|
|
| Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently (555342) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:38:02 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:22:28 2008. No not at all.Well, a whole line will be screwed over by this, that's a lot IMO. That's the problem. "I think" or "Unique Service" means nothing. Most people only use the G as a stepping stone to the next express station. More people will be served with increased R service that actually goes where people want to go, Manhattan, instead of having to get off the G at Roosevelt or Queens Plaza, than having the G there. Unique service to a line means a lot as it provides the line with even more service and flexibility. Sure, perhaps some people use the (G) as a stepping stone for the next express station, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the amount who take it through isn't large and demand is non existent. I don't believe that the V is going to be replacing the G on weekends. And even if it was, then it would be like during the week. With the introduction of the V, they took away a line that everyone transfered off of, and didn't want, and replaced it with a line that actually goes where people want to go. I know, but we're arguing the usefulness of one or the other so I just brought up a scenario (which did happen 7 years ago) to help prove my point. Not everyone didn't want the (G) there (including me), and people still transfer off the (V) at the express stations onto the IINM still overcrowded express trains like in every local-express service scenario. Maybe the (V) line does go where more people want to go, but if it's not being taken advantage of to the fullest (or at least, that's my opinion) and takes away a service to a different place that plenty of people use then I really do not see the true usefulness of the line. The Smith and 9th Street station was a RIDICULOUS place for a terminal, and it's a sin that the G was even ever made to terminate there all these years. It's one station short of 4th Ave transfer, and Church makes much more sense as a terminal. (4th Ave can not be a terminal). I was a G rider for MANY years, so I know very well the problems. I can't count the times I walked up from the N train downstairs all the way up to 4th Ave just to see the G train I needed pull out and away as I stood on the 4th Ave platform, while I was stuck having to wait for the F train to take me only one stop to get it. I'm a (G) rider currently too (which is why I'm arguing for it so much), and I agree that Smith-9th Streets is a ridiculous terminal, it's just that I think that the Forest Hills-Long Island City part of the line benefits more than the this new extension to Church Avenue, although I guess we'll have to wait until when we see the ridership of the new extension. |
|
|
|