(G) line review

[Vistausss]

Well, if anything, rehabbing the lower level of Bergen St will bring extra jobs with it. Which is good for the economy. And afterwards good for the commuters. So seems, in this case, like a win-win situation to me.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't really see the purpose. It would cost lots of money, and would likely be unused outside of the occasional GO. There are far better places to do work if you want to do work for the sake of doing work.  

[AndrewJC]

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.

 

Skip-stop doubles everybody's wait times. It only saves time for people traveling for such long distances that the time savings on the train exceed the increase in wait time. But the busiest stations on the Culver line are Bergen and Carroll, and all of the stations south of Church are lightly used.

 

On this particular line, given ridership patterns, the best possible service is fully local service. The only reason to run some (and I emphasize some) F's express is if either F or G service has to be increased to the point that they can't all fit on the local tracks.

 

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

 

Lorimer to Broadway is a significantly shorter walk than Hewes to Broadway. It's not wrong.

 

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)

 

That's why the revenue loss attached to the Lorimer transfer ($770,000 with restrictions, $1.1 million without)) is so much lower than the revenue loss attached to the Fulton transfer ($1.34 million with restrictions, $7 million without).

 

 

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. 

 

One of the express tracks is being equipped with CBTC, but it will serve as a testbed for future CBTC vendors, to prove compatibility with NYCT's CBTC system. The other three tracks will not have CBTC at all, nor will the cars on the G.

 

An interlocking at Hoyt would be truly wonderful, but even if it were feasible to install one, it wouldn't be feasible to turn some trains while others run through. It is feasible to turn trains at Bedford-Nostrand on the middle track, but the heaviest loads in the AM peak are at Clinton-Washington.

[VIP]

#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.

Agreed. As far as costly, it wont be. The current set up is a deterrence from using the line. If the subway was actually convenient to ride and saves the maximum amount of time, the TA would see more Riders thus ranking in more income. People much rather car pool, drive, or take cabs because of inconvenient-unreliable service.

 

The needs to run a skip-stop service or express where ever it shares its route with the especially if the MTA is going to keep the at 4 cars

[bobtehpanda]

Isn't express service on Culver not possible until MTA gets the viaduct work done?

[Culver]

Agreed. As far as costly, it wont be. The current set up is a deterrence from using the line. If the subway was actually convenient to ride and saves the maximum amount of time, the TA would see more Riders thus ranking in more income. People much rather car pool, drive, or take cabs because of inconvenient-unreliable service.

 

The needs to run a skip-stop service or express where ever it shares its route with the especially if the MTA is going to keep the at 4 cars

No, just no. Please, can people STOP with the train foam express nonsense. This has been discussed fifty times over.

 

Isn't express service on Culver not possible until MTA gets the viaduct work done?

And until CBTC is up on the IND Queens Boulevard (because you need to run more trains unless you want to cut service to highly used stations in downtown brooklyn). And until Jamaica Yard has more train sets to cover the extra service. And until the funding is there in the first place to run the service.

[West End]

It's frustrating that the out-of-system transfer to the at Broadway/Lorimer isn't on the table. Anyone living in Bushwick/northern Bed-Stuy can tell you how disjointed they are from the rest of Brooklyn, often taking the to Manhattan just to transfer to a Brooklyn-bound train. The can connect Jamaica Line riders to places like the Barclays Center, North Williamsburg, and Park Slope. riders could also have an easier commute to Manhattan without double-transferring.

[IRT Bronx Express]

Isn't express service on Culver not possible until MTA gets the viaduct work done?

If the TA hadn't removed service 3 years ago, then it would've been possible to see the Culver Express. I'm not saying that the MTA should've kept the ; the as the local with the as the express won't happen for obvious reasons.

[Vistausss]

One of the express tracks is being equipped with CBTC, but it will serve as a testbed for future CBTC vendors, to prove compatibility with NYCT's CBTC system. The other three tracks will not have CBTC at all, nor will the cars on the G.

 

Indeed. And the same applies to the cars of the , , and ; neither of those lines will see cars with CBTC.

[AndrewJC]

Indeed. And the same applies to the cars of the , , and ; neither of those lines will see cars with CBTC.

 

The M's cars will be equipped with CBTC at the same time as the F's.

 

East New York will have a real mixed bag of cars once all is said and done: R143's with Canarsie CBTC, R160's with Canarsie CBTC, R160's with QBL CBTC, R179's with no CBTC, and possibly R160's with no CBTC.

[LTA1992]

Isn't express service on Culver not possible until MTA gets the viaduct work done?

trains already do make Express trips from Jay Street. Saw one for the first time a couple months ago while waiting for the at Smith-9th.

[Vistausss]

The M's cars will be equipped with CBTC at the same time as the F's.

 

If that's true then please explain to me why the says the won't have CBTC equipped cars in their very own Assessment: http://www.mta.info/mta/pdf/CP/NeedsAssessment.pdf

 

It's on page 33 and I quote:

"By 2027, all revenue cars in the NYC Transit system will be CBTC-equipped, except cars serving the G, J, M, S, and Z lines."

[Eric B]

The already has CBTC equipped cars it shares with the . All that means is that there will be some 160's not equipped left there.

 

What I wonder is why the would be among the last, as the line is almost like the in isolation, so you would think it would be next after the and , and before they begin expanding to "mainline" routes. When they used to say parts of the would be next, I always thought it was connected with doing the . Why would they expand to lines like the before the ?

[itmaybeokay]

 

If that's true then please explain to me why the says the won't have CBTC equipped cars in their very own Assessment: http://www.mta.info/mta/pdf/CP/NeedsAssessment.pdf

 

It's on page 33 and I quote:

"By 2027, all revenue cars in the NYC Transit system will be CBTC-equipped, except cars serving the G, J, M, S, and Z lines."

 

At the time that document was written in August 2009, the M train wore a Brown Bullet and went via the Nassau Loop, even through montague at times. 

 

That document mentions the train - which would be getting CBTC cars. The Current service is basically a extended to middle village via the Chrystie St cut. 

 

So, the document says the M train won't get CBTC cars, but it's referring to a different service than the we're talking about today. The current fleet is all R160's which are CBTC equipped or CBTC ready. 

[bobtehpanda]

The already has CBTC equipped cars it shares with the . All that means is that there will be some 160's not equipped left there.

 

What I wonder is why the would be among the last, as the line is almost like the in isolation, so you would think it would be next after the and , and before they begin expanding to "mainline" routes. When they used to say parts of the would be next, I always thought it was connected with doing the . Why would they expand to lines like the before the ?

 

Assuming they don't view the as "busy".

 

Didn't we just shell out a ton of money and time on a new signal system for the IRT?

[Eric B]

They did the IRT first because it's a smaller system and easier to retrofit.

[AndrewJC]

The already has CBTC equipped cars it shares with the . All that means is that there will be some 160's not equipped left there.

 

What I wonder is why the would be among the last, as the line is almost like the in isolation, so you would think it would be next after the and , and before they begin expanding to "mainline" routes. When they used to say parts of the would be next, I always thought it was connected with doing the . Why would they expand to lines like the before the ?

 

The CBTC system on the L will be unique to the L. The CBTC system on the 7 will be unique on to the 7. The subsequent CBTC systems will all be compatible with each other.

 

So the current CBTC-equipped R143's and R160's will be of no use on the QBL.

 

The first CBTC installation was deliberately done on a standalone line, so that the MTA could learn from its mistakes without impacting service on multiple lines. There's no reason to to favor standalone lines anymore. Priority at this point should go to lines whose signals are old and/or in bad condition and that could stand to benefit from a capacity boost - and the QBL easily meets both conditions.

 

Didn't we just shell out a ton of money and time on a new signal system for the IRT?

 

No, much of the signal system on the IRT dates back to the 50's and 60's, when the original signal system was modernized. You may be thinking of ATS, which is an overlay on top of the existing signal system. If ATS goes down, the signal system still functions and is perfectly safe (the big challenge is staffing all of the necessary towers on very short notice). ATS can be thought of as a super-duper master tower on steroids.