|
|
| Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently (555803) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Michael549 on Fri Jan 18 13:31:31 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:38:02 2008. I have a few points that I'd like to make:1) I have no doubt that stopping G-service past the Court Square station to service local stops along Queens Blvd, did indeed hurt some subway riders. Many of these riders have complained, talked about, and noted their concerns. I believe that there are many of these riders who miss the old arrangement of G service. Let's face it, due to the demands of the Queens Blvd segment of the G-route - when the G-train and the R-train (and before that the RR, EE, N and now R again) were the only local services - the G-train had full-length trains and fairly frequent service. This is because the Queens Blvd. section demanded a high level of train service. Those along the Brooklyn segment of the G-route benefited by this arrangement since they recieved frequent service and full length trains regardless of the amount of passenger demand among the Brooklyn segment. 2) Now that the G-train serves the Court Square to Smith/9th Street segment or (soon to be Church Avenue segment) - it has fewer and shorter trains. This is due I'm told to the needs for trains for the V-route, and a subway car shortage. While everyone loves a good conspriacy and the thought that "system is out to get you" - sometimes and just too often the "system" has very limited options and resources to respond to everyone's wishes. Thus making any kind of decision is going to upset somebody since not everyone will be satisfied with every decision made. Was it rational for the TA to give less frequent service and shorter trains to the G-train due to the needs of the other services? I suppose that if there were other options - like more trains - then the G-route would have had either more service with less than full-length trains, or less frequent service but full length trains. When times are tight - one can not get everything that they want, no matter how much they want it. 3) Most of the folks that respond to these forums do not work for the MTA, nor beyond being regular citizens have any more input into the decision making and operations processes at the MTA. While that means that many of us can "read the tea leaves of the MTA's thoughts and practices" - we are in no more position to get anything actually done than anyone else. In some cases that means that what you're going to get here (other than some very good discussions of many issues) is simply a group of folk that either agree with you, disagree with you, or worse. Generally most of us on the forum agree that pissing on the third rail is not a good thing to do, but there are some who want to argue the point. (smile) 4) The MTA is now in charge of running and operating the trains as they see fit - regardless of what anyone else may think. Since the MTA was only created in 1968, and the subways were run by private companies, then departments and authorities before its existence - it has to deal with the hand that it was given. In another message, someone asked how we would design the subways of the city a) if we were given total control, b) huge amounts of money, c) a complete blank slate without any prior systems to have to mesh with, and d) unlimited resources to do the job. Its a nice fantasy but that is not the situation today, and today is what we have to deal with. The thought of a "Metro Transit Authority" computer game like Sim-City 3000 - would actually be kind of fun. 5) The situation with the G-train too often has been looked at as if it were only about the G-train. It is as if there were no other history and events involved - which is not the case. The situation with the G-train concerns the city's 1970's fiscal crisis, Queens NIMBY operations and politicians, the plans for the Second Avenue subway, the Queens Super-Express and expansion of routes in eastern Queens, the thoughts of the planners and builders of the original IND subways, the cut-off and regaining of federal funds, the lack of money and high costs to build subway improvements, the over-crowded Queens Express trains, the real lack of planning for subway transit in Queens and the various changes in the city. I agree that all of those things are just too much to think about and reflect upon when you have been waiting on the platform for 15-minutes for a train, any train to show up to take you where you need to be. Just my thoughts. Mike |
|
|
|