|
|
| Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (598007) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 11:14:33 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by jsun21 on Wed Apr 9 09:25:36 2008. 2) I agree that the G is not really contributing to the rush hour needs, but I wonder why the trains you were unwilling to add were a concern as I think the E local and 24/7 R are certainly more trains then an extended G. Also considering that R32s are on their way out(still good cars mind you) I'm not sure that the E should be local.When I was talking about the E local, I meant weekends, when the V isn't running. The E would allow one to transfer from the G and access all local stops. This would be more convenient than transfering to the E, then to the R to complete the trip to local stops. Also, although the R has handled the local service by itself since 1987, I thought running the E local would boost service and provide local riders with the option of a direct service to 53rd Street (which is provided by the V on weekdays). The Queens Blvd stops especially Steinway and the stops between Roosevelt and Continental have very high ridership weekdays and weekends (and like I said before the R provided full service prior to 2001). R train service levels could remain the same as before or be increased and it could be sufficient. But at the same time, why should 7 TPH (the E) not service these high riderhship local stations. Another argument for E local service is that local service can be increased probabaly at a lower cost than adding extra R trains (there will be an existing 7 TPH E service added, instead of adding several more TPH on the R which would have to travel a significant length of the line to maybe Whitehall Street. With no G, 7TPH is eliminated from the Blvd. This could be replaced by E local service or increased R service. I think any two of the alternatives to the G service will reduce the number of trains and car miles run. If the E runs local--> Possibly 2 extra trains to cover service If the R service is increased--> Depends on the new frequency of service. Some trains can end at Whitehall street. Late nights is a different story. While the G will be cut back and costs saved on car miles, maintenance and crews, the R will essentially replace the G. But with the R running 24/7, the costs of running the G service and 24/7 R service can be debated, as R line maintenance costs, crews, and car miles go up too. Before 2001, only the E and F lines ran along Queens Blvd. at night. The addition of the G was a service increase (albeit not as useful as the local F service that existed previous to 2001). However, there is great benefit and demand for a Queens Blvd./Broadway service at night and would better serve the Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn portions of the route than the current setup. I'm not sure what you mean by lack of trains (R32's), but whatever Phase II's are reefed, there will be Phase I's or any other car class to replace the reefed cars. 3)AFAIK the cars that were used to make up 6 on the G went to the V so extending trains may only be possible on weekends. In all honesty the G needs longer trains only during school commuting hours(I dare you to find space at Metro Av). With all the new R160's coming in, there might be a chance that enough cars could be freed up for 8 car trains. Rumored on the board, eventually the C will get 10 car trains. I'm not sure. But like before, running longer trains increases operating costs. I think 8 car trains should be used weekdays (when they're sorely needed) and 4 cars nights and weekends. 4)As far as your more frequent service I'm not sure we have the cars, but I think we can pick on some odd F trains(the ones that start and end at Kings Highway and maybe two regulars) and send them up the Crosstown, this would add cars in the rush hour. If your worried about stock imbalance you can send them up the Culver express after Ditmas, or stick them behind the G going on the express tracks. People may or may not like it, but it will keep the service running. As said above I'm not sure that there may be enough cars for 8 cars trains, however, for the increased service that the MTA was touting, I'm sure they had a source of where to the get the added trainsets (prob 4 car trains). As the F rereoute the F needs all the trains it can to serve the Brooklyn-manhattan market and Manhattan-Queens Market. The trains that end at Kings Highway are short-turns that reduce the number of trains required if all trains had to go to CI. Also, I don't think CI can handle 15tph in the terminal. Kyle |
|
|
|