Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Eddie

G Train extension

Recommended Posts

Rumour had it that the (G) would be extended to Church Avenue on the Culver Line but it still terminates at 9th Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rumour had it that the (G) would be extended to Church Avenue on the Culver Line but it still terminates at 9th Avenue.

 

The (G) train doesn't stop @ 9th Avenue.....9th Avenue is on the (D)(M) IND/BMT West End Line. It might be going to Church Avenue while the (F) will going to be express via Culver. If (MTA) find some money the Culver rehabilitation can happen

Edited by via White Plains Road
Spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rumour had it that the (G) would be extended to Church Avenue on the Culver Line but it still terminates at 9th Avenue.

 

Hey Man. Yeah, the (G) Terminates at Gownaus Canal-Smith/9 Sts. The (G) is supposed to be extended once the Culver Viaduct Reconstruction project begins. I heard it was supposed to take effect already, but nothing yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Man. Yeah, the (G) Terminates at Gownaus Canal-Smith/9 Sts. The (G) is supposed to be extended once the Culver Viaduct Reconstruction project begins. I heard it was supposed to take effect already, but nothing yet.

 

I still remember the printed flyer saying February 4th 2008 at 12:01AM Man I so disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya. The Crosstown (G) and 4 Av Line Transfer at 4 Av/9 St is vital connection that needs to be made immediately; hence, extending the (G) past Gowanus Canal-Smith/9 Sts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Church yes, I just hope the mta dont start that crap like 1974 i think, when the (F) went express and (G) local, we dont want a Protest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MTA claiming their broke has caused them not to extend the (G) to Church Ave yet. Its up in the air when thats going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Church yes, I just hope the mta dont start that crap like 1974 i think, when the (F) went express and (G) local, we dont want a Protest...

 

I doubt there's gonna be a protest now, there are people that actually want that (F) express service now so I hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in (MTA)'s Capitol Plan they wanted to rehab Smith-9th Streets, 4th Avenue and reopen lower Bergen and send the (F) Express through while the (V)(G) run local. After Church, the (F) would run local. And also the (F) would run peak direction express between Kings Highway and 18th Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt there's gonna be a protest now, there are people that actually want that (F) express service now so I hear.

 

If they ever do Culver express it will be the (V) not the (F) running express. Park Slope folks don't want a train change. "So on weekdays I have to take the (V), and on weekends I have to take the (F) running local. Who can remember that? I'm just used to taking the (F) all the time." And so that's what they'd want...to just be able to take the (F) all the time for sure.

 

But that's a LONG way off...basically the whole viaduct rehab will have to be done before that even gets thrown into the ring again, because it involves (V) extension to Church Ave...BUT when it gets done, it wouldn't require any major track work because the (V) could relay South of Church without using the yard tracks that the (G) would be using "assuming if" it gets extended.

 

Food for thought..:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they ever do Culver express it will be the (V) not the (F) running express. Park Slope folks don't want a train change. "So on weekdays I have to take the (V), and on weekends I have to take the (F) running local. Who can remember that? I'm just used to taking the (F) all the time." And so that's what they'd want...to just be able to take the (F) all the time for sure.

 

But that's a LONG way off...basically the whole viaduct rehab will have to be done before that even gets thrown into the ring again, because it involves (V) extension to Church Ave...BUT when it gets done, it wouldn't require any major track work because the (V) could relay South of Church without using the yard tracks that the (G) would be using "assuming if" it gets extended.

 

Food for thought..:D

 

I don't where you got the idea that the (F) will continue to make local stops via Culver....the whole idea of this Culver viaduct Reconstruction is that the (G) can run local to Church Avenue while the (F) can run express. There was a petition for this last year Park Slope and Carroll Gardens residents was complaining how long the ride is and half the time the train sometimes take forever to come and the stations look horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in (MTA)'s Capitol Plan they wanted to rehab Smith-9th Streets, 4th Avenue and reopen lower Bergen and send the (F) Express through while the (V)(G) run local. After Church, the (F) would run local. And also the (F) would run peak direction express between Kings Highway and 18th Avenue.

 

If they ever do Culver express it will be the (V) not the (F) running express. Park Slope folks don't want a train change. "So on weekdays I have to take the (V), and on weekends I have to take the (F) running local. Who can remember that? I'm just used to taking the (F) all the time." And so that's what they'd want...to just be able to take the (F) all the time for sure.

 

But that's a LONG way off...basically the whole viaduct rehab will have to be done before that even gets thrown into the ring again, because it involves (V) extension to Church Ave...BUT when it gets done, it wouldn't require any major track work because the (V) could relay South of Church without using the yard tracks that the (G) would be using "assuming if" it gets extended.

 

Food for thought..:D

 

I don't where you got the idea that the (F) will continue to make local stops via Culver....the whole idea of this Culver viaduct Reconstruction is that the (G) can run local to Church Avenue while the (F) can run express. There was a petition for this last year Park Slope and Carroll Gardens residents was complaining how long the ride is and half the time the train sometimes take forever to come and the stations look horrible.

 

Yeah, I'm going to agree with Curtis on this one. Makes more sense to make the (F) express the whole time, rather than the (V).

 

Just one thought... if the (V) gets extended to the Culver line and runs local, that's really a local version of the (F)... so couldn't they do (F) for the local and <(F)> for the express? (Not that they will, just a thought.)B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't where you got the idea that the (F) will continue to make local stops via Culver....the whole idea of this Culver viaduct Reconstruction is that the (G) can run local to Church Avenue while the (F) can run express. There was a petition for this last year Park Slope and Carroll Gardens residents was complaining how long the ride is and half the time the train sometimes take forever to come and the stations look horrible.

 

Right but those folks don't want to have to take the (G) to the (F) to Manhattan because it adds a transfer for them and bye bye one seat ride to Manhattan. So when it's just the (F) and (G), both will be local (and even THAT won't be till at least 2012). The tracks the (G) would use to relay wouldn't affect (F) service. What they want is three trains running down there, (F)(V) and (G). If that ever happened, one of those services would run express. It would make sense to run the (F) express, but since the then local (V) doesn't run weekends, the (F) would have to make up service. But now you have the challenge of explaining to the same general public that can't understand the difference between the (6)<6> and (7)<7> that they have to take a different train on weekends and late nights than they do on the weekdays if they are using a local station. Hence why I said it might actually make more sense for the (V) to run express. But there are problems with that too, as it only really benefits people who live at Church Ave. In reality, it will probably end up just being the (F) and the (G) down there, both running local, particularly with money being what it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right but those folks don't want to have to take the (G) to the (F) to Manhattan because it adds a transfer for them and bye bye one seat ride to Manhattan. So when it's just the (F) and (G), both will be local (and even THAT won't be till at least 2012). The tracks the (G) would use to relay wouldn't affect (F) service. What they want is three trains running down there, (F)(V) and (G). If that ever happened, one of those services would run express. It would make sense to run the (F) express, but since the then local (V) doesn't run weekends, the (F) would have to make up service. But now you have the challenge of explaining to the same general public that can't understand the difference between the (6)<6> and (7)<7> that they have to take a different train on weekends and late nights than they do on the weekdays if they are using a local station. Hence why I said it might actually make more sense for the (V) to run express. But there are problems with that too, as it only really benefits people who live at Church Ave. In reality, it will probably end up just being the (F) and the (G) down there, both running local, particularly with money being what it is...

 

Well we will see what happens in the next 4 years to come....ppl will never understand the difference b/w the (6)<6>(7)<7><6><7> are weekday, midday and rush hours peak directional express (6)(7) are full time local. If ppl can't understand that then they don't need to ride the subways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the (MTA) will have (F) will run express on the culver line and (V) extendend to brooklyn and will run local on the culver line. (MTA) will permantely extended (G) to Church Avenue. But I have a better idea how about the (G) and (V) extendend to Coney Island and (MTA) could have (F),(G) and (V) should make skip stops between Bergen Street and Coney Island and skip stop service should be on the local tracks instead of having express service on the Culver line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard the (MTA) will have (F) will run express on the culver line and (V) extendend to brooklyn and will run local on the culver line. (MTA) will permantely extended (G) to Church Avenue. But I have a better idea how about the (G) and (V) extendend to Coney Island and (MTA) could have (F),(G) and (V) should make skip stops between Bergen Street and Coney Island and skip stop service should be on the local tracks instead of having express service on the Culver line.

 

How about no. That's going to be too confusing. The express/local thing should work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard the (MTA) will have (F) will run express on the culver line and (V) extendend to brooklyn and will run local on the culver line. (MTA) will permantely extended (G) to Church Avenue. But I have a better idea how about the (G) and (V) extendend to Coney Island and (MTA) could have (F),(G) and (V) should make skip stops between Bergen Street and Coney Island and skip stop service should be on the local tracks instead of having express service on the Culver line.

 

Skip stop is confusing to tourists and geese...also while it provides only SLIGHTLY faster service (literally a couple minutes, not usually the difference between being somewhere on time and being late) it doubles the service intervals on the route at local stations. That would actually be the least useful idea for Culver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think there is use of having an express (F) since, its gonna be really short, unless its express from bergen to church, would be ok. and (G) goes lcl or if people dont want to go on a train that doesnt go to manhattan, then extend the (V)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still express services that switch to the local , though for nights only. (like the (A)(C), or the (E) in Queens). So while they do try to avoid that as much as possible (like eliminating it on the Brighton years ago where the express was weekdays only), it is not something that won't be allowed. It will only be five (or six if Bergen lower is not open) stations affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'm going to agree with Curtis on this one. Makes more sense to make the (F) express the whole time, rather than the (V).

 

Just one thought... if the (V) gets extended to the Culver line and runs local, that's really a local version of the (F)... so couldn't they do (F) for the local and <(F)> for the express? (Not that they will, just a thought.):D

 

yea, very true on this. (F) express, (V) local. keep it consistent with queens service.

just my twopence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A section of the 1969 & 1972 NYCTA Subway Map showing the then GG terminating at Church Avenue station.

 

gg_church_avenue2.jpg

 

gg_church_avenue.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A section of the 1969 & 1972 NYCTA Subway Map showing the then GG terminating at Church Avenue station.

 

gg_church_avenue2.jpg

 

gg_church_avenue.jpg

 

ya till TA cut it, do to colpains on wanting direct service to Manhattan, thats the (F)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'm going to agree with Curtis on this one. Makes more sense to make the (F) express the whole time, rather than the (V).

 

Just one thought... if the (V) gets extended to the Culver line and runs local, that's really a local version of the (F)... so couldn't they do (F) for the local and <(F)> for the express? (Not that they will, just a thought.)B)

Well the (V) follows the (E) a little (but local) from Forest Hills to Lexington Avenue or around there, so it would be wierd if they did that and named both (F)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the (V) follows the (E) a little (but local) from Forest Hills to Lexington Avenue or around there, so it would be wierd if they did that and named both (F)...

 

Actually, Queens Plaza to 5th/53rd, but it shares the rest with the (F), so... Plus, you can't have people b****ing about having their precious (F) going to 63rd St and being stuck with the (E) and the (V) for 53rd St, because an (F) variant would go to both... B)

 

On that note, to have a little more fun, extend the (V) to 179 St via local, and have the (F) run up there via express... see how the people like that! It would be a(n almost) true (F)<(F)> line! Just think:

 

179 St, Jamaica

Coney Island

<(F)> Queens Boulevard/Culver Express

6 Av/63 St Local

 

179 St, Jamaica

Kings Highway

(F) Queens Boulevard/Culver/6 Av/53 St Local

 

;):P Never gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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