up right before the station.

[bobtehpanda]

I've noticed this talk of the G/M/R being together on the same tracks being a problem. Now, if we look at tph numbers, the three lines at their peak combine for 27 tph. Such a frequency of trains should be possible on a local track, especially when considering that the E and F trains combine for 30 tph on an express track. I'm sure we all know what the hold up is on the local track, the damn turning of trains involving crews checking every carriage of a train. One solution is to saturate the living crap out of the QB line and send the M to 179 and extend the G to 71*. Combine that with no more damn passenger fumigation at 71 for trains that will just leave the station to relay and you might squeeze in the frequencies. Mind you, I don't think extending the G to 71 as of now has any use. I simply suggest this as a possible solution; though one that would need more cars for G and M service. If the Rockaway branch ROW was to be fully restored and the tunnel from 63 Dr used, then the M could be sent to Howard Beach and the G/R to 71.

 

*Considering the subway situation in Queens, this might not even be overkill in terms of service there.

 

I'm just going to rehash arguments that have been made already.

 

1. Abandoning fumigation is out of the question - leaving people on trains alone with staff on isolated relay tracks, especially with the crazy hobos and whatnot, is not advisable.

 

2. If two out of three local lines terminate at 71st, where the heck will a train from the third one go when a train is terminating at 71st?

 

3. Extending the will make it more unreliable, by definition. In any case, it would be better to extend the to 179th rather than the , to connect it to a major bus and train hub.

 

Also people keep talking about extending something local to 179th to relieve traffic issues, except that's not where the capacity issues are. Jamaica Center is the biggest bottleneck on all the Queens local lines right now - All of Hillside boards a bit over 30K weekday riders, but Jamaica Center alone has something on the order of 60K daily riders. It is geometrically impossible to fit more trains into Jamaica Center, so unless the MTA extends the or there are tail tracks built, this will be a bottleneck for years to come.

[Culver]

I'm just going to rehash arguments that have been made already.

 

1. Abandoning fumigation is out of the question - leaving people on trains alone with staff on isolated relay tracks, especially with the crazy hobos and whatnot, is not advisable.

 

2. If two out of three local lines terminate at 71st, where the heck will a train from the third one go when a train is terminating at 71st?

 

3. Extending the will make it more unreliable, by definition. In any case, it would be better to extend the to 179th rather than the , to connect it to a major bus and train hub.

 

Also people keep talking about extending something local to 179th to relieve traffic issues, except that's not where the capacity issues are. Jamaica Center is the biggest bottleneck on all the Queens local lines right now - All of Hillside boards a bit over 30K weekday riders, but Jamaica Center alone has something on the order of 60K daily riders. It is geometrically impossible to fit more trains into Jamaica Center, so unless the MTA extends the or there are tail tracks built, this will be a bottleneck for years to come.

I agree extending the makes no sense right now. The Jamaica Center issue is acknowledged by all. As for the 71 thing, well like I said, if you get rid of fumigation (which they won't to avoid lawsuits and such, of course), you could have the time to run (M)s straight through and and to the relay track. In the end, the only thing the can realistically do with the is...add a train per hour. Even then, its schedule is such that it has different intervals within an hour and one train will be backed while the next is empty.

[Grand Concourse]

Most of the heavily used passageways are wide enough, but a lot of them have too many turns, or, in the case of Times Square-PABT, have extremely long slopes at the end. 14th St on the needs those for its giant full-length mezzanine, though, because walking to get to the transfer is a pain.

 

I agree, the slopes there are kinda steep, I think you'd need an escalator or the rubber surface people mover. They had that at the metropolitan mall before they went with the escalators.

 

I nearly busted my ass the first time i tried to do it. On the long corridors in Manhattan, I concur, it would definitely not be easy installing two way moving sidewalks. Dumb IND engineers. They come up with grand plans for the second system yet they can't seem to make provisions for such simple things such as moving sidewalks. What they want commuters to do? Rollerskate or scooter through the corridors? Major oversight on their part.

i get they wanted a connection to times sq, but honestly, they should've just left 8th av separate from the rest of the other lines. The only time that corridor is useful is in the winter when it is too cold to walk along 42nd. And if a person wanted 8th av to 7th av service, 59th st or chambers/park place is more convenient.

[m7zanr160s]

I'm just going to rehash arguments that have been made already.

 

1. Abandoning fumigation is out of the question - leaving people on trains alone with staff on isolated relay tracks, especially with the crazy hobos and whatnot, is not advisable.

 

2. If two out of three local lines terminate at 71st, where the heck will a train from the third one go when a train is terminating at 71st?

 

3. Extending the will make it more unreliable, by definition. In any case, it would be better to extend the to 179th rather than the , to connect it to a major bus and train hub.

 

Also people keep talking about extending something local to 179th to relieve traffic issues, except that's not where the capacity issues are. Jamaica Center is the biggest bottleneck on all the Queens local lines right now - All of Hillside boards a bit over 30K weekday riders, but Jamaica Center alone has something on the order of 60K daily riders. It is geometrically impossible to fit more trains into Jamaica Center, so unless the MTA extends the or there are tail tracks built, this will be a bottleneck for years to come.

They need to extend the .

[realizm]

 

 

deleted, will repost

[realizm]

They need to extend the .

 

Had to make sure I got the facts straight in my post.

 

Anyway, yes: They do need to extend that important line. And that was the whole point of the Archer Ave extension as part of the overall MTA vision (that made the Christie St Connection and the 6th Ave Express a reality, a topic for another discussion) in part the goal of relieving the serious congestion along the Queens Bvld Line, to expand not just to Jamaica but all of Southeast Queens in general.

 

The original plans for   train when the MTA had its kickoff as our current agency way back in the mid 1960's, replacing the NYCTA, was to have the Archer Ave built and extended to connect and run along the LIRR ROW to Springfield Blvd from the the upper level. That's why the stub ends are there past Jamaica Center. Notice the curve on the stub end on the upper level, that's the provision to the LIRR connection for subway service to the Springfield Blvd LIRR station modified for subway transit.

[Art Vandelay]

Because to support an extension in Queens to either NB, Rockaways, etc. it'll probably require a 5th line. The G was the odd line out when the V was created and then merged into the M. There's no way they are changing the R as it is way too long and slow as it is. The M is limited to the number of 8 car trains available. So thus the G is the most likely choice. And it isn't just your line (are you going to be like that rtrainblues guy and mope after the Brooklyn R service to Manhattan was restored?). 

If a new line were to be created in queens, a new line in manhattan would likely need to be created. Regardless of what train you run there, you would need a roughly equivilant capacity to manhattan to take the passengers. Running the G on it or on Queens Boulevard would result in overcrowding on the E F N R (and Q or W) should the line have any sort of success.

 

I feel I can speak for most riders, especially after what happened today w/the signal troubles. There's no need to extend the anywhere. If an extension in Queens was to happen, then I would support this, but ATM there's no need for it.

 

And anyway, by the time the Rockaway RoW or something opens, a new line could run, possibly using 63rd Street & Broadway to service it. Another possibility, while this is very far fetched, is to run a second line from the SAS up through 63rd Street to the Rockaway RoW, supplementing the and solving capacity problems. 

Q(SAS) + N(1/2 of Astoria) + B + D service will probably put Dekalb at capacity. Your far fetched solution is likely the least far fetched, although I would not expect it anytime soon. 

[Art Vandelay]

I can't be the only person who lives off a Queens Blvd local stop and regularly travels to brooklyn. Literally, the only inconvenient thing about the to me is the transfer at court square. 

You are certainly in the minority of QB riders. A large majority want direct manhattan service

 

As an off topic addendum: even if they do get to building SAS Phase III, it's poorly designed as it is - it's only two tracks, links with very few lines directly [ and ] and extremely sparse stop spacing in the middle of Midtown  (IMO 53rd should be replaced with 51st for the and 59th or 60th for the - there is no way that the curve radius for the interlocking is bigger than three blocks.) When they build SAS though, they're going to need to build moving sidewalks, especially at 42nd and at whatever stop intersects with the .

2 tracks on lower SAS should not be a problem. the busier part of SAS will be the north end, and even there, 2 tracks will be sufficient for service. I agree with you on stop placement, 50-53rd and 58-60

 

 

 

 i get they wanted a connection to times sq, but honestly, they should've just left 8th av separate from the rest of the other lines. The only time that corridor is useful is in the winter when it is too cold to walk along 42nd. And if a person wanted 8th av to 7th av service, 59th st or chambers/park place is more convenient.

The purpose of that corridor is not 8th ave to 7th ave, it is 8th ave to all the other lines at Times square

 

 

 

[CenSin]

The purpose of that corridor is not 8th ave to 7th ave, it is 8th ave to all the other lines at Times square

Looks like the IND couldn't ignore that stop and had to find some way to get in on the action even if it meant connecting the station from an entire avenue away.

[realizm]

Looks like the IND couldn't ignore that stop and had to find some way to get in on the action even if it meant connecting the station from an entire avenue away.

 

I always wondered about that myself. I think you're both right Art Vandelay and yourself. It makes perfect sense to me.

[AndrewJC]

Let me ask you then: do you take the regularly? I would assume not, if you're making these statements...

 

For the past month I've been riding it 3-4 days a week, mostly during rush hours.

 

The that was crushloaded was preceded by a train that had left about 6-7 minutes earlier. I don't think that train was much less crowded. This shows you the volume of ridership. "guidelines" are BS, you really need to ride the line to get a senesce of things.

 

Really? Crush loaded? Meaning that the entire interior space was absolutely full and there was no room for a single additional person anywhere inside? Or do you only mean that there was a tight clump of people by the doors blocking access to the middle of the car? That happens on every line.

 

G trains are definitely more crowded than they used to be, but they're not particularly crowded in comparison with other lines or (more importantly) with the loading guidelines, which formally define when additional service is warranted.

 

As for off peak, I've been on trains that have had more than 94 passengers per car off peak, especially on Saturdays. It isn't unheard of.

 

Of course not. Loading guidelines are based on average loads, not on individual trains.

 

 

 

 

To those criticizing the call for extra service: You try cramming into a 4 car train every morning and see how fun that is... 

 

It's a heck of a lot easier than cramming into the 10-car trains on the 2, 3, 4, 5, or E, or onto the 8-car trains on the L.

 

but the point is for ppl to get the G to the next express stop. Sure the E is fine, but the R is terrible. QB needs 2 local lines or more R trains on the queens end.

 

Treating the locals as mere shuttles to the next express stop is an excellent way to overcrowd the expresses. Besides, from half of the local stops there's no advantage to transferring to the express, since it doesn't run express past Queens Plaza.

 

The only way any service would be added is if the R is overcrowded (more than 92 people per car on average). Anecdotal reports that it's "terrible" are meaningless.

 

The last time two locals were scheduled to run on Queens Blvd., one of them almost never ran due to GO's, and NYCT was stuck paying for a service that rarely operated. Three major interlockings on the line are about to be replaced, followed by CBTC, so the line will be hit with even more GO's than usual in the coming years. If a fourth service is added, it will run even less often than the G did, but NYCT will have to pay to run it anyway.

 

Only as certain as the political representation of Astoria. Let's not forget the politicians are a major reason that Astoria gets what it wants. I doubt the MTA really wanted to run all of its Broadway services through a single track in each direction during peak hours.

 

Astoria gets as much service as it does because of loads, plain and simple.

 

Actually there was a period when the      and    were all running along the Queens Blvd line. It was around 8-11:30PM on Weekdays when the and were running less often. 

 

And during that time period, the G ran less frequently than it does now - it couldn't be increased until it was cut back to Court Square because it had to share trackage with the R and V.

[realizm]

The possibility of the = Negative

The possibility of the = Neutral chance, but I vote for the return.

 

The is doing a far better job. Ridership up by 10% and all.

 

Absolutely. For the record it's a hit and a streak of brilliance on the part of the MTA to make use of the Williamsburg Bridge provision of Christie St connection after over 40 years in a year of budget deficits to provide supplemenary service to the to ever prospering areas in Brooklyn. And the was also instrumental in providing more reliable service to the . In fact I think the phasing out of the was a major mistake. Ok again thre budget deficits, but I'm pretty sure the MTA could had figured out other ways to close that deficit gap without cutting service like that or reducing the Sea Beach Express (i.e. Broadway/4th Avenue Express) to a mere local in Manhattan. Really stupid mistake that cost me a fast and convenient commute into 59th Street to access the UES via the IRT . I should have dropped my draws with the rest on D-Day in protest along with the Astoria residents. But again, the Second Ave line should change that when the is rerouted for the SAS debut.

 

I already beating a dead horse in an attempt to shift this discussion back on track here so we can get back to talk on the Crosstown Line in a second, the original point of this thread but I'm glad at least some one supports my view here as a frequent commuter of these critical Manhattan lines.

 

That's unless the popularity and continued redevolpment of Coney Island as a recreational area instead of a area filled with crime, drugs and sleazy hotels and the ongoing urban development of Brighton Beach and Sheephead Bay warrants it. Which I can predict as coming in the years to come in the short term with a renewed commentment towards devopment od these areas.

 

Which comes back  to the benefit of increased train service headways and 8 to 10 car trains as an added benifit to the fact that ridership and demand on the is obviosly also increasing for the same reason, an increase of urban development, which was what I thought was the original topic in the first place. New tunnels are obviously not feasible as there are other subway development projects that must be completed first such as the extension and the SAS as well as the LIRR to Grand central as well as the usual GO's.

 

On another note: Pardon me for the long winded post. I'm suffering from stark insomia right now as of 12 AM Friday morning. Think I'll use the excuse of the upcoming winter storm Nemo slamming NYC in about 8 hours from this essay of a post to catch up on study and sleep tommorow, just emailed my boss, lets see what happens. Oh great now I'm going off topic in the same post, crap.

[realizm]

The possibility of the = Negative

The possibility of the = Neutral chance, but I vote for the return.

 

The is doing a far better job. Ridership up by 10% and all.

 

Absolutely. For the record it's a hit and a streak of brilliance on the part of the MTA to make use of the Williamsburg Bridge provision of Christie St connection after over 40 years in a year of budget deficits to provide supplemenary service to the to ever prospering areas in Brooklyn. And the was also instrumental in providing more reliable service to the . In fact I think the phasing out of the was a major mistake. Ok again thre budget deficits, but I'm pretty sure the MTA could had figured out other ways to close that deficit gap without cutting service like that or reducing the Sea Beach Express (i.e. Broadway/4th Avenue Express) to a mere local in Manhattan. Really stupid mistake that cost me a fast and convenient commute into 59th Street to access the UES via the IRT . I should have dropped my draws with the rest on D-Day in protest along with the Astoria residents. But again, the Second Ave line should change that when the is rerouted for the SAS debut.

 

I already beating a dead horse in an attempt to shift this discussion back on track here so we can get back to talk on the Crosstown Line in a second, the original point of this thread but I'm glad at least some one supports my view here as a frequent commuter of these critical Manhattan lines.

 

That's unless the popularity and continued redevolpment of Coney Island as a recreational area instead of a area filled with crime, drugs and sleazy hotels and the ongoing urban development of Brighton Beach and Sheephead Bay warrants it. Which I can predict as coming in the years to come in the short term with a renewed commentment towards devopment od these areas.

 

Which comes back  to the benefit of increased train service headways and 8 to 10 car trains as an added benifit to the fact that ridership and demand on the is obviosly also increasing for the same reason, an increase of urban development, which was what I thought was the original topic in the first place. New tunnels are obviously not feasible as there are other subway development projects that must be completed first such as the extension and the SAS as well as the LIRR to Grand central as well as the usual GO's.

 

On another note: Pardon me for the long winded post. I'm suffering from stark insomia right now as of 12 AM Friday morning. Think I'll use the excuse of the upcoming winter storm Nemo slamming NYC in about 8 hours from this essay of a post to catch up on study and sleep tommorow, just emailed my boss, lets see what happens. Oh great now I'm going off topic in the same post, crap.

[realizm]

Deleted: Dupe post