|
|
| Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train (1142591) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (1143607) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Mar 7 19:27:47 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by MATHA531 on Wed Mar 7 05:42:59 2012. The (G) terminating at Church Avenue also plugs the (F). |
|
|
| (1143609) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Mar 7 19:38:27 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 13:34:12 2012. Honestly, I doubt they'll cut the (G) back. For numerous reasons.Here's a few: -4th Avenue Tower is closed. I believe the interlocking has been modified since the project began, and I doubt they're spending money to alter the tower machine. There was supposed to be a new master tower built at Church Avenue, but I've heard nothing of its status or future. In essence, I don't see anything being moved at 4th Avenue interlocking any time soon. -A lot of money was spent to build new crew facilities and a new dispatcher's office at Church Avenue. If they cut the (G) back, they'll go unused until god knows when. -The (G) now runs equipment from Coney Island Yard, the line was moved to the "South" for the purpose of employee picking, and the work program was changed up so that all (G) crews now have to report to Church Avenue rather than Court Square. If the (G) is cut back, all crews will again have to go to Court Square, which might encourage management to move the line back to the Queens district. Basically, the only way I see them cutting the (G) back again would be if they find the cost savings to be important enough to make it look good to them. They honestly do save a lot of money with the (G) only going to Smith - 9 Streets. |
|
|
| (1143622) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Mar 7 20:55:58 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by G1Ravage on Wed Mar 7 19:38:27 2012. From a previous message: "Basically, the only way I see them cutting the (G) back again would be if they find the cost savings to be important enough to make it look good to them. They honestly do save a lot of money with the (G) only going to Smith - 9 Streets."Considering what was posted above. How does the MTA save money by having the G-train terminate at Smith-9th Streets? Mike |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1143623) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 7 21:06:08 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by G1Ravage on Wed Mar 7 19:38:27 2012. -4th Avenue Tower is closed. I believe the interlocking has been modified since the project began,and I doubt they're spending money to alter the tower machine. There was supposed to be a new master tower built at Church Avenue,but I've heard nothing of its status or future. In essence,I don't see anything being moved at 4th Avenue interlocking any time soon.I find it crazy that entire interlockings are essentially useless because the tower that controls the switches has been closed, and we just haven't gotten around to tying it into a master tower yet. The worst example of this is 34th/8th. They honestly do save a lot of money with the (G) only going to Smith - 9 Streets. How much do you figure? Turning the G at Smith-9th means that tower needs to be manned. OTOH, it means probably 2 to 3 more trainsets, which adds maintenance, power and crew cost. I can see the numbers being in the 7 figures, but in the perspective of the entire operating budget for subways... not a lot. |
|
|
| (1143625) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Wed Mar 7 21:15:26 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 just heard about this. IMO the customers who use the (G) can always Transfer to the (F) AT Smith 9, no Big Deal but nowadays people in this City get spoiled. I read about people saying they Dont know how they are gonna get to work if this happens buts thats 2012 yuppyism for you. As somebody who works down here, I do suggest the (G) stays AT Church but keep IT local and have the (F) Run express between Jay and Church. Cuts down the time From CI to the City just a bit. If people along 4 avenue really need the (F) they can always take an (R) to Jay. |
|
|
| (1143629) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 7 21:26:45 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Mar 7 13:34:12 2012. very stupid indeed. not to mention..but i will anyway..the problem it created by having the G end there in the first place.. |
|
|
| (1143638) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Mar 7 22:40:10 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. If the G were coming out of the Jamaica Yard, I would say that that cutting the G back would be a good move. But the G now comes out of the Coney Island Yard, which to me means that the added deadhead would be wasteful. |
|
|
| (1143642) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 7 23:01:52 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. Yet there is a point to be made..and it was!its great to see the train running through to Church..saves me personally time and effort..and is seen by North/South Brooklyn riders as a step in the right direction by MTA to provide interboro service without going into Manhattan if we dont need to. to take that away..is a slap in the face. The MTA is skating on thin ice right now.. any more cuts to service might lead to a NASSAU COUNTY type situation..people will only take so much before they are fed up..and push for their removal.. |
|
|
| (1143679) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Mar 8 11:41:35 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Michael549 on Wed Mar 7 20:55:58 2012. Less trains needed to run the service.Less trains means fewer train crews. One less dispatcher at Church Avenue. (Or was it two?) One less Tower Operator at Church Avenue Tower. (Although he'd likely relocate to 4th Avenue Tower if it reopened.) |
|
|
| (1143680) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Mar 8 11:47:59 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 7 21:06:08 2012. I find it crazy that entire interlockings are essentially useless because the tower that controls the switches has been closed, and we just haven't gotten around to tying it into a master tower yet. The worst example of this is 34th/8th.4th Avenue Tower was closed simply because the interlocking was dismantled as part of the viaduct work, so the tower was useless. It hasn't been dismantled, nor the machine removed to my knowledge. It could potentially be tied into the new interlocking someday. Or, the interlocking could be operated from the new relay room they were supposed to be building where Track B5 used to be. |
|
|
| (1143688) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 8 13:17:17 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by G1Ravage on Thu Mar 8 11:47:59 2012. You are right, but I was making my point based off yours that if the G doesn't get truncated, the tower might stay closed. There are a number of locations like this throughout the system. |
|
|
| (1143704) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 15:30:04 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Mar 7 16:39:50 2012. But so is 9th St on the R. I was going to point out 59th-CC and Roosevelt as being transfer points to local stops and the IND being an express.For how the IND is 'overbuilt' they really missed a good opportunity for the Culver line. What's so important on 7th av that 4th av had to be the local and 7th the express? |
|
|
| (1143705) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 15:30:31 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. exactly. |
|
|
| (1143706) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 15:33:01 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. alright, so they can maybe have 1/3 and maybe some short turn F's at church to appease both riders south of Church (bypassing Park slope) as well as Park slope (getting a seat and more space to stand in with the emptier trains) riders. |
|
|
| (1143707) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 15:38:33 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 7 23:01:52 2012. All this could've been avoided if they had rebuilt the 4th av stop into an express. While they were 'gutting' the side platforms, they could've built a new platform over the local track (one side at a time of course) and then build the new local track over what used to be the side platform.When 4th av is finished the G could still terminate at 4th av and people can still get their one seat ride to transfer to the R. |
|
|
| (1143713) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Mar 8 17:07:16 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 7 19:23:22 2012. It does sound like a good plan. More trains would run in the 53rd St Tunnel. There could be extra E service between Penn Station and Lex, a section of the E that could use the additional service. There would also be direct 6th Ave service deep into Lower Manhattan. The big issue would be that riders in Park Slope and other parts of Brooklynand Queens would have to get used to completely new subway routes (F at Jamaica Ctr, C at Metro, M at Euclid, etc). |
|
|
| (1143719) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Mar 8 17:39:03 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 8 13:17:17 2012. Yes. There are a number of unused towers in the IND that aren't staffed simply because moves are hardly ever made there. Others are staffed part time during rush hours only, some only have daytime coverage, and others only see action during G/O's.As the push for master towers continues in the B Division, this eventually won't be an issue. But then we lose our classic towers. :-( |
|
|
| (1143721) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Thu Mar 8 17:50:14 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 15:30:04 2012. The IND missed a lot of opportunities - though many of these "missed opportunities" were deliberate.Can't say why 7th Ave was made express versus 4th Ave though... my blog |
|
|
| (1143722) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Thu Mar 8 17:54:33 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. There are only two ways this can possibly work.1.) Split the F train service on the Culver. (F) (G) on the local track, and 2.) Make a sacrifice and send the (M) train back downtown, bring back the V. Make the E train platform at WTC HEET exit only for select runs. The A and C can handle downtown. Send the E train via W4 St, through the Rutgers St, tunnel and have E train become the new express route to Church Ave or Kings Highway during days on the Culver. If it was up to me I would pick option #2. Although the M riders would complain about the loss of midtown they would receive twice as many trains at Delancey. Park Slope express would be more useful and serve more people. |
|
|
| (1143735) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Mar 8 19:07:40 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. Oi Gevalt! |
|
|
| (1143747) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 21:29:51 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Thu Mar 8 17:54:33 2012. I thought there was more (M) service now (due to the heavier demand of 6th av and QB) than before when it ran to Chambers? |
|
|
| (1143749) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 8 21:49:59 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Mar 8 17:07:16 2012. Yeah, there would be confusion, but that goes away, and I would swap the other ends of the C/M, since the M has always been the Metro line. I personally would like to see the switches @ W4 utilized so that Fulton expresses aren't basically the same route (the present A/C mirroring each other). |
|
|
| (1143750) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 8 21:55:31 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by G1Ravage on Thu Mar 8 17:39:03 2012. If it means that we will be able to use all the switches in a system when needed, then i'll give up the unmanned towers gladly. RTO frequently makes decisions that negatively impact potential service reroutes because they don't want to open up these towers. |
|
|
| (1143754) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Mar 8 22:46:27 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Thu Mar 8 17:54:33 2012. The basic problem is that the current M-train riders having gotten a useful route (now to midtown) will not be very happy, I'd say pissed at any reduction of the new M-train.As folks on this forum noted, replacing the current M-train with an "old M-train" that in their words "does not go anyplace" would be seen as a service cut. Many forum folk here repeatedly expressed the viewpoint that the brown M-train to southern Brooklyn, "did not carry anybody", as compared with the current orange M-train "which is finally useful". So I'd say you're gonna have a fight on your hands with this proposal. Plus your proposal involves taking service away from folks who are finally happy that "the M-trains goes someplace useful" to giving Park Slope and Culver line riders a quick ride on an express train. They will be boiling tar and plucking feathers faster than you can get out of Dodge. Just face it - once the V-train was removed and re-vamped into the current orange M-train, the best options for a Culver line express route died. Even in your first proposal with F-trains every 8 minutes at the local stations - what community is going to WANT to reduce its train service, in exchange for express runs that do not stop at the most heavily used local stations? That also has been the basic problem of any scheme for Culver express service. Good luck getting the tar and feathers off. (smile) Mike |
|
|
| (1143756) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Thu Mar 8 23:06:18 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Thu Mar 8 17:54:33 2012. Option #3 bring back the (V) from 96 St or 125 St after phase 1 or phase 2 of SAS and use that to run a Culver Express (either (F) or (V)). 3 trains from the (F) can become (E) trains to/from 179 St if there are problems with too many trains on the 6 Av local tracks. |
|
|
| (1143757) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Thu Mar 8 23:38:36 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 8 21:29:51 2012. There most certainly is - three extra trains peak per hour (9 TPH vs 6 TPH).Also, methinks demand for the current (M) route significantly outweighs demand for a Culver Exp... my blog |
|
|
| (1143760) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Mar 8 23:49:00 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Thu Mar 8 17:54:33 2012. no...leave the m alone.keep the trains the way they are. |
|
|
| (1143762) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:11:38 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by Concourse Express on Thu Mar 8 23:38:36 2012. I agree. It doesn't matter if M's to Chambers runs more trains per hour if the demand isn't there. Those trains will be nearly empty especially since riders have the J as express (well a few stops, but I guess for some it adds up). |
|
|
| (1143763) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:14:07 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Thu Mar 8 23:06:18 2012. Where are you going to have the merge with the F? The Q and F would be held up if this V were to switch at 63rd-lex. |
|
|
| (1143764) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:15:05 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. +1 |
|
|
| (1143765) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Mar 9 00:18:03 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:11:38 2012. Exactly. Makes no sense IMHO to restore the old (M) and (V) as each were comparatively empty even during peak hours. As for the (J), I'm sure the brief express run helps a bit; the skip-stop helps a bit more travel-time wise. If anything, for downtown, increase (J)/(Z) service and expand the time span of skip-stop service.my blog |
|
|
| (1143766) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:18:48 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 8 21:49:59 2012. I dunno. I would think that the A/B/C/D set up would be thrown off for A/B/D/M. It was easy to overrule the V because that line has no history compared to the M, but the C, stepchild to the A, still should stay as is for CPW. The current M is basically what the V would've been. |
|
|
| (1143767) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension ! |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:21:26 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: Don’t cut (G) train extension !, posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:18:48 2012. basically the C from 168th to Metropolitan, M from 71st to Euclid (same route the post chambers st V ran and maybe this line could run 10 car trains since there are no restrictions). |
|
|
| (1143777) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 02:11:07 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by Concourse Express on Fri Mar 9 00:18:03 2012. Agreed, especially for expanded J/Z skip stop hours. |
|
|
| (1143802) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Mar 9 11:54:57 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Thu Mar 8 17:54:33 2012. Option 2 will defintely be a non-starter. The current M service is way more popular than the old M service was. Returning the M to Nassau St would be a very unpopular move.Better to go with Option 1. I suggest splitting the F into an F/V service where the F runs local to Church and the V running express between Jay and Church, then local to Coney. Combined F/V service would be 18tph (this can be done if the E runs 12tph for its entire route; E service to/from Parsons/Archer is currently limited to 12tph due to poorly located switches at Parsons). The three E's currently running to/from 179th would be given to the F/V. The F/V would run via the 53rd St Tunnel while the M would move to the 63rd St Tunnel. That would make up for the loss of extra three E's. I'd make the F/V split an uneven one with with the F running 11 or 12tph and the V running 7 or 8tph. F riders between Church and Jay would face only slightly longer waits for an F train (and the G would still be there at the local stations). And riders sojth of Church would now have a faster service. There would also be far fewer delays into/out of Stillwell and no need to short-turn at Kings Hwy or Ave X with 7-8tph south of Church instead of the current 15. |
|
|
| (1143811) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 13:22:01 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Mar 9 11:54:57 2012. Yeah, I would agree to that idea as well. 1/3 being express since 1/6 would not be well used being too infrequent. Or if it was 1/4 as express, maybe it could be 4-5 trains. |
|
|
| (1143834) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Mar 9 16:16:31 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Mar 9 11:54:57 2012. The idea of putting the F-train back on 53rd Street is going to be a non-starter of an idea. The MTA is not going to do it, and why would they put a part-time line on 63rd Street as the sole line anyway?Mike |
|
|
| (1143836) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by DaNavigata on Fri Mar 9 16:19:28 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 13:22:01 2012. Why don't they just re-label all the (F)'s that are to/from Kings Hwy as the (V) and send them express? |
|
|
| (1143838) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: Machiavellian Politics in Park Slope |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Fri Mar 9 16:20:59 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by Michael549 on Thu Mar 8 22:46:27 2012. True, this is more of a "pick your poison" exercise :-)You also have to consider that there might be Machiavellian politics at work. The people at the local stations (as mentioned by another poster), especially the ones closest to Church in the north-bound direction would love to have an express train skip their stop. Not to be able to ride the express at the next given transfer, but to have a near empty local train wisk them to work in ease and comfort. Since most of the people that now inhabit this neighborhood are not shift workers, if they have to wait an extra four minutes for a train... then so be it. |
|
|
| (1143839) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Fri Mar 9 16:22:22 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 9 00:14:07 2012. (Q),(F) and (V) could all run together if scheduled correctly.The (Q) could also run to Astoria weekdays 6am-8pm while the (V) is running to 125 St. The (Q) would run to 125 St after 8pm, the (V) and (Q) would only run together early weekday evenings if the (Q) were kept on Astoria after the SAS opens. |
|
|
| (1143840) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Fri Mar 9 16:28:35 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by Michael549 on Fri Mar 9 16:16:31 2012. I live in Queens and I ride the E and F and sometimes J, and I would love to have the F train return to the 53rd St, tunnel. That would be a huge service improvement for the people who work on the east-side of midtown Manhattan and would provide a one seat ride for all the hard working people who board at 179th St, after a 30 minute bus ride only to have to lose their seats and transfer again at Union Turnpike or Roosevelt just to access the useful part of the line.If you did a survey of the people who travel along Queens Blvd, I think you would find a landslide majority who want the F through 53rd and the M through 63rd. |
|
|
| (1143858) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 17:45:30 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Mar 8 17:50:14 2012. Yeah, but with the rennovations now, they could've fixed the problems of the past. Too late now since they've already rebuilt the platforms. |
|
|
| (1143859) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 17:46:44 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by DaNavigata on Fri Mar 9 16:19:28 2012. I would agree to that. Or since the F is almost entirely R160s, they could always program in a < (f) >. |
|
|
| (1143861) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 17:51:13 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Fri Mar 9 16:28:35 2012. Before this turns into another F should go thru 53rd st topic:The E and F were both packed to the brim and 53rd is not enough to handle both lines. there was no room on that 'tiny' island platform for all the riders getting off there wanting to catch the 6. Both had to be split and 63rd was nice and roomy with plenty of room for the F. It was done for riders' safety. Not because the MTA feels 'let's just run the F there to piss off this group of riders'. The MTA would have major lawsuits if people fell on the tracks and were struck by the trains entering 53rd-lex. With a local and express serving it now, the passenger groups are well distributed. |
|
|
| (1143863) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 17:54:00 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Fri Mar 9 16:22:22 2012. No, i disagree, there's no point in having the V hold up the Q and F the way the N does for the Q and R at Prince St. If that's the price to be paid to fit the V in for the Culver express, then it's not worth it. I can maybe see after phase 3 and they want to connect the SAS to the F and run via Rutgers st. |
|
|
| (1143866) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 9 17:59:25 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by E and F and sometimes J on Fri Mar 9 16:28:35 2012. This topic comes up seemingly all the time. Prior to 63rd street, Queens Boulevard customers going to manhattan had 3 options: express via 53rd then down 8th, express via 53rd then down 6th, and local via 60th then down Broadway. With this alignment in effect, the expresses were overcrowded, even though the one local to manhattan went to a more useful Lexington Line stop. By sending one express across 63rd, now passengers who absolutely refused to or couldn't take a local but who were not bound for lexington could be separate from riders who absolutely needed 53rd. If they followed through with your plan, what is the incentive for E/F riders to take a different train? They were already not taking the R, so why would the M have gained riders? Additionally, local riders south of Roosevelt bound for 53rd now have poorer service than before the connector project, since previously, they could take the G or the R to Queens Plaza, but now they could only take the R.The current service pattern has reduced crowding on the expresses, which was the point. Until the day comes when they build the Queens Super express, 53rd is going to have one local serving it, because it makes the most sense. |
|
|
| (1143870) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's almost no way this can work |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 9 18:41:07 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by DaNavigata on Fri Mar 9 16:19:28 2012. Why does everyone want the Kings Hwy F's to run express? There are two reasons to run expresses:1. Cut travel time short for riders at the end of the line. 2. Intermediate express stations with High ridership. Generally, expresses run further out on a line than locals because of reason No 1. The two exceptions to this rule, Brighton and Eastern Parkway, short turn the expresses because the existing infrastructure forces this, but also because the express stations on these lines have high ridership (well, on Eastern pkwy, also because everything can't fit on the local tracks and Lexington trains have to get on the express tracks anyway). By making the express the Kings Highway train, you render reason #1 moot, since passengers from Coney Island through avenue U would only have local service. They could transfer to an express, but if it wasn't going to beat the local to Jay, then why change? Additionally the inner local stations wouldn't get the benefit of emptier trains, because locals would still be arriving with passengers from Coney Island, and to add insult to injury, there are now fewer trains. I don't see what the big deal is with making Kings hwy trains the locals, it's almost a 1:1 ration of KH trains to CI trains. The more I think about this, the less and less sense it makes. The one advantage for the MTA would be fewer trainsets. Short turning the local would mean that you could reduce service on the outer ends of the line, but make up for it by running trains express. This works well with the A and C trains. This is helped further having yard capacity at the end of the local line. The C would make less fiscal sense if Pitkin Yard were instead located in the Rockaways. But that is the exact scenario in place on the Culver line. Since Church has almost no storage capacity, at the end of the day, every local train that drops out at Church would have to deadhead to Avenue X yard. In the morning, they would have to do the opposite. So, unless the expresses can generate enough riderhsip from stations south of Church, then there's no reason to run the service. If there were ever another branch connected to Culver, or if stations from Church south experienced a ridership boom, then that would be reason to run an express on the line, but until then, I think it's a non starter. |
|
|
| (1143871) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 9 18:42:17 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 17:45:30 2012. That would've been extremely expensive. |
|
|
| (1143872) | |
Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 18:45:23 2012, in response to Re: Straphangers to MTA: There's only two way this can possibly work..., posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 17:46:44 2012. I mean if it's the V to Church. There's no need for regular Kings Highway express. Those are usually extra F trains for Queens, iirc. |
|
|
| (1143873) | |
Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Mar 9 18:47:59 2012, in response to Re: Service may end for last five stops on (G) train, posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 9 18:42:17 2012. Yes, but they were already demolishing the platforms and were going to rebuild them. If they had made 4th av an express station [the way it should've been imo], then all this talk about terminating the G at Smith-9th would be a non issue as the G can run to 4th av and people will still have their one seat ride to the R. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
