|
|
| (G) cut from Queens Boulevard (538509) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
|
| (538509) | |
(G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007 It's official, the will no longer run to Forest Hills by next December if the service enhancement plan (see page 3) is approved.I wonder how long will it take for politicians to start a riot. |
|
|
| (538514) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Dec 22 10:59:35 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. But this will be coupled with frequency improvements on the G. |
|
|
| (538517) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Dec 22 11:00:53 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. I wonder how long will it take for politicians to start a riot.Does the run through John Liu's district?
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (538535) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sat Dec 22 11:16:27 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. I wonder how long will it take for politicians to start a riot.Never. Forest Hills & Rego Park have political clout. They're getting a service increase, they'll be happy. The areas that the G serves have zero political pull...well, except Carroll Gardens and Boerum Hill, and they're only interested in the F. |
|
|
| (538539) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 22 11:18:54 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. It was inevitable. This is how the city used to target lines for demolition. Reduce service to the point that people won't bother fighting to retain it when the decision is made to eliminate it. |
|
|
| (538540) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 11:19:40 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. The G route has arguably been surreptitiously stalked and silently killed at various intervals over the years, anyway, and if NYCT won't alter their policy about passengers having to exit trains at relay terminals, Forest Hills' capacity as a terminal is accordingly artificially limited.If the legislators really want to see G service run to Forest Hills, they could mandate that NYCT relay terminal policy be changed and figure out how to do the extension at the cost of increased frequency of service over the truncated run. At all events, the relay terminal policy, called "fumigation" in these forums, severely limits the number of Queens Blvd local trains, so perhaps legislators should mandate a change to that so as to provide smoother commutes for thousands of people. |
|
|
| (538544) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 11:22:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 22 11:18:54 2007. But you cannot tear down a subway tunnel!ROARING |
|
|
| (538548) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 11:25:16 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by italianstallion on Sat Dec 22 10:59:35 2007. Not to mention the .
|
|
|
| (538557) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 22 11:41:07 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 11:22:02 2007. FILL IN THE QUEENS BLVD SUBWAY! |
|
|
| (538558) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Dec 22 11:42:23 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 22 11:41:07 2007. Fill it in? What a waste. Lease it out to a mushroom farm. |
|
|
| (538564) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 11:54:08 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 11:19:40 2007. The service changes reflect the prevailing customer demand along Queens Blvd. The biggest demand, by far, is travel to/from ManhattanGiven a free transfer at Court Square, I frankly see no need to run the G to Forest Hills. The TA's increasing G train frequency and extending it to Brooklyn (I hope) is of far more benefit and represents an approach that both addresses Queens Blvd demand and helps G riders. "The G route has arguably been surreptitiously stalked and silently killed at various intervals over the years, anyway," Nobody's stalking anything. The TA is doing what the overwhelming majority of customers wants it to do. The TA us not neglecting G riders. G riders can reach Forest Hills via one transfer, but they can still reach Forest Hills, and now they won't have to wait as long for their train. They are not entitled to more than that. Queens Blvd riders have clout, because there are over 650,000 of them (and climbing - watch what happens when the new apartment buildings start opening for residents along Hillside Avenue). Then there are the transdfers from the 7 line... As for fumigation, there are a number of reasons why the TA does that. I am not personally opposed to ending that policy, but I understand why the TA is reluctant to do so. |
|
|
| (538569) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Dec 22 12:01:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Zman179 on Sat Dec 22 11:16:27 2007. Actually, the areas on the (G) are up and rising and are getting more political power. |
|
|
| (538571) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Dec 22 12:03:26 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 22 11:18:54 2007. I'm pretty sure people are going to fight for it, you should see how much of a ghost town Court Square is on weekends when the (G) runs past there as the Queens Plaza transfer is much more convenient. |
|
|
| (538572) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 12:06:44 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 11:54:08 2007. To take up the points in your post in reverse order, if fumigation hadn't enacted as the policy, there would be something like 30 tph capacity at Forest Hills.The new trade-off is that the offer from NYCT is more frequency-of-service in exchange for a shorter route in the northbound (eastbound?) direction, while in the southbound (westbound?) direction, service is extended for a longer route to Church Av. I tend to think that the new route and frequency of service will be nice, except possibly in the overnight, when there will be only 3 tph at Ely Av for the connection to Queens Blvd local service. So I would modify the proposal such that G trains run to Queens Plaza late nights, so that the connection to Queens Blvd local service would be twice as easy, with 6 tph. In terms of my comment, "The G route has arguably been surreptitiously stalked and silently killed at various intervals over the years, anyway," what I meant by that is that the G has already been truncated for large periods of time, especially weekends, such that it didn't operate on Queens Blvd. Arguably then, this service change isn't so extreme, since for quite some amount of the time for the past few years, G trains didn't go to Forest Hills anyway. |
|
|
| (538573) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Dec 22 12:07:55 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 11:19:40 2007. I believe that since the 1930's-1940's the G-train has terminated at 71st Avenue, and at some point the RR, the EE, then N, and now R-train terminates there also. Now the V-train terminates at 71st Avenue also. I believe that on the inbound local track, the trains had to be cleared of riders before the train had to head to either the train yard or to the two relay tracks that exist under the main-line tracks.So how does this "policy about passengers having to exit trains at relay terminals" differ from activities in the past? Why should the legislator get involved in a train operation practice of the TA? For example, in public schools, the legislator usually does not get to tell the cooks HOW TO ACTUALLY make the meals. Those kinds of decisions are usually left up to the professionals in that field to follow standard industry practices. There does not seem to be "health and safety" issue with the TA's practice discharging riders and making sure that riders are not on the trains. In fact one could argue that the TA is aiding the "health and safety" of the riders by making sure that they are not stuck on yards that spend the night in the train yard, or the riders are not walking the rails. I get the fact that some folks here do not like the practice of making sure the riders have left the train, but that does not mean the legislator has a role here. Just a few thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (538581) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 12:13:22 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 12:06:44 2007. Thank you for your clarification.I hope you are sharing some of these thoughts with the TA. You have some astute observations here and the TA should hear them. |
|
|
| (538586) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 12:17:35 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sat Dec 22 12:07:55 2007. I get the fact that some folks here do not like the practice of making sure the riders have left the train, but that does not mean the legislator has a role here.You misunderstand my motivation for suggesting legislative action. My main point is that the "fumigation" practice drastically limits capacity at terminals. Why shouldn't the legislature be concerned to increase service by some 10 tph at Forest Hills? Do you actually suppose that the public would not favor such a move? |
|
|
| (538606) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sat Dec 22 13:03:27 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Dec 22 12:01:02 2007. The G serves the districts of two powerful Brooklyn Assembly Democrats, Brooklyn Democratic leader and Housing Committee Chair Vito Lopez and Codes Committee Chair Joseph Lentol. |
|
|
| (538607) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 13:08:03 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 12:17:35 2007. I appreciate your intent, but Michael has a valid point: The legislature can ask the TA to increase service frequency along Queens Blvd. How that happens the actual mechanics) sould be left to TA management to work out. |
|
|
| (538612) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 13:20:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 13:08:03 2007. Well, currently what's the case if some legislative committee asks why, say, 25 tph can't be run on the Queens Blvd local tracks?The response is going to be that the relay terminal at Forest Hills can't handle that frequency of service. Then, let's say that some person working for the committee looks at the track maps, makes a few multiplications, and says, 'Why mot?'. Then NYCT explains its policy, which is a health, safety, morals, and welfare reason why not. Certainly the legislature is the ultimate authority on health, safety, morals, and welfare, and at the least, I imagine they could order a study of advantages and disadvantages of different policies. Alternatively, as I once suggested in a different topic, create a new station called "Kew Gardens Hills" placed on the loop track at Jamaica Yard, making those tracks in-service tracks. That way, there's a topologically superior way to turn trains around while also making things a bit more convenient for some. At all events, the current and artificial limit on capacity of the Queens Blvd local tracks can be viewed as having quite negative economic and social welfare impact. |
|
|
| (538615) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 13:27:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 13:20:02 2007. Then, let's say that some person working for the committee looks at the track maps, makes a few multiplications, and says, 'Why not?"I dont think looking at the track maps and saying "why not" IF you dont work in any transit capacity or have knowlegde of train movements or crew movements will help.. Seriously.. |
|
|
| (538625) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 13:41:09 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 13:20:02 2007. "At all events, the current and artificial limit on capacity of the Queens Blvd local tracks can be viewed as having quite negative economic and social welfare impact. "OK. But not fumigating also has negative impacts. Which does the least damage? If you say "not fumigating" is better, I'll take your word for it, at least here on the chat board. Legislators can certainly press MTA as to why something can/cannot be done. And legislators cvan also say "We want this done, and not doing it is not allowed." Pushed hard enough, MTA will come up with a way to get something done. |
|
|
| (538626) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Sat Dec 22 13:44:15 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by italianstallion on Sat Dec 22 10:59:35 2007. Plus the extension to Church. It's not a total loss. |
|
|
| (538632) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 13:51:46 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 13:27:30 2007. I'm trying to make it realistic oversight of transit, which will probably be by people who have little or no knowledge of operations; in reality, I doubt that they would even look at track maps.Realistically, you're dealing with people like a (former) legislator from Flushing who wondered aloud why there were delays on trains because they run on rails. Sadly, I'm pretty sure she wasn't in a minority of legislators who didn't take time to learn about the field they're charged with oversight of. Lack of knowledge and will to learn and investigate is probably why lobbyists, who always come equipped with a very simple explanatory model, are able to succeed with legislators, particularly legislators whose candidacies are funded by such lobbyists. |
|
|
| (538634) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 13:55:41 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 13:51:46 2007. Realistically, you're dealing with people like a (former) legislator from Flushing who wondered aloud why there were delays on trains because they run on rails. Sadly, I'm pretty sure she wasn't in a minority of legislators who didn't take time to learn about the field they're charged with oversight of. Lack of knowledge and will to learn and investigate is probably why lobbyists, who always come equipped with a very simple explanatory model, are able to succeed with legislators, particularly legislators whose candidacies are funded by such lobbyists.One thing i learned about working down here.. When you step to the MTA you better have yer facts straight.. Dont take em on if you dont know what you are talking about,they will grind you, up chew you up and spit you out.. |
|
|
| (538635) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 13:55:59 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 13:41:09 2007. Investigation and analysis of alternatives is all I'd be interested in, so I think we're agreed. |
|
|
| (538637) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 14:00:46 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. Running the R all night also allows for people to transfer from the 4 and 6 lines directly to the R for Queens service. It's a much easier transfer point than 51st.More trains-per-hour on the G means that the TA has no choice but to extend the G in Brooklyn to south of Smith/9th. They can't possibly increase G service, and not plug the F line under this scenario. |
|
|
| (538638) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 14:02:24 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 13:55:41 2007. MTA can be plenty combative with private citizens and their lobbies, but there's risk in being too aggressive with an elected official having power over the agency. So it's a bit like having an argument with a boss that has a lot of power over you, and who can retaliate powerfully. So, e.g., saying that some Straphangers' Campaign guy has his facts wrong and is talking out of his ass is one thing, but I doubt that MTA would take the same attitude with, say, Sheldon Silver. |
|
|
| (538641) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 14:05:04 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 14:02:24 2007. I cant agree with you more on that.. |
|
|
| (538650) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 14:13:10 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 14:02:24 2007. Transit resents people telling them what they should figure out on their own. They're least responsive to employees and passengers, in that order. |
|
|
| (538652) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 14:26:53 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 14:13:10 2007. They're least responsive to employees and passengers, in that order.Espiecally when money is invovled... You can "make a suggestion" but you telling them something "they should do" is like talking to a wall sometimes.. I tell anybody take the test come on down here and see it for yourself.. |
|
|
| (538659) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Dec 22 14:49:58 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 11:54:08 2007. On weekends during the day when the E does not make local stops, one will have to transfer from the G to the E at Court Square and then to the R at Queens Plaza to get to the Queens Blvd. local stops. Unofficially, this happens most weekends already due to GOs. If the TA didn't have the current policies in place about no passengers riding the relays, the G could terminate at Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. |
|
|
| (538662) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Dec 22 14:52:57 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sat Dec 22 12:07:55 2007. In fact one could argue that the TA is aiding the "health and safety" of the riders by making sure that they are not stuck on yards that spend the night in the train yard, or the riders are not walking the rails.Yes, they should ensure that trains don't enter the yards with passengers and get laid up for the night. But if the train reenters service right away, the health and safety issue you present is not relevant? (And yes, I know the arguments, you need not remind me of them.) |
|
|
| (538668) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Dec 22 15:08:30 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. If they increase service on the (G), where will they get the extra trains from? |
|
|
| (538671) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 15:14:48 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Dec 22 15:08:30 2007. If they increase service on the (G), where will they get the extra trains from?The increases are supposed to occur during middays and evenings on weekdays, and on weekends, i.e., they're all off-peak. |
|
|
| (538672) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 15:14:59 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Dec 22 15:08:30 2007. They may not need more trains. It could mean that the current number of trains can still provide the same service. It just means the trains won't have any recovery time at terminals. They will be "in and out" all day, instead of dwelling at terminals. |
|
|
| (538678) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 15:21:34 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Dec 22 15:08:30 2007. If they increase (G) service on the Queensboro, then this is a REDUCTION in Manhattan bound services. This is Unacceptable. The (GG) train was a bust from the git-go, but it is nonetheless a great thing for the neighborhoods that it serves. It needs and the neighborhoods deserve good and adequate service. 6 minute headways should be the norm, even if the trains are only four cars and opto.ROAR |
|
|
| (538679) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 15:22:48 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 15:14:59 2007. Is it possible that G trains would no longer operate out of Jamaica Yard after the service change, or that operations would be jointly operated out of Queens and Brooklyn? |
|
|
| (538696) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Dec 22 15:45:58 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Sat Dec 22 13:27:30 2007. it does NOT require years of employment in a given industry to be able to analyze how it works. Actual work experience IS a different POV and certainly generates informed opinions, but they are not by definition exclusively correct. And FWIW the legislature in tandem w/ the judicial branch ARE the arbiters of how ANY state entity should function. After all it is LEGISLATION which affords the right tocollective bargaining, the various state 'OSHA' protections etc. |
|
|
| (538697) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 15:47:10 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 15:22:48 2007. Very possible. That's a long layup from Court Sq to Jamaica Yard. |
|
|
| (538724) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sat Dec 22 17:23:07 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. WHAT??!! This is riduclous!!And yet they want us to pay more. Totally unacceptable. I hope this plan never ever gets through, this is just stupid. they want to leave me and many other people with the horrible R train and its 20 minute waits |
|
|
| (538732) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 17:48:03 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by error46146 on Sat Dec 22 17:23:07 2007. If they ran the railroad correctly, the (R) train would run every 6 minutes.ROAR |
|
|
| (538737) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sat Dec 22 18:20:19 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 17:48:03 2007. Of course, the way things are going now that will never ever happen in our lifetimes. |
|
|
| (538742) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Sat Dec 22 18:48:58 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. Honestly, given the choice, I'd rather see the G cut back to Court Square IF it means getting double the service. The #1 complaint living on that line is waiting FOREVER for a train, no matter what time of day it is. Having to transfer to an E/V is secondary to that. At least they're bringing the R to Queens Blvd 24/7. |
|
|
| (538751) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by 7trainkrys on Sat Dec 22 19:20:58 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 11:54:08 2007. Then the MTA should make a "real" free transfer between the G and the 7 and Court Sq. The current set up makes the commute cost $4 if a bus is involved since that switch from the G to the 7 eats up the free transfer from the MetroCard. |
|
|
| (538752) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Dec 22 19:23:00 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by 7trainkrys on Sat Dec 22 19:20:58 2007. Supposedly, Citicorp was building an in-system transfer as part of their newly opened building there. Not sure if they've canceled that because of their financial problems. |
|
|
| (538756) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Parkchester (East 177th St) on Sat Dec 22 19:33:26 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Russ on Sat Dec 22 11:00:53 2007. No. Too far south of Flushing to be of direct affect to the residents of his district. |
|
|
| (538786) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 20:36:26 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by italianstallion on Sat Dec 22 19:23:00 2007. That was part of MTA's plan, but MTA was supposed to pay for it. |
|
|
| (538819) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 22 21:13:45 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sat Dec 22 13:03:27 2007. If Lentol has so much pull, why did he "allow" the G to lose 24/7 service to Forest Hills? Before he had the job, his daddy had it when it was the GG. It may have been the GG when JR. started. |
|
|
| (538822) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 22 21:17:37 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 22 11:19:40 2007. Let the blood be on your hands should NYCT rescind the policy of passengers having to be discharged from trains to be relayed the first time one of us gets assaulted while changing ends. Thankfully, that policy will never be rescinded. Frame it. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
