(G) line review

[superdrive1]

I haven't seen anybody post anything on this, so here we go...

 

Not being local to New York or the USA you can probably get a lot more information out of this than I can, but what it looks to be is a review of  line services pointing out improvements and such like, I've picked out the key findings and the key recommendations given for improvements but I advise you to read the whole thing as it's pretty heavy on information! (although for you subway nuts you probably know most of the stuff on there anyway!)

 

http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/G_LineReview.htm (link to MTA news item on the report)

 

http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/G_LineReview_7_10_13.pdf (straight link to report)

 

Key Findings:

 

"While G ridership has grown significantly in recent years, it still remains relatively low 

compared to the rest of the system, and average passenger loads on the G are within 

service guidelines during both peak and off-peak hours.

 

Scheduling the G train around the busier and more frequent F train causes uneven 

headways and passenger loads on the G, most significantly during the afternoon peak

period, when G service is scheduled at the minimum guideline frequency of 6 trains per 

hour (an average 10-minute headway). 

 

G riders make twice as many transfers as the average subway rider; this high transfer 

rate is inconvenient for customers who must wait for multiple trains.

 

Trains shorter than the platform length cause uncertainty about where the G train stops, 

contributing to uneven passenger loads."

 

Key Recommendations:

 

"By mid-2014, increase the frequency of G service during the afternoon peak period from 

6 to 7½ trains per hour between approximately 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., contingent on 

funding. By reducing average headways from 10 minutes to 8 minutes, the G timetable 

will mesh more effectively with the F timetable, evening out wait times and passenger 

loads.

 

By mid-2014, revise the G timetable to provide more even headways between HoytSchermerhorn Sts and Court Square, and implement more effective mid-route 

supervision. This will provide for more consistent wait times and more even passenger 

loads.

 

By the end of 2013, adjust selected train stopping positions to better accommodate the 

short G trains, to make weekday and weekend stopping positions uniform, and to 

encourage more even passenger loads throughout the trains. Adjust additional stopping 

positions requiring infrastructure changes by mid-2014.

 

By the end of 2013, install signs on G platforms to better communicate train stopping 

positions to customers."

 

[Snowblock]

They should just take a lead from the LIRR and paint the parts of the platform where the G stops.

[Dan05979]

#1 Eliminate OPTO

#2 Take all the 32's from the line and run 8 car trains on that line with the 32 equipment since its not that busy of a line and less stress on the equipment.

#3 re-do all the run times and run the express on the portion where the runs.

[Guest Lance]

A few interesting points (to me) in the report:

1) The MTA will not make any more out-of-system transfers unless they are brought about by changes in service. They cite existing policy that only significant changes in service like the F's move over to 63rd Street in '01 can bring about any new Metro-Card transfers. They claim they will lose too much money for connections to Atlantic-Pacific or Lorimer St.

2) Greenpoint Av is slated to become ADA accessible sometime by the end of the decade.

3) They are going to do something with the mess that is 21 St. Hopefully it will include more than just new tiles this time.

[FamousNYLover]

http://www.ridersny.org/g/

See this also.

[lirr42]

If the current way out-of-system transfers are done makes it undesirable to expand, maybe it is time the MTA should overhaul the way they handle subway-subway out-of-system transfers.

 

Perhaps they can devise some sort of out of system transfer box and place them by all the exit turnstiles at the Broadway and Hewes Street stations. If you want to take advantage of the out-of-system transfer between those two stations you would have to swipe your MetroCard at the box before exiting the fare control area. After swiping your MetroCard at the Transfer Box you would then have 18 minutes to walk to the other station (either Broadway or Hewes Street ) and swipe your MetroCard at the turnstiles there.

 

If you did not first swipe your Metro-Card at the transfer box before leaving the fare control area at the first station or you did not get to the second station within the allotted 18 minutes you will be charged another fare. That way the out-of-system transfer can’t really be taken advantage of by anybody other than the people exiting station A and directly entering station B.

Just an idea.

[bobtehpanda]

#1 Eliminate OPTO

#2 Take all the 32's from the line and run 8 car trains on that line with the 32 equipment since its not that busy of a line and less stress on the equipment.

#3 re-do all the run times and run the express on the portion where the runs.

 

What's wrong with OPTO?

 

If the current way out-of-system transfers are done makes it undesirable to expand, maybe it is time the MTA should overhaul the way they handle subway-subway out-of-system transfers.

 

Perhaps they can devise some sort of out of system transfer box and place them by all the exit turnstiles at the Broadway and Hewes Street stations. If you want to take advantage of the out-of-system transfer between those two stations you would have to swipe your MetroCard at the box before exiting the fare control area. After swiping your MetroCard at the Transfer Box you would then have 18 minutes to walk to the other station (either Broadway or Hewes Street ) and swipe your MetroCard at the turnstiles there.

 

If you did not first swipe your Metro-Card at the transfer box before leaving the fare control area at the first station or you did not get to the second station within the allotted 18 minutes you will be charged another fare. That way the out-of-system transfer can’t really be taken advantage of by anybody other than the people exiting station A and directly entering station B.

 

Just an idea.

 

I feel like a system like this would lead to excessive queuing.

 

Hopefully the smartcard system (whenever that happens) will allow for exit readers as well, so they can get more ridership data and allow transfers this way.

[itmaybeokay]

#1 Eliminate OPTO

#2 Take all the 32's from the line and run 8 car trains on that line with the 32 equipment since its not that busy of a line and less stress on the equipment.

#3 re-do all the run times and run the express on the portion where the runs.

 

I don't think OPTO is a big problem. 

 

In terms of the going excusively express - nobody wants this. You'd actually increase wait times for many riders by doing so, because the trains would become overcrowded and get delayed at the points where everyone needs to transfer. 

 

This was actually the original service pattern, and it was summarily rejected by riders. 

 

Furthermore - doing so without the transfer at bergen street would be even worse, and rehabbing the lower level is no small feat - it may not even be possible. 

 

What's wrong with OPTO?

 

 

I feel like a system like this would lead to excessive queuing.

 

Hopefully the smartcard system (whenever that happens) will allow for exit readers as well, so they can get more ridership data and allow transfers this way.

 

I actually have a crazy idea about the exit reader problem. Not in terms of transfers, but at least ridership data. When in-station cell service goes system wide, if you collect the aggregate data of where the anonymized-id's of a given device connects and disconnects, you can get pretty reliable data on how people use the system. I'm going to write a thread on this later on but you just reminded me of it. 

[Vistausss]

Just rehab Bergen St Lower and send the trains there. It may not be cheap but it's possible.

 

Also, as an alternative, what you could do is run the skip-stop. That way it's a bit faster but it doesn't really increase wait times for riders. You could send it to Bergen St Lower after the skip-stop or just leave Bergen St the way it is, either way the is gonna get faster this way.

[Union Tpke]

In the report they were talking about a free transfer between the G at Broadway and the J at Lorimer which is wrong; it is supposed to be Hewes not Lorimer which is where the G transfers with the L

 

In the report they were talking about a free transfer between the G at Broadway and the J at Lorimer which is wrong; it is supposed to be Hewes not Lorimer which is where the G transfers with the L

[bobtehpanda]

In the report they were talking about a free transfer between the G at Broadway and the J at Lorimer which is wrong; it is supposed to be Hewes not Lorimer which is where the G transfers with the L

 

In the report they were talking about a free transfer between the G at Broadway and the J at Lorimer which is wrong; it is supposed to be Hewes not Lorimer which is where the G transfers with the L

 

There is a Lorimer stop on the that is also pretty close to the stop at Broadway.

 

I know it would be a problem in Downtown Brooklyn, but is the area around Hewes/Lorimer such a hub that you could see large amounts of people abusing the free transfer? (Say, getting off to get a coffee or some food, and then swiping in at the station they got off at, getting a free ride back home)

[Culver]

To the folks discussing express in BK: Not happening. That is all. The end.

Maybe when CBTC is up and running on IND QB and they have the extra trainsets at Jamaica.

[Dan05979]

What's wrong with OPTO?

 

 

OPTO Eliminates jobs, and if something were to happen to the T/O in the middle of a tunnel, what other crew will be there to help any of the passengers and the train operator out? Just the other day a conductor was attacked, train got into the next station and there was no response from the conductor. If he were alone on that train that would have been very bad for everyone. OPTO takes away more jobs because only 1 person is needed on that train.

[bobtehpanda]

OPTO Eliminates jobs, and if something were to happen to the T/O in the middle of a tunnel, what other crew will be there to help any of the passengers and the train operator out? Just the other day a conductor was attacked, train got into the next station and there was no response from the conductor. If he were alone on that train that would have been very bad for everyone. OPTO takes away more jobs because only 1 person is needed on that train.

 

is a transit agency first and foremost, not an employment program. If it was, the first thing I would recommend is that they hire an army to clean up the stations

 

If the is as short as it is, there's no need to have a second person on board.

[R10 2952]

is a transit agency first and foremost, not an employment program. If it was, the first thing I would recommend is that they hire an army to clean up the stations

 

If the is as short as it is, there's no need to have a second person on board.

Wow, no need to be so high and mighty.  If I was a transit worker and someone told me that, I'd be downright insulted.  And if you want cleaner stations, why don't you go and volunteer to clean them yourself? It would save the MTA a ton of money.

 

Aaaanyway, It's good to know that they'll be fixing the damage at 21st Street, but they still ought to do something about train length and find a way to utilize those express tracks- maybe not immediately, but certainly within the next 10 years or so.

[Bill from Maspeth]

#1 Eliminate OPTO

#2 Take all the 32's from the line and run 8 car trains on that line with the 32 equipment since its not that busy of a line and less stress on the equipment.

#3 re-do all the run times and run the express on the portion where the runs.

 

 

Too costly on all levels.

[bobtehpanda]

Wow, no need to be so high and mighty.  If I was a transit worker and someone told me that, I'd be downright insulted.  And if you want cleaner stations, why don't you go and volunteer to clean them yourself? It would save the MTA a ton of money.

 

Aaaanyway, It's good to know that they'll be fixing the damage at 21st Street, but they still ought to do something about train length and find a way to utilize those express tracks- maybe not immediately, but certainly within the next 10 years or so.

 

Apologize for the tone - it could've been better, but honestly it's similarly hardheaded to oppose OPTO for the sole reason of jobs. It'd also be kind of weird to increase the amount of employees on just the four-car G, when similarly short-length lines like the shuttles and I think the late-night Bay Ridge shuttle also operate under OPTO. Besides, I don't think a line review covers such a topic.

[R32 3838]

#1 Eliminate OPTO

#2 Take all the 32's from the line and run 8 car trains on that line with the 32 equipment since its not that busy of a line and less stress on the equipment.

#3 re-do all the run times and run the express on the portion where the runs.

I agree with that

[Vistausss]

Too costly on all levels.

 

Dafuq?

 

#1 Doesn't cost money, it SAVES money. Of course, the idea may be bad but it doesn't cost money as you say.

#2 Transferring train sets within the city hardly costs money.

#3 Agreed on that one.

[LTA1992]

How do you know? Are you the accountant?

[Vistausss]

How do you know? Are you the accountant?

 

Yes.

 

No, of course not. Just general assumption. I'm not an accountant but I do know a thing or two in that field.

[itmaybeokay]

#1 Eliminate OPTO

#2 Take all the 32's from the line and run 8 car trains on that line with the 32 equipment since its not that busy of a line and less stress on the equipment.

#3 re-do all the run times and run the express on the portion where the runs.

Dafuq?

 

#1 Doesn't cost money, it SAVES money. Of course, the idea may be bad but it doesn't cost money as you say.

#2 Transferring train sets within the city hardly costs money.

#3 Agreed on that one.

 

Without getting into the merits and or problems of OPTO, I think we can all agree that it is less expensive than a 2 person crew, so I don't think eliminating OPTO would save money. 

 

Transferring the train sets wouldn't cost money - but in order to run full length trains on the and increase headways, and maintain service on other lines, you'd need new equipment which is costly - or you'd need to run way more 32's than they do now reducing the number that can be out for maintenance or as spares, and thereby increasing equipment related delays on the line - reducing the quality of service and accomplishing the exact opposite of what is wanted. 

 

It's been repeatedly established that running all trains express between Church and Bergen is a poor option. The riders there have not rallied against this whenever it is proposed. Why don't we send all the local trains along queens blvd down the crosstown line while we're at it? Just because the system was built that way doesn't mean that is the best option for service today. 

 

Culver express service should and probably will come from the extra trains that can run on Queens Blvd once CBTC is installed. 

It's worth noting that the rehabbed culver viaduct is also CBTC-ready, so perhaps they can increase service along there, and reduce F and G schedule clashing in that method in a few years. 

 

Personally if you ask me, a better option than rehabbing the lower level of bergen would be to put some kind of an interlocking in place that trains could relay on the crosstown tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn without single-tracking, thereby allowing SOME trains to originate and terminate there, keeping service levels the same on the tracks shared with the and increasing service in G-only territory. 

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

 

Without getting into the merits and or problems of OPTO, I think we can all agree that it is less expensive than a 2 person crew, so I don't think eliminating OPTO would save money. 

 

Transferring the train sets wouldn't cost money - but in order to run full length trains on the and increase headways, and maintain service on other lines, you'd need new equipment which is costly - or you'd need to run way more 32's than they do now reducing the number that can be out for maintenance or as spares, and thereby increasing equipment related delays on the line - reducing the quality of service and accomplishing the exact opposite of what is wanted. 

 

It's been repeatedly established that running all trains express between Church and Bergen is a poor option. The riders there have not rallied against this whenever it is proposed. Why don't we send all the local trains along queens blvd down the crosstown line while we're at it? Just because the system was built that way doesn't mean that is the best option for service today. 

 

Culver express service should and probably will come from the extra trains that can run on Queens Blvd once CBTC is installed. 

It's worth noting that the rehabbed culver viaduct is also CBTC-ready, so perhaps they can increase service along there, and reduce F and G schedule clashing in that method in a few years. 

 

Personally if you ask me, a better option than rehabbing the lower level of bergen would be to put some kind of an interlocking in place that trains could relay on the crosstown tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn without single-tracking, thereby allowing SOME trains to originate and terminate there, keeping service levels the same on the tracks shared with the and increasing service in G-only territory.

 

I'd support rehabbing Bergen Lower, if only because it would require doing an engineering study of the structure itself.

 

Wasn't there a report earlier this year that never really decided to inspect the lower levels of stations that they no longer used, even when they were structurally supporting the rest of the station?

[Union Tpke]

Whenever phase 4 of the second ave subway is finished they could make a branch of it serving part of the lower east side and then going through the rutgers as the express going to coney island with the F and G local to Church Av.

[Trainmaster5]

Whenever phase 4 of the second ave subway is finished they could make a branch of it serving part of the lower east side and then going through the rutgers as the express going to coney island with the F and G local to Church Av.

I don't believe phase 3 of SAS will ever be completed so good luck waiting for phase 4 or any branches coming from it.