|
|
| Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard (539773) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Dec 24 02:17:03 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:43:53 2007. At the risk of being shouted down by G-train riders, it is highly doubtful that the TA is going to restore G-train service at any time of the day/night/weekend to the Queens Plaza station.Given the previous discussions about G-train service, the history of service changes and related routes - the above is my honest assessment. I believe that I am being respectful when I speak honestly. I believe that others will have their own honest assessments and thoughts - it's all fair. When I lived in Brooklyn, the G-train was a route that I could use to get to/from work, school, etc. The operations of the G route were a concern of mine. I agree that many riders are critical of the G-train service. I am sure that there are plenty of riders who are critical of the service that they recieve. I believe that there is something called the "public interest" which rises above each of our own purely personal self-interested reasons and viewpoints. There are times when each of us can see that something is "good" even if we do not personally benefit by it, or we can see that something is "bad" even if we are not negatively affected by it. I do not mean to be condescending when I talk about transit fans, I am a transit fan myself. I am sure that each one of us at some point wished that he could "snap his/her finger" and things would be the way that we wanted them. Reality demands that something more than snapping one's finger is needed to get something changed. Sometimes no matter how much we want a wholesale change what could be accomplished was a small change. I believe that there are many people who would prefer the G-train to a) become more frequent, b) to be restored to the route that many were comfortable with, c) to be extended to Church Avenue, d) use full-length trains, and e) to not be treated as a step-child route by the TA. Frankly I have no real objections to any of those ideas. If I could "snap my finger" the whole transit situation for the region would be much different. We know that Santa Claus does not exist, that there are no genies, and David Copperfield has yet to magically conjure up a whole subway line. Living and working in the world of the real and the possible may be kind of dull, but life is tough and there is rent to pay. I think it is a sign of respect to be honest. Honest does not mean to be condescending, rude, arrogant, or a "know it all" -- and I hope that I have not been any of that. There is a great deal about transit and transportation that I am still learning. And yes, I know I can long-winded (smile). ------------------ From a previous message: "I find this stance of yours altogether puzzling when, as I recall, you support the present practice of sending 5 trains to/from the East Side IRT to Brooklyn college and sending 3 trains to/from the West Side IRT to New Lots Av. Because no doubt operations would likely go smoother throughout if as many West Side IRT trains as possible went to Brooklyn College." Given the history of this transit line and the arrangement of routes as reflected in the transit maps, given the arrangement of the track switches and stations, given the amount of terminals in which to terminate and relay trains, given the representation of the collected intelligence of the people who actually run the trains and operate the stations -- just how many completely unexplored variations on a theme do you actually think exist for this situation? Unless somebody is going to come up with a great deal of money to rebuild or reconfigure the Rogers Avenue junction - and to keep the trains running while this is done - the current situation is not going to change. It does not matter what I think - the essential facts on the ground have not changed one bit. The current situation is the best that can be achieved given everything. ------------------- Mike - do you think that the TA is right in setting up G-train service this way? I do not work for the TA, and nothing I say will have any influence on them in a major way. The problem is with the word, "right" - presumes some kind of answer that will satisfy everyone of its truth. A more honest answer is that it depends. It depends upon the circumstances, the goals to be met, the resources available to support the goals, outside and other events affect the situation. I have yet to see a contract that obligates anyone to support the TA in all of its actions. I do suggest that we learn as much as we can about a situation so that we can be honest and considerate in our suggestions and assessments. -------------------- Mike - The relay operation in question has been done in the past, as well as during recent Sundays, hasn't it? Actually there are separate relay operations, the V-train, and the G-train. The weekend V-train relay operation uses a layup track between the express tracks to return tracks to Manhattan. In this operation only one express track is briefly blocked while a switch movement occurs. The traffic on the local tracks continue without interruption. The G-train relay operations requires the Queens bound G-train to cross from the local to the express track, and from there to a center layup track. So two tracks are blocked during this movement. Once the G-train is on the center layup track, it has cross a switch to the Manhattan-bound express track, and then cross another switch to the Manhattan bound local track - again two tracks are blocked for this movement. The comparison to the #5 to Brooklyn College is that th #5 train must cross the path and block both the express and local track for its movement. Given the situation as noted above, this is one of the better options. Can the TA do this kind of movement for the G-train, sure they can - they do not want to. They have a valid reason for denying any change - right now they have a situation that has no interference of any kind. No one has yet figured out a reason or rationale that would convince the TA to change its practice, that would be in ITS interest. Mike |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|