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

[Quill Depot]

An express would make sense. Route some 's via Culver Express, from Church Ave to Jay St. The only problem is the lack of a stop at 4th Ave. This train would not stop at the Bergen St Lower Level platforms, as those are too far in the deep. This would only be about 3 tph of the around 15+ tph . 

[realizm]

An express would make sense. Route some 's via Culver Express, from Church Ave to Jay St. The only problem is the lack of a stop at 4th Ave. This train would not stop at the Bergen St Lower Level platforms, as those are too far in the deep. This would only be about 3 tph of the around 15+ tph . 

 

Well yes theroretically what you just said would make perfect sense .... from a civil engineering POV.

 

That was the original intentions of the IND masterminds during the line's conception and construction. (Originally designed for the IND Second System Fort Hamilton Parkway Line to Staten Island as well as today's IND service to CI via the BMT Culver El necessitating in theory a 4 track line to accomidate IND Manhattan, Queens Blvd. and Bklyn/Qns Crosstown Line service as I mentioned on page 1 in this thread.) The problem today however (in part) is that it would create major opposition from Brooklyn straphangers dependant on the local on the Culver Viaduct for their Manhattan-centric commute. The demand is too great for the local in Brooklyn.

 

That's the reason why the MTA is unfortunately reluctant to recreate a 6th Avenue/Brooklyn IND express service at this time. But don't quote me on this.

 

Now if there was a higher for demand with commuters coming from the neighborhoods that the Culver BMT Line serves that would be a totally different story. Remember that at one time there was alot of heavy activity in terms of the manufacturing industry in that area of South Brooklyn before those same areas saw shifts into residental areas starting in the 80's.  (Think of why the South Brooklyn Railroad was bustling with freight activity during that time under McDonald Ave before the rails were paved over after the demolition of the Culver Shuttle, again during the 80's)

 

So since there was much more reverse commuting into those areas for people who formally were employed in this manufacturing sector in the early 20th century, the demand dropped because of historic demographic changes in these areas of Brooklyn. These days, as we both know well, areas such as Park Slope is exploding with residental development. The MTA is using this latest playing card to downplay any proposals by local neighborhood leaders if any in recent memory to reactivate the express.

 

Myself, personally speaking, I would foam ridiculous over the proposal, I'll admit. However looking at this objectively, there is not enough demand to justify it, even again as it does make perfect sense as that was what the Culver Viaduct is exactly designed to do .... take the hit from three lines at once which serves Brooklyn. One of which never saw the light of day as the IND Second System was killed, but that's another story.

[Brooklyn]

Yes I am talking about service on the IND in the 1970's, and indeed, the train got completely slammed as a result of the recent budget cuts. Really bad.

 

But my point was that there were more TPH on the G when the was all local during the 90s. If they coexisted then, why wouldn't they co-exist now, especially with the getting a much better terminal?

 

This was to counter an argument being made that increased service would interrupt the .

[realizm]

But my point was that there were more TPH on the G when the was all local during the 90s. If they coexisted then, why wouldn't they co-exist now, especially with the getting a much better terminal?

 

This was to counter an argument being made that increased service would interrupt the .

 

Understood. I know what you are highlighting.

 

The reason why there are problems currently with the tradeoff between increases in TPH between the and the could be because there is a cap on how much TPH the Culver Viaduct local tracks can handle by itself without full utilization of all 4 tracks. The major problem is the switch north of Bergen Street. The lower level is a pratical flying junction into York Street towards 6th Avenue on the other hand, which would handle this problem perfectly if there was a desision made to reactivate the express service. However, there is community demand for continuation of the local service. So in effect, in terms of problems with the line's overall capacity, this is a catch 22.

[Brooklyn]

 

Understood. I know what you are highlighting.

 

The reason why there are problems currently with the tradeoff between increases in TPH between the and the could be because there is a cap on how much TPH the Culver Viaduct local tracks can handle by itself without full utilization of all 4 tracks. The major problem is the switch north of Bergen Street. The lower level is a pratical flying junction into York Street towards 6th Avenue on the other hand, which would handle this problem perfectly if there was a desision made to reactivate the express service. However, there is community demand for continuation of the local service. So in effect, in terms of problems with the line's overall capacity, this is a catch 22.

Glad my argument was understood .

 

The lower level actually merges with the local tracks before it enters Jay st (not York).

 

My point is that there shouldn't be a problem with a couple or few extra TPH for the --Culver can handle it, even with the going local--again, it did a few years ago.

 

If anything, having Church AV as a terminal for the should have actually INCREASED the capacity for extra G trains.

 

IMO, the needs 8 TPH for that evening rush--for a reasonable average 7-8 minute wait.

 

No one should wait 13 minutes for a train (during peak hours) in NYC, unless there is a legitimate delay (obviously).

[realizm]

 

Glad my argument was understood .

 

The lower level actually merges with the local tracks before it enters Jay st (not York).

 

My point is that there shouldn't be a problem with a couple or few extra TPH for the --Culver can handle it, even with the going local--again, it did a few years ago.

 

If anything, having Church AV as a terminal for the should have actually INCREASED the capacity for extra G trains.

 

IMO, the needs 8 TPH for that evening rush--for a reasonable average 7-8 minute wait.

 

No one should wait 13 minutes for a train (during peak hours) in NYC, unless there is a legitimate delay (obviously).

 

Ohhh, yes good catch. I stand corrected.

 

But as you mentioned, that's the major problem with capacity as I was saying before in the previous pages, my sentiments exactly. Although there is a very solid point on the terminals and it's capacity and the amount of train turnarounds it can handle in a given time frame.

 

I also forgot to mention that for obvious reasons there was more capacity on the during the 80's and 90's as 71st Avenue or Queens Plaza on the QBL was its former terminus. So again a number of factors that the MTA can't really reverse.

 

So in short as Grand Concourse has eloquently mentioned a while back in response to the OP, extending car sets to six cars at least, from it's current configuration, given we are dealing with R68's and not R46's formally, would be a feasible short term solution until better measures can be implemented. I totally agree:

 

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

[Culver]

One thing that could help / interaction at Church is runs leaving on time. I've been at the station plenty of times to see the *ding* sound, followed by a C/R casually strolling to their train, getting in, and the train leaving another minute later. At say...every other terminal I've been at, trains leave a handful of seconds after the *ding*; not a couple of minutes after.

[Brooklyn]

Ohhh, yes good catch. I stand corrected.

 

But as you mentioned, that's the major problem with capacity as I was saying before in the previous pages, my sentiments exactly. Although there is a very solid point on the terminals and it's capacity and the amount of train turnarounds it can handle in a given time frame.

 

I also forgot to mention that for obvious reasons there was more capacity on the during the 80's and 90's as 71st Avenue or Queens Plaza on the QBL was its former terminus. So again a number of factors that the MTA can't really reverse.

 

So in short as Grand Concourse has eloquently mentioned a while back in response to the OP, extending car sets to six cars at least, from it's current configuration, given we are dealing with R68's and not R46's formally, would be a feasible short term solution until better measures can be implemented. I totally agree:

Cool beans.

 

The funny thing (although annoying if you have to run for a train) is that I actually don't mind four cars. IMO, four cars isn't the main problem: the headways are, especially evening rush hours and evenings. Four cars is enough; I would just rather them run more frequently. That would take care of the rush hour crowding issue.

 

And yes, Court Sq is a less capable terminal than Continental; but I know it can handle turning 8 TPH--because it did!

 

The reality is that even when the was supposed to go to 71st Continental, it rarely did (in the years leading to it being cut completely from QB). it actually terminated at Court Sq a good portion of the time.

 

One thing that could help / interaction at Church is runs leaving on time. I've been at the station plenty of times to see the *ding* sound, followed by a C/R casually strolling to their train, getting in, and the train leaving another minute later. At say...every other terminal I've been at, trains leave a handful of seconds after the *ding*; not a couple of minutes after.

I agree. It's annoying. Those lazy fill in the blanks!

[Culver]

Cool beans.

 

The funny thing (although annoying if you have to run for a train) is that I actually don't mind four cars. IMO, four cars isn't the main problem: the headways are, especially evening rush hours and evenings. Four cars is enough; I would just rather them run more frequently. That would take care of the rush hour crowding issue.

 

And yes, Court Sq is a less capable terminal than Continental; but I know it can handle turning 8 TPH--because it did!

 

The reality is that even when the was supposed to go to 71st Continental, it rarely did (in the years leading to it being cut completely from QB). it actually terminated at Court Sq a good portion of the time.

 

 

I agree. It's annoying. Those lazy fill in the blanks!

Ah yes, I remember those "service changes" that happened every weekend for a bunch of months.

[AndrewJC]

Usually, a downvote comes with an explanation.

 

Or an apology, in this case - I clicked on it by accident and there's no undo button. Sorry! I upvoted this post of yours - hope that's enough to compensate!

 

I think you are not reading my statement. I said AFTER 5 (specifically from 5 to 6pm). If you want to take 4:59, so be it. I just made a cursory look at the schedule. I was looking for 5:___, not 4:___.

 

I don't know why you are building up this strawman argument using you OWN INTERVALS rather than the one I gave (????).

 

But if you want the 4:59, you can have it.

 

They're not my intervals. They're the train intervals. I looked at each train at Hoyt and counted up how many trains went by over the hour. The answer was consistently 6.

 

 

But my core point is that there are too few trains running during the evening rush.

 

If loads at the peak load points exceed the guidelines, then I agree. If they don't, then I disagree. And I don't think they do.

 

The MTA is not going to increase service if the current service meets their guidelines. Sorry.

 

 

Why would it be impossible (???) to maintain 10 minute headways for the ? Impossible is a very strong word. Sure, one train might come in 7 minutes, the other in 9. That's fine: but the core of my argument is that 13 minute waits are UNACCEPTABLE. What other line has scheduled 13 minute waits during evening rush hours?

 

The G runs 6 tph, or an average of every 10 minutes, but with a lot of unevenness.

 

The F runs every 4 minutes. Without bothering to look at the schedule, I'll say there's an F at Bergen at 5:00, 5:04, 5:08, 5:12, 5:16, 5:20, 5:24, etc. (It's important that the F maintain an even headway, since it has to merge with the E in Queens, where the two together maintain a 2 minute headway.)

 

So how would you schedule an even 10 minute G around that, if trains need to be at least 2 minutes apart? If you schedule a train at 5:02, the next one should be at 5:12, but that conflicts with an F. So instead of 5:12, it has to be at either 5:10 or 5:14 - but the following train is back at 5:22. Instead of a steady 10, you end up with alternating 8's and 12's.

 

Service could certainly be more frequent than 6 tph, but only if the loads warrant more frequent service - which I don't think they do.

 

Yes I am talking about service on the IND in the 1970's, and indeed, the train got completely slammed as a result of the recent budget cuts. Really bad.

 

Since the loading guidelines were introduced in the mid-1980's, loads at the peak load points dictate service frequency, not budgets.

 

An express would make sense. Route some 's via Culver Express, from Church Ave to Jay St. The only problem is the lack of a stop at 4th Ave. This train would not stop at the Bergen St Lower Level platforms, as those are too far in the deep. This would only be about 3 tph of the around 15+ tph . 

 

The lower level at Bergen is permanently out of service. I believe it currently houses signal equipment. Restoring it to service would require major capital work.

 

Two of the busiest stations on the line are at Bergen and Carroll. An F express would bypass those two stations. Meanwhile, the stations south of Church, whose riders would benefit the most from an express, are generally very lightly used.

 

Running a service like this at 3 tph would violate the policy headway of 10 minutes (6 tph) and would lead to one severely overcrowded F local every 20 minutes, since at that frequency most riders south of Church would get on whichever train came first and not wait around for an infrequent express.

 

One thing that could help / interaction at Church is runs leaving on time. I've been at the station plenty of times to see the *ding* sound, followed by a C/R casually strolling to their train, getting in, and the train leaving another minute later. At say...every other terminal I've been at, trains leave a handful of seconds after the *ding*; not a couple of minutes after.

 

A very good point, although in my experience it isn't confined to the G at all.

[realizm]

Since the loading guidelines were introduced in the mid-1980's, loads at the peak load points dictate service frequency, not budgets.

 

I was referring to the 2010 budget cuts.

[AndrewJC]

I was referring to the 2010 budget cuts.

 

Here's the full list of subway cuts:

 

http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/ServiceReduction/part1.htm

 

Aside from the reduction of weekend frequencies from 8 minutes to 10 minutes (which applied on most of the B Division), this is the only item on the G:

 

The  is scheduled to operate to Forest Hills-71st Avenue evenings, nights, and weekends. However, construction work anywhere along the Queens Boulevard    corridor requires the  to terminate at Court Square (its daytime terminus) many nights and almost all weekends (in 2009 the operated along Queens Boulevard on only three weekends). This service change would have the  operate at all times between Court Square and Church Avenue. Three additional  evening trips would be added between Court Square and Church Avenue to increase service to levels consistent with guidelines and to provide a more consistent headway. These trips could not be added when the  was scheduled to operate on the Queens Boulevard corridor due to limited track capacity.

 

That's all. The 2010 cuts did not include any cuts to rush hour frequency, and they increased evening frequency (to meet the guidelines).

[realizm]

That's all. The 2010 cuts did not include any cuts to rush hour frequency, and they increased evening frequency (to meet the guidelines).

 

OK but there is one point that needs to be considered: In order for MTA Subways to achieve the decreased headways they were forced to reduce the trainsets from 6 cars to 4 cars as they did not have enough rolling stock available to meet the goals of increase in frequency during peak hours. Now with crushloaded  4 car sets in the mix along with an ongoing rise in ridership on the IND Crosstown Line, that would cause longer boarding times at the most heavily used stations which results in delays in service.

[Brooklyn]

AndrewJC,

 

I am aware of the document.

 

I am also aware of something called "reality"--sometimes documents aren't representative of what actually happens.

 

Again, my basic premise is that 13 minutes is too long to wait for a train, especially during the rush hours.

 

You keep on bringing up it merging with the , yet a few years ago, I WILL REPEAT, the ran MORE FREQUENTLY AND WITH A WORSE TERMINAL.

 

Yes, there can be more TPH. There should be.

 

Again, four cars doesn't bother me much. The frequency does, especially during rush hours.

 

Again, 13 minutes is too long to wait for a train during rush hours.

 

Name me another line that has SCHEDULED 13 minute waits for a rush hour train.

[CenSin]

AndrewJC,

 

I am aware of the document.

 

I am also aware of something called "reality"--sometimes documents aren't representative of what actually happens.

 

Again, my basic premise is that 13 minutes is too long to wait for a train, especially during the rush hours.

 

You keep on bringing up it merging with the , yet a few years ago, I WILL REPEAT, the ran MORE FREQUENTLY AND WITH A WORSE TERMINAL.

 

Yes, there can be more TPH. There should be.

 

Again, four cars doesn't bother me much. The frequency does, especially during rush hours.

 

Again, 13 minutes is too long to wait for a train during rush hours.

 

Name me another line that has SCHEDULED 13 minute waits for a rush hour train.

Check the and schedules. If you start your trip at Coney Island in the morning, there's something to complain about.

[Culver]

Check the and schedules. If you start your trip at Coney Island in the morning, there's something to complain about.

In the case of the , Coney Island bound trains actually have to deal with 2 delays going southbound, the switch south of Church for trains and the switch north of Kings for Kings Highway terminating trains. The concern for the may be more trains = even more delays for trains going further south. In the evenings, there's already a few late express runs, they can't send any more express without turning Ave I - Ave P into ghost towns during PM rush hour.

 

That being said, one of the most important things the MTA can do to be able to increase headways on the G is: get the conductors on that line to get a move on. No other terminal is as slow as Church. Trains leave a good 2 minutes late despite being brought into the station a few minutes before departure time: more than enough time for conductor to get in the back and make announcements.

[CenSin]

That being said, one of the most important things the MTA can do to be able to increase headways on the G is: get the conductors on that line to get a move on. No other terminal is as slow as Church. Trains leave a good 2 minutes late despite being brought into the station a few minutes before departure time: more than enough time for conductor to get in the back and make announcements.

I've seen the same attitude a few years ago at Coney Island. Conductors and/or train operators would stroll in slowly and take their sweet time even after the lights went on. It wasn't common though, but now it almost never happens.

[itmaybeokay]

That being said, one of the most important things the MTA can do to be able to increase headways on the G is: get the conductors on that line to get a move on. No other terminal is as slow as Church. Trains leave a good 2 minutes late despite being brought into the station a few minutes before departure time: more than enough time for conductor to get in the back and make announcements.

 

There's at least one T/O commonly on the who's painfully slow. I've been stuck on his train twice in the past two weeks. Train is delayed leaving court square because he's more than 10 minutes late getting in. Train leaves 3 minutes late... 5 minutes late by metropolitan, 7 minutes late by hoyt.... By the time I got to 15th street he's 13 minutes late. Nope, we did not get flagged, and no there were not red signals - this dude just drives slow.

 

I know there are plenty of things well outside the crew's control that delay trains. But the exact same scenario played out twice in as many weeks with the same dude. I wonder if the guys OTP was poor so the mta said "Eh stick him on the G"

 

Oh by the way, that 7 minutes late to hoyt, that means there are people waiting 25 minutes for a train at this point.... 

[CenSin]

this dude just drives slow.

Uh-oh! Someone is going to take issue with that term.

[AndrewJC]

OK but there is one point that needs to be considered: In order for MTA Subways to achieve the decreased headways they were forced to reduce the trainsets from 6 cars to 4 cars as they did not have enough rolling stock available to meet the goals of increase in frequency during peak hours. Now with crushloaded  4 car sets in the mix along with an ongoing rise in ridership on the IND Crosstown Line, that would cause longer boarding times at the most heavily used stations which results in delays in service.

 

There haven't been 6 car trains on the G since 2001!

 

Aside from severe service disruptions, G trains are not "crushloaded." Like on any other line, standees stop in the doorways and make it difficult for others to get past to the empty space in the middle of the car. And since the trains are short, the end cars are more crowded than the middle cars.

 

If you don't like crowds, I recommend the second or third car.

 

AndrewJC,

 

I am aware of the document.

 

I am also aware of something called "reality"--sometimes documents aren't representative of what actually happens.

 

The MTA Board has to be informed of every adjustment to the headway. If the Board wasn't informed as part of the service cut package, then when was the Board informed?

 

Again, my basic premise is that 13 minutes is too long to wait for a train, especially during the rush hours.

 

And as I've said, trains don't run every 13 minutes - they run, on average, every 10 minutes (6 tph), only the trains are scheduled to come unevenly. They have to be scheduled unevenly, since it's impossible for a 10 minute G to mesh with a 4 minute F.

 

You keep on bringing up it merging with the , yet a few years ago, I WILL REPEAT, the ran MORE FREQUENTLY AND WITH A WORSE TERMINAL.

 

I bring up the merge with the F in the context of evenness, not overall frequency.

 

Even ignoring past headways on the G, where you and I are in dispute - the G runs more frequently in the AM rush than in the PM rush. Clearly, more frequent PM rush service is possible. And if the loads warrant more frequent service (in accordance with the loading guidelines), then PM rush frequency should be improved. But I don't think they do.

 

Name me another line that has SCHEDULED 13 minute waits for a rush hour train.

 

The 5 on the Dyre branch: 5:09 to 5:22 PM arriving at Dyre.

 

The M: 7:32 to 7:45 AM, 4:31 to 4:44 PM, 5:32 to 5:45 PM arriving at Met.

 

The N at Stillwell: 6:47 to 7:11 AM, 7:18 to 7:31 AM out of Stillwell.

 

And of course the A on the two (or normally three) branches south of Rockaway Blvd.

[realizm]

Deleted. Let me check the stats.

[realizm]

There haven't been 6 car trains on the G since 2001!

 

But the fact remains that they were forced to reduce the set of cars running the due to lack of available rolling stock for full length trains to increase frequency in order to compensate on the cutback on service into Forest Hills to compensate for the bottlenecking that can occur with the 63rd Street connector opened in 2001 now that you mentioned it.  The strategy behind the MTA as I mentioned before (twice) still stands as to why they made such a move to make for the increase in service in terms of more TPH which IMO self defeating, understandably so--- no cars for 6 or 8 car sets depending on the rolling stock used (R68s vs R46s).

 

Way too much R32s were already scrapped with the R38s wiped out and scrapped in it's entirety) until the MTA started to see the severe faults on the R44s leading to it's premature scrapping (Why the R160s ended up at Jamaica Yard @ the QBL as a last minute change) creating a shortage of cars which they are kicking themselves in the ass for to this very day.

 

So sorry dude, no cookie 4 u.

[Culver]

But the fact remains that they were forced to reduce the set of cars running the due to lack of available rolling stock for full length trains to increase frequency in order to compensate on the cutback on service into Forest Hills to compensate for the bottlenecking that can occur with the 63rd Street connector opened in 2001 now that you mentioned it.  The strategy behind the MTA as I mentioned before (twice) still stands as to why they made such a move.

 

Way too much R32s were already scrapped with the R38s wiped out and scrapped in it's entirety) until the MTA started to see the severe faults on the R44s leading to it's premature scrapping (Why the R160s ended up at Jamaica Yard @ the QBL as a last minute change) creating a shortage of cars which they are kicking themselves in the ass for to this very day.

 

So sorry dude, no cookie 4 u.

Not all the R44s were technically in trouble. The first batch of them were apparently the real problems and had frame rot. The could've kept a few of the later production units around.

[realizm]

Not all the R44s were technically in trouble. The first batch of them were apparently the real problems and had frame rot. The could've kept a few of the later production units around.

 

Yeah I know. This was discussed before, I was making a general statement. What you are saying in fact is evident on how well the SIRT R44s are running so what you are saying holds solid merit, indeed.

 

 

Aside from severe service disruptions, G trains are not "crushloaded." Like on any other line, standees stop in the doorways and make it difficult for others to get past to the empty space in the middle of the car. And since the trains are short, the end cars are more crowded than the middle cars.

 

Are you absolutely sure about this? During rush hours from Court Square? When people board at Metropolitan Ave? It's a madhouse! Everybody in this thread is saying this. I'm not clear on what you are saying here.

[Vistausss]

Apperantly, AndrewJC gets payed by the to say such things lol.

 

In all seriousness though: if so many people complain that ALL cars are crushloaded, then I suggest AndrewJC to throw away his stats for once and go check it out himself to see if it's valid complaining that the people do.