|
|
| Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard (539364) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 14:40:01 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:03:12 2007. It isn't condescending; it's reality. Foamers like trains. They could care less whether the trains are full of people or boxes of breakfast cereal. They get upset when trains don't use evey possible route. It's their reality and it's wrong to deny it and pretend it's not there.Fine. All that said, there are plenty of non-foamer reasons why a given service should be run. The goal of extending the G route at certain hours isn't to fulfill foamer fantasies but to better serve the public. Plus, since the train doesn't go express, your average foamer could care less about it until the NX route is restored in service. Yes, the TA can run G's along with other services overnight, but it also has to pay crews to do it. It's not cost-effective and not worth the money, and with budget problems looming the TA chooses to spend the money where it will benefit most riders. You write that as though I contest the greatest part of it. In fact, I agree that MTA should "spend the money where it will benefit most riders", but I disagree about how that's to be done. Maybe, in the final analysis, it will be cost-effective to reduce frequency-of-service at some times by some margin to terminate G trains at Queens Plaza at some times. Or maybe not. But I do think that this is a factual question that should be investigated before a judgment on the merit of the current proposal is made. Currently, I haven't seen where anyone published their data on this point, especially not in Mr. Michael549's post. The change will occur because it reflects what most riders want given available operational budget. Again, a budget only says how much money is available. Let that sum be X. The question of how X is to be spent should depend on what riders in fact want, given the magnitude of X. So saying that X=X while perfectly valid, doesn't tell us how X is best spent. I frankly don't know whether G riders wouldn't trade some tph at some intervals to pay the cost of extension to Queens Plaza at some (other) intervals. But my point is that either way, the money spent is still X, but it's a question of what that X is spent on. The question isn't about the magnitude of X; it's about the division of X to be spent. |
|
|
|