|
|
| G train extension may become permanent (1166912) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1166912) | |
G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Mon Jul 16 16:45:25 2012 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-heading-good-news-article-1.1115053#ixzz20o7F6nGn"MTA heading your way with good news! Expect restored service on various lines ... and a permanent G train expansion Pete Donohue NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Monday, July 16, 2012, 3:00 AM It’s budget time at the MTA and there’s actually good news: Transit officials are poised to allocate tens of millions of dollars for additional bus, subway and commuter train service — and plan to make permanent a popular expansion of the G train in Brooklyn, sources said. Metropolitan Transportation Authority executives have been drafting and revising lists of rider-friendly initiatives that include restoring some — but certainly not all — of the service that was whacked in 2010 to close a canyon-like budget deficit, the sources said. Now, the authority’s finances have improved to the point that transit executives are confident they can ramp up service in parts of the system where planners and managers believe it is most needed and practical. A majority of the restorations will be in Brooklyn and the Bronx, which makes sense because those boroughs were hit the hardest by the bus-heavy budget cuts two years ago, the sources said. MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota and top transit executives will unveil the service upgrades as they present revised financial plans to the MTA board next week. Some of the dropped routes will be brought back to life — though one source said those will be few in number. In most cases, the MTA will run buses more frequently on certain routes to better meet increased demand, or extend an existing route into a neighborhood where buses don’t currently stop, that source said. The list wasn’t finalized as of Friday, but one of the winners will likely be Red Hook, the underserved neighborhood where the subway isn’t an option and where community activists and Transport Workers Union Local 100 have been active in organizing for improvements. Red Hook was stripped of two bus routes — the B77 and the B75 — and the B61 that survived either runs too infrequently or is too crowded to board. “I walk 20 blocks every day to get to the subway, rather than wait a half-hour to get on a bus,” Robert Berrios, 44, a clerk from Red Hook, complained to the MTA board last month. Another top candidate for a service boost is Bay Ridge, where part of the B64 was erased from the map, another source said. As to the G line, the MTA added five stops in Brooklyn, the last being Church Ave., in 2009. It was done because of major construction projects, including work that closed off spare track on the F line that was used to reverse G trains for the return trip. The next point on the shared line that was suitable for reversing trains was at Church Ave., so other stops were added in between. The construction that necessitated the change is expected to end late this year or next year, but the plan is for the added stops to remain, the sources said. Business owners along the five-stop stretch, together with transit advocates and area politicians — including Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, state Sen. Daniel Squadron and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio — have been lobbying the MTA to make the extension permanent. “It’s just made the line much more convenient,” Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign said. “It was like a useless appendage. Now, it connects Park Slope, Windsor Terrace and Kensington.” Sources either didn’t know or wouldn’t reveal how much money the MTA will allocate for service improvements. MTA board members Allen Cappelli and Mitch Pally have been urging the authority to create a $20- million service enhancement fund to be split among the MTA agencies, which also include the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad. The latest monthly report on MTA finances to be posted online shows it has $90 million more on hand than it projected back in February. The MTA is in better shape largely because the economy is in better shape: Employment in the city has been steadily rising and that has translated into more riders. And to its credit, the MTA has also kept expenses below budget. The rarity of it makes it worth repeating: It’s budget time and there’s actually some good news." |
|
|
| (1166914) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 16 16:54:51 2012, in response to G train extension may become permanent, posted by Allan on Mon Jul 16 16:45:25 2012. BFD. I don't see why this is such a big deal, with the possible exception of the direct transfer for G riders to R trains at 4th Av/9th St. |
|
|
| (1166915) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Mon Jul 16 16:58:43 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 16 16:54:51 2012. Shhhh the yuppies are happy. Shhhh! That'll shut em up for a while! SHHHH we also get a Culver Express when the work is over SHHHHHH! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1166920) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jul 16 17:24:28 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by ClearAspect on Mon Jul 16 16:58:43 2012. I'm not sure about the Culver Express part since there is probably too much demand at the local stations for direct Manhattan service. |
|
|
| (1166924) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Mon Jul 16 17:57:48 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by randyo on Mon Jul 16 17:24:28 2012. The return of the Culver Express has been "promised" every few years by the MTA. Doubtful. |
|
|
| (1166926) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Jul 16 18:04:50 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Dan on Mon Jul 16 17:57:48 2012. It is doubtful since MTA is using the express tracks for CBTC testing. |
|
|
| (1166928) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jul 16 18:11:10 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by ClearAspect on Mon Jul 16 16:58:43 2012. The passengers did not like the Culver Express in the late 1960's and won't like it in the 2010's: passengers getting on at Ft. Hamilton & 15th St. would have to take the G to the F. Passengers at 4th Ave., Sm/9th and Carroll can't change at Bergen since the lower level is full of electronical stuff for the signal system. South of Church: the ridership isn't very heavy. |
|
|
| (1166929) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jul 16 18:12:47 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Dan on Mon Jul 16 17:57:48 2012. It may be possible that the Culver Express may be restored between K/Hwy and 18 Av although I believe that would require the reinstallation of a switch S/O K/Hwy that was removed a few years ago for some dumb reason. |
|
|
| (1166933) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jul 16 18:18:38 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jul 16 18:11:10 2012. The only possible way to have a viable express service N/O Church Av is to have only the Stl Fs run express and have the Ave X putins and K/Hwy short turns make all stops in order to give local passengers direct Manhattan service. That was what was eventually done with the F service during rush hours until Smith/9 became the permanent 24/7 terminal in 1976 when all Fs became local N/O 18 Av. |
|
|
| (1166934) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 16 18:41:38 2012, in response to G train extension may become permanent, posted by Allan on Mon Jul 16 16:45:25 2012. A no brainer....Smith/9th never made any sense as a terminal. |
|
|
| (1166991) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 17 09:20:31 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by randyo on Mon Jul 16 17:24:28 2012. The solution there would be (once enough new subway cars can be found to accommodate such) for the (C) to divert from the 8th Avenue line at West 4th and run with the (G) to Church Avenue while the (F) runs to Coney Island. The side benefit is it would give Culver Line riders a one-seat ride on 8th Avenue they don't have and also give them a one-seat ride to the upper west side they also currently don't have while riders at express stations have the choice of the 6th or 8th Avenue line.This would have the (C) going with the (F) to West 4th, so Culver riders looking for 6th Avenue could make a SAME PLATFORM transfer for the B/D/F/M at Broadway-Lafayette as well. The (E) can be extended to Euclid at all times to replace the (C) in Brooklyn while a new (K) train can be a 2-4 tph (depending on time of day) supplement to the (C) running Chambers-168th. This is still how I would handle this down the road once enough subway cars became available for it (and obviously, funding became available). |
|
|
| (1167037) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 17 15:25:55 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 17 09:20:31 2012. The E at one time did run to Euclid as the C does now. The problem was that if there were any sort of service interruption, crews would be out of place and there were often problems making intervals out of Jamaica that were supposed to be made by crews returning from Bkln which had not yet arrived back at Jamaica. I realize that with the new arrangement, of a "full time Fulton express service the same sort of problems would not exist to the same degree, but it's still a bad idea. If the C were to be sent to Church Av M - F, what would happen with C service on weekends when there would presumably be no Culver express? |
|
|
| (1167046) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue Jul 17 16:43:56 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 17 09:20:31 2012. This can be done without more cars. Restore the missing switch at KH; then take 4 or 5tph of the current rush hour F intervals (adjusting the rest of the schedule, obviously); slap the "V" label on them to avoid confusion; and send them express on Hillside and in Brooklyn (peak direction s/o Church). |
|
|
| (1167049) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue Jul 17 17:04:27 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 17 15:25:55 2012. The only change to the C should be having it replace the A to Lefferts. |
|
|
| (1167072) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 17 18:26:34 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue Jul 17 17:04:27 2012. I don't disagree with that. As for the residents along the Lefferts branch, they had only local service for several years when the A was the Fulton St lcl and the rush hour E was the Fulton St express. The only problem I can see with that until the arrival of the R-188s is that the midnight Euclid to Lefferts shuttle service is OPTO and with the present car assignments (not the temporary summer assignment) some R-46s would have to be transferred from the A Line for the midnight service. Otherwise, it's not a bad idea since the C could be full time Lefferts to Euclid and extended to 168 St during "normal" hours. That brings in a new question, however. Would the headways to Lefferts and Far Rock be the same as those N/O Euclid or would alternate A and C trains be short turned at Euclid? If the alternate short turn service pattern were to be adopted, it could cause problems with crewing trains especially in the event of service disruptions putting crews out of place. |
|
|
| (1167075) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Tue Jul 17 18:29:08 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 17 18:26:34 2012. You mean R179s, not R188s. |
|
|
| (1167077) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Tue Jul 17 18:34:12 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 17 18:26:34 2012. In regards to the (C) to Lefferts, I've always though that should have been the service pattern for the longest, and for the people who object to it because express service would be removed from Liberty Avenue, you can still have rush hour (A) service operate to/from Lefferts Boulevard (probably at a frequency of every ten minutes) so riders can still have express service at a time of day when ridership is highest: during rush hours. |
|
|
| (1167087) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 17 19:13:05 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by LRG5784 on Tue Jul 17 18:34:12 2012. there barely 10 minute service at Lefferts during rush hours Now!forget about midday or evenings.. |
|
|
| (1167105) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Tue Jul 17 20:10:01 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 17 19:13:05 2012. You're right, I jumped the gun. Guess I was being optimistic about ten minute service; right now it's at 12-15 minutes, with 15-20 minutes outside of that. Shit!Still though, I'd like to see 6-8 minute service on the (C) to Lefferts during rush hours (up from 8-10 minutes), and the Lefferts (A) rush hour service operates every 10-12 minutes, should Lefferts (C) service come to fruition. |
|
|
| (1167147) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jul 18 05:37:25 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 17 15:25:55 2012. My plan actually has the (C) going to Church Avenue and with the (F) express at all times, except overnights (overnights only, the (F) would run as it does now). It also would eventually have the lower level of Bergen Street renovated so it can be used as the express stations it was intended to be all along. |
|
|
| (1167181) | |
Re: G train extension may become permanent |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Wed Jul 18 09:22:33 2012, in response to Re: G train extension may become permanent, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jul 18 05:37:25 2012. Enough with wanting to send the C via Houston. That would only make sense if 1) The B and C swapped north terminals back to what they originally were and 2) there was *as many* people along the F route going to destinations along or west of 8th Av as to the area centered on 6th, *PARTICULARLY DURING NORMAL PEAK TIMES*. The first could be done, but the second just won't happen anytime in the next 10-20 years. Numerous surveys by Transit over the years have consistently shown the vast majority of pax along the Culver route want the CBD accessible from 6th. Second place goes to downtown/financial district (cross-platform or a staircase away at Jay). Far fewer cited Penn Station or points north on 8th/CPW. Google it yourself. |
|
|
