|
|
| Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! (1142591) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (1143170) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Mar 5 13:10:13 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Concourse Express on Mon Mar 5 12:46:00 2012. The whole issue revolves around Park Slope.They are on LOCAL tracks, and are closer to the city, Thus when trains arrive there they are FULL If the FULL trains could run express past Park Slope, then new, empty trains could be put into service at Church. How Many trains can layup at Church for inclusion into the flow of (F) trains, while the full ones get to bypass, the Smith Street stations. Maybe in the morning a certain number of (F) trains headed to Coney Island can be short-turned at Church Street. Would it be terrible if half of the (F) trains in the morning end at CHURCH instead of Coney Island? What does this look like to you? (Obviously PM does not require this, and all trains will do Coney Island making all stops along the way) ROAR |
|
|
| (1143172) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:11:22 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Mar 5 11:25:06 2012. This is why railroad people, and not railfans run things. These changes do nothing to actually improve service. |
|
|
| (1143178) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Mon Mar 5 13:27:32 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:07:49 2012. Unfortunately raised fares is most likely with fuel costing more and the further devaluing of the dollar. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1143196) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Mar 5 15:04:39 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:07:49 2012. BOTH will happen.Neither by enough. Neither soon enough. RAISE THE FARE... Let those who can afford to pay more do so. ASSIST from other sources those who need assistance. ROAR |
|
|
| (1143197) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Mar 5 15:07:36 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:11:22 2012. yup. LION was just thinking out loud. Him sees not how Park Slope can have what Park Slope Wants. Breathe Deep and Squish yourself into the train when it stops.ROAR |
|
|
| (1143212) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 16:34:01 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Concourse Express on Mon Mar 5 00:04:43 2012. There is a 179th Street flavor of the E, call it a Diamond-E. Maybe make those the ones that head down the Culver. |
|
|
| (1143215) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Mar 5 16:42:23 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 2 17:21:12 2012. But that could only be done south of Church Ave. It could only be F/V skip-stop service between CI and Church, then F and V local to Jay St. |
|
|
| (1143217) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Mar 5 16:43:45 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 2 17:21:12 2012. Skip-stop on the Culver el won't save much time. |
|
|
| (1143220) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Mar 5 16:46:59 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 16:34:01 2012. Via the regular E line until West 4th? Wouldn't that foul up the West 4th St junction? |
|
|
| (1143230) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 17:00:36 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Mar 5 16:46:59 2012. They can use thee switches there 4 times a day. |
|
|
| (1143231) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 17:02:54 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 4 21:06:02 2012. Make that 4 services: QJ, EE, RR, RJ. |
|
|
| (1143242) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 17:22:02 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:06:57 2012. Just before 63rd Street, the E / F balance was 18 & 12.Now it is 15/15, so the Culver line got collateral damage. |
|
|
| (1143244) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 5 17:30:20 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 17:22:02 2012. Add another car to each set.It would be the same as adding three more trains per hour! |
|
|
| (1143249) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Mar 5 17:47:31 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:09:21 2012. A lot less complicated than Wallyhorse's and others' solutions! |
|
|
| (1143264) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Mar 5 18:43:28 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 5 13:06:57 2012. Not if you moved the 3 trains from the F to the E. |
|
|
| (1143266) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 18:55:29 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 5 17:30:20 2012. I should have said 12/ 18, F's favor |
|
|
| (1143268) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 5 18:56:00 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by J trainloco on Mon Mar 5 18:43:28 2012. That's what they did ( I stated it backwards). |
|
|
| (1143296) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Mon Mar 5 20:28:26 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Mar 4 13:30:16 2012. The (V) could come back once the SAS Phase 2 is complete as the Culver Local or Express, assuming there is no Phase 3 or (T).The (V) could be the Culver Express or Local Culver Express Church - Jay both directions, KH to Church peak direction Plan #1 (V) Coney Island - 125 St - Culver Local (F) Kings Highway - 179 St Culver Express (Coney Island - 179 St Culver Local weekdays after 9pm, weekends, and late nights) Plan #2 (V) Kings Highway - 125 St - Culver Express (weekdays until 9pm) (F) Coney Island - 179 St - Culver Local Plan #3 (V) Church Avenue - 125 St - Culver Express (Kings Highway - 125 St rush hours peak direction, some midday and evening put ins and lay ups will also run to/from KH in one direction) |
|
|
| (1143312) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Mon Mar 5 23:02:11 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Mar 5 13:10:13 2012. While short-turning some (F) trains at Church gives them empty trains (and most stations south of Church have low enough ridership to warrant fewer trains), not sure Park Slopers will want to sacrifice service frequency for an emptier train. That said, short of introducing a new service, seems to me that some form of an <F> service is the only way to introduce Culver Exp service in the near-term (and of course, such depends on demand).my blog |
|
|
| (1143315) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Mar 5 23:16:06 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Mon Mar 5 20:28:26 2012. The V could not run more than six tph if you did that. And that's assuming that trains don't break down on the 6th Avenue Line or that signals don't go dark or that no one gets sick on a train. |
|
|
| (1143316) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Mar 5 23:32:30 2012, in response to Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 2 15:28:01 2012. I would agree with this sentiment NOW, since the G train now comes out of the Coney Island Yard, as opposed to the Jamaica Yard. To shorten it would simply increase deadhead distance of no revenue. |
|
|
| (1143319) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Mar 5 23:44:58 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 4 16:45:33 2012. The C could go to Church (midday) or Kings Highway (peak), via Delancey. The F would then run express from Kings Highway to Church (to Manhattan AM, from Manhattan PM) and then express to MetroTech (bidirectionally). The transfer to the R at Jay Street-MetroTech eliminates the need for the F to serve 4 Avenue in such a scenario.Evenings and weekends, the C would run only from Washington Heights to the WTC. |
|
|
| (1143353) | |
Straphangers to MTA: Don’t KILL our (G) train ! , 500 signed petition |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 11:12:00 2012, in response to Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 2 15:28:01 2012. Hundreds of impassioned straphangers are jumping onboard a movement to save the G train, demanding the MTA keep “The Brooklyn Local” alive by maintaining service at five stations in Park Slope, Windsor Terrace and Kensington.In less than 24 hours, more than 500 riders signed a petition calling for the continuation of service on the beloved line, which now links North and Brownstone Brooklyns thanks to a rare route extension. The line extension — which two and a half years ago brought G trains to the Fourth Avenue-Ninth Street, Seventh Avenue, Prospect Park-15th Street, Fort Hamilton Parkway and Church Avenue stations — is set to expire when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s $257.5 million Culver Viaduct rehabilitation project ends next winter. But not if transit-boosting pols have anything to say about it. “We’re not going to take this lying down,” said Williamsburg District Leader Lincoln Restler, who started the petition. “At a time when the MTA is hiking costs and cutting service, the G train extension is the one silver lining.” Restler says an elimination of G train service would sever a crucial one-seat ride that links important neighborhoods such as Park Slope and Greenpoint — a loss that would be felt by time-strapped straphangers and business owners who rely on the line to transport their clientele. Commuters realized their Brooklyn-centric ride is inching closer to its last stop last week after the MTA wrapped up a station facelift at the Fourth Avenue–Ninth Street stop, marking a significant milestone for the project. Riders soon began to rally for continued service in online forums. Councilman Brad Lander (D–Park Slope) and officials with the Straphangers Campaign have joined the fight to keep the service running — but so far the agency has been non-committal. “No decision has been made,” MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz said on Monday. G trainers vow to keep fighting. “The population along this line is only growing,” said petition-signer Brianna Campbell. “It seems ludicrous that the MTA would want to cut service.” ---http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/10/dtg_gtrainpetition_2012_03_09_bk.html |
|
|
| (1143371) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Mar 6 12:33:57 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 4 21:14:16 2012. Perhaps splitting the current F into an F local/V express service from Jay to Church would work. Something along the lines of the Q/diamond-Q split used on the Brighton Line from 2001-2004. But combined F/V service would have to increase from the F's current 15 tph to 18 tph to make it really work and that would require the E to be reduced to 12 tph for the E, F and V trains to all fit on the Queens Blvd express tracks. The E is already limited to only 12 tph between Jamaica Ctr and Union Tpk due to the location of its crossover switch at JC. So the three E's that run to/from 179th would just become F or V trains. |
|
|
| (1143433) | |
Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! - [ 1700 signed petition ] |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:05:04 2012, in response to Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 2 15:28:01 2012. https://www.change.org/petitions/metropolitan-transit-authority-preserve-the-g-train-extension |
|
|
| (1143434) | |
Petition Circulating to Save the (G) Train Extension |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:12:43 2012, in response to Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 2 15:28:01 2012. The G train is the source of a lot of complaints around these parts—trains are too infrequent, repairs are too common, and weekend service is abysmal. But when push comes to shove, it turns out that the "Brooklyn Local" has thousands of fans throughout the borough.With the MTA considering shutting down five G train stations in Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, and Kensington, Brooklynites have been rallying to the train's defense by signing a petition. In less than 48 hours, the petition is already well on its way to achieving its goal of 2500 signatures. Although no Fort Greene or Clinton Hill stations are under direct threat of closure, area residents have joined in the campaign. The petition drive is been spearheaded by local District Leader Lincoln Restler. “The G is our lifeline to so many Brooklyn neighborhoods," Restler told The Local yesterday. "The ‘Brooklyn Local’ is such an important between Park Slope and Fort Greene, especially given that the Carlton Avenue Bridge is out, and the B69 doesn’t run on weekends.” The five stations under threat are located between Smith and 9th Streets and Church Ave. They have been open for the past few years while the MTA repairs the Culver Viaduct. --- http://fortgreene.patch.com/articles/petition-circulating-to-save-the-g-train-extension |
|
|
| (1143435) | |
Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:14:25 2012, in response to Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 2 15:28:01 2012. Save the G! That’s the rallying cry heard in Brooklyn these days, as hundreds of straphangers are pressuring the MTA to keep service at the last five southbound G train stops in Brooklyn.The MTA extended the G more than two years ago, in 2009, to the following stops: Fourth Avenue-Ninth Street, Seventh Avenue, Prospect Park-15th Street, Fort Hamilton Parkway and Church Avenue. But the G may no longer run to those last five stops when the MTA completes its ongoing Culver Viaduct rehabilitation project, expected to end next winter. “The G train is the Brooklyn local -- it links neighborhoods that have been otherwise inaccessible,” said Williamsburg District Leader Lincoln Restler, who started a petition to save the service. So far at least 1,500 people have signed on in support of their subway. Without the G extension, it would take an extra 40 minutes to make it from Greenpoint to Park Slope, Restler pointed out, because riders would have to commute into Manhattan and transfer to another line. “I don’t know how I'd get to work,” researcher Sara M., 29, who lives in Greenpoint and commutes to Park Slope for work, said. South Slope business owner Damien Gagliano, 34, said it would be devastating to the communities that line the train. “A lot of people use that train,” Gagliano said. “Other than driving, there is no way to get to that side of Brooklyn.” Riders running out of time?: Restler realized the deadline for residents to save the extension was inching closer and closer last week, after the MTA finished repairing the 4th Avenue-9th Street station house, which had been closed for 40 years. With the Culver Viaduct Rehabilitation Project scheduled to be completed next year, Restler put out a call to arms. But despite outcry, spokesman Charles Seaton said MTA still hasn’t made up it’s mind. “No decision has been made,” said Seaton. “Closer to the date, we’ll do an assessment,” BK prez weighs in: Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz sides with straphangers when it comes to the G train extension. “The extension of the G train to Church Avenue has given MTA customers,” agued Markowitz. “We need more service, not less.” Markowitz said G train service has been essential to the borough’s expanding work force, tourism and residential appeal. “I strongly urge the MTA to consider the impacts on straphangers and businesses from Greenpoint to Kensington if the G train extension were to be discontinued,” Markowitz said. Affected stations: The following five stations would no longer be serviced by the G should the MTA end service next winter: -Fourth Avenue-Ninth Street -Seventh Avenue -Prospect Park-15th Street -Fort Hamilton Parkway -Church Avenue The MTA estimates that approximately 125,000 straphangers ride the G from Court Square to Smith-9th. ---http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/1117317--service-may-end-for-last-five-stops-on-g-train |
|
|
| (1143438) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Mar 6 23:03:12 2012, in response to Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:14:25 2012. This article is ridiculous. I want the G train extension to stay in place too, but if MTA decides not to keep it, it will add a max of 10 minutes to your commute: not 40. |
|
|
| (1143439) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Mar 6 23:08:15 2012, in response to Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:14:25 2012. Without the G extension, it would take an extra 40 minutes to make it from Greenpoint to Park Slope, Restler pointed out, because riders would have to commute into Manhattan and transfer to another line.Huh? Where do they find these idiots to interview? They just need to take the (F) to Smith - 9 Streets like they used to. Extra couple of minutes, tops. God, they're whining almost as much as the Astorians who lost the (W). |
|
|
| (1143441) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Tue Mar 6 23:20:40 2012, in response to Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:14:25 2012. I don't see how shortening the G would add 40 minutes per trick. Exit the G on wait for the next F train, however I think the G should be extended. Ending it in the middle of nowhere was a dumb idea originally. It should have at least been extended to 4th Ave. originally. |
|
|
| (1143445) | |
Re: Petition Circulating to Save the (G) Train Extension |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Mar 6 23:43:58 2012, in response to Petition Circulating to Save the (G) Train Extension, posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:12:43 2012. Stupid article. No stations are closing. |
|
|
| (1143446) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Mar 6 23:44:47 2012, in response to Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Mar 6 22:14:25 2012. “The G train is the Brooklyn local -- it links neighborhoods that have been otherwise inaccessible,”Guess he never heard of transfers. |
|
|
| (1143448) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Tue Mar 6 23:59:58 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Mar 6 12:33:57 2012. Perhaps, but as R30 said, it seems 1 in 6 is needed for a typical express service. So even a split from the F is not really needed. Just sign them up as a < (f) > and that's it. |
|
|
| (1143451) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Wed Mar 7 00:05:48 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by jabrams on Tue Mar 6 23:20:40 2012. I don't understand why the IND decided to make 4th Av a local stop when the BMT ran below. If it was an express stop or if they had rebuilt the station as an express station during the renovation,they could terminate the G at 4th av and people can get their transfer to the R. Other than 4th av, if the mta doesn't believe the G is needed going all the way to church, then so be it. |
|
|
| (1143457) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 00:17:26 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by grand concourse on Wed Mar 7 00:05:48 2012. Probably the same reason why the IND made many other potential transfer points local stops - to disincentivize use of competing services.In any case, I see no reason to truncate the (G); let it run in service to Church permanently. my blog |
|
|
| (1143459) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 00:23:51 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by grand concourse on Tue Mar 6 23:59:58 2012. 1 in 6 isn't enough. You won't get anyone to use the service with such paltry frequencies.I maintain my earlier position - absent a new service, either run the Kings Hwy short-turns express and advertise it as "limited" rush hr exp service like the few (E) trains out of 179, or leave the pattern as is for now. my blog |
|
|
| (1143462) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Mar 7 00:48:28 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Mar 4 11:01:43 2012. Yes, and my point was in order to have a Culver Express AND keep Park Slope riders happy, you would need to have another line come over for the Express, hence my doing so with the (C) and also making that so Coney Island riders would have a one-seat ride on 8th Avenue that they don't currently have. Obviously, the car shortage (caused by first some bad decisions and then the unexpected scrapping of the R-44s) makes it impossible right now. |
|
|
| (1143465) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 7 01:08:52 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by LRG5784 on Fri Mar 2 18:51:00 2012. yup... |
|
|
| (1143466) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Wed Mar 7 01:47:59 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 00:23:51 2012. Similar to the <4> pilot, just advertise the times and a limited < F > pilot could be tried. |
|
|
| (1143484) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Wed Mar 7 05:42:59 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Mar 6 23:08:15 2012. ....Smith 9th was never meant to be a terminal and the switching of the G trains into 4th Avenue and then back often delays following F service...Chuych Avenue is set up to be a terminal station. Also, people might wish to switch at 4th Avenue to the 4th Avenue service which means often you have to get off the train at Smith 9th wait for the next F which might mean at night missing a connection and that can easily add a half hour to your trip. Sometimes the convenience of the public has to be taken into consideration. |
|
|
| (1143492) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Mar 7 08:15:36 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 00:17:26 2012. One would think, The G lost 10, 11 stops in Queens, when it was truncated at Court Square.So, give a little in Brooklyn, keep those "TEMPERARY" 5 stations. |
|
|
| (1143499) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 08:31:10 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Mar 7 08:15:36 2012. One would think, The G lost 10, 11 stops in Queens, when it was truncated at Court Square.13, actually; I agree with the rest of your post. my blog |
|
|
| (1143530) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Mar 7 12:53:34 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 3 11:17:04 2012. Lion:The (C) as I would do it would divert from 8th avenue at West 4th, NOT Jay Street (though obviously, Fulton riders looking for 8th Avenue midtown and wanting to skip going through lower Manhattan would have the option in this scenario of switching between the (A) and (C) at Jay Street). The (C) would be the Express on Culver so as to keep the (F) and (G) running normal in this scenario (with the (F) terminating at Church, but in rush hours select (F)s extended to Kings Highway since the (C) isn't as frequent as the (F)) while at the same time also give Coney Island riders a one-seat ride via 8th Avenue they don't currently have with the (C). |
|
|
| (1143534) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 13:34:12 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Mar 6 23:08:15 2012. Ok, yes it's ridiculous to say that it will add 40 minutes to one's commute if the G is cut back to Smith St again. But I think it's even more ridiculous to have the G terminate and relay at Smith again when Church Ave is a much superior place to relay the G. I used to ride the F through Brooklyn on a semi-regular basis. It almost always got held up at 4th Ave by a relaying G train at Smith. There is very little financial benefit to cutting the G back to Smith again and I really hope the MTA doesn't decide to do that. It would be a very stupid decision on their part. |
|
|
| (1143536) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 13:47:24 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 00:23:51 2012. Yes, it has to be more frequent than that. The F runs 15 rush hour tph. If only one out of every six of them ran express, that would be two or three tph running express. That would be an F express once every 25 minutes. Almost no one would even bother waiting for the express with the local running way more frequently than that. |
|
|
| (1143538) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 14:04:01 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by J trainloco on Mon Mar 5 18:43:28 2012. If Joe V is correct about the E/F split being 12 & 18 before Dec 2001, then isn't that exactly what the MTA did? It sounds to me like the MTA continued to run 18 tph out of 179th in Dec 2001, but made three of those trains E trains when they rerouted the F train into the 63rd St Tunnel. |
|
|
| (1143539) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 14:06:59 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 5 17:30:20 2012. Except the MTA would have to lengthen the Culver El platforms (from Ditmas to Stillwell) to handle 11-car trains |
|
|
| (1143571) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Mar 7 16:29:52 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 00:17:26 2012. Did they? They made Columbus Circle and Roosevelt Ave Express stops. |
|
|
| (1143575) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 16:39:50 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Mar 7 16:29:52 2012. They made Columbus Circle and Roosevelt Ave Express stops....which happen to be local stops on the competing services... my blog |
|
|
| (1143606) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 7 19:23:22 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 14:04:01 2012. Mr. V is correct. I was saying that one could move an additional 3 trains from the F to the E, then switch the two lines south of W4th. The advantages of such a service plan would be:-You could swap the northern terminals of the F and E, and then not worry about having to run extras from a different terminal. -you would increase the number of trains serving 53rd street (PATHman rejoice!) -you would restore the frequency of the south Bk IND that was lost after 63rd was implemented (i'm sure park slopers will still be unhappy). -you could run some sort of split express/local service with 18 E tph (6 exp to 12 local? Even 9 to 9 split with passengers @ local stations advised to also use the G to connect with exp stops? Idk) The disadvantages would be: -the 63rd corridor would have a lower frequency. -it would cost more money to run 18tph out to Brooklyn. -switching at W4th could cause delays. -all trains at Jay street are ultimately bound for 8th avenue. (These last two issues could be rectified by also switching the C and M at W4th as well). I don't know that this is a good plan. I'm just throwing it out there. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
