|
|
| Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard (538509) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
|
| (539255) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 10:51:35 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 01:24:28 2007. As somewhat of a (G) commuter, nope. |
|
|
| (539259) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 10:55:29 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 00:03:48 2007. The MTA is cutting service from us, they're cutting service to Forest Hills and trying to sugarcoat it buy extending it to Church Avenue and "increasing" service frequency, which to me does jack except let me watch more trains leave in my face because the train itself is too damn short and doesn't stop near the exit at my station.I do not know about the two transfers you just described to me as I take the (E) or (V) one stop to Queens Plaza then take the (R). |
|
|
| (539280) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 11:36:25 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by error46146 on Sat Dec 22 22:46:53 2007. By getting the (GG) train off of QB, it leaves more room for more (RR) and (V) trains to ply those tracks.ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (539282) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 11:41:48 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by error46146 on Sat Dec 22 17:23:07 2007. I'm glad I'm not the only one here that opposes this. |
|
|
| (539285) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 11:47:42 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Dec 23 00:10:04 2007. The service isn't *being* discontinued. For all practical purposes it *has been* discontinued.There is no track space for it to ditz around on the QB Lion. ROAR |
|
|
| (539286) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Dec 23 11:49:33 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 11:47:42 2007. Nights and weekends there is. |
|
|
| (539289) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Dec 23 11:54:29 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Zman179 on Sun Dec 23 09:40:27 2007. No. I believe it's SIXTEEN extra stops. Right? Each 1/2 trip is four extra stops. Over the course of the work day, it works out to sixteen extra stops in my point of view. |
|
|
| (539291) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 12:01:01 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 01:10:31 2007. Management could change it tomorrow if they wanted to.ROAR |
|
|
| (539296) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sun Dec 23 12:06:12 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 11:36:25 2007. But the V train doesn't run weekends. Also i think the reason why it takes the R so long to come is because it is slow and the route is very long |
|
|
| (539297) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 12:07:41 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 11:47:42 2007. For all practical purposes it *has been* discontinued.Not really. Depends on when you ride - weekday overnights, I think it's run most of the time. Weekends and weekend overnights, not so much. |
|
|
| (539299) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 12:16:31 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 11:41:48 2007. If NYCT at least terminates trains at Queens Plaza when V trains are not running, it's quite acceptable. If NYCT at least terminates at Queens Plaza overnight, it's rather acceptable.Ideally, a political coalition bargain could be struck such that the proposed change will be acquiesced to in exchange for a Queens Plaza overnight terminal, and V train service on the weekends. But of course, that takes money, so it's tough work. |
|
|
| (539301) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Sun Dec 23 12:36:06 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by 7trainkrys on Sat Dec 22 19:20:58 2007. no it doesn't! If I board the G at Greenpoint Ave and transfer to 45 Rd, I still have a valid bus transfer left when I get off the 7. |
|
|
| (539306) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 12:53:51 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 12:16:31 2007. I predict that new residential developments will result in a Queens Blvd. demand study next year. One of the inevitable outcomes of such a study is that expansion of subway service in Queens will be recommended. If this expansion includes a new extension/diversion off the 63rd St tunnel, such that one of the services now traveling Queens Blvd will use a new tunnel of its own, you'd have the opportunity to return the G to Queens Blvd.But that's a minimum of 5 years down the road.If the option's worked up in 2008, it might make the 2010 FTA funding cycle. If it doesn't, you're looking at 15 years.... |
|
|
| (539307) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 12:55:29 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 12:01:01 2007. No. Even 100% enlightened management and 100% enlightened union leadership can't do it that quickly. In New York, neither management nor union is 100% enlightened. |
|
|
| (539310) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 12:56:14 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by error46146 on Sun Dec 23 12:06:12 2007. And there aren't enough trainsets and crews assigned to the R. |
|
|
| (539312) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 12:57:22 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 12:07:41 2007. Agreed. But this newest change isn't about tunnel capacity. It's about passenger demand and resource allocation. |
|
|
| (539313) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Dec 23 12:58:46 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 12:16:31 2007. At the risk of being shouted down by G-train riders, it is highly doubtful that the TA is going to restore G-train service at any time of the day/night/weekend to the Queens Plaza station.From a train operation point of view, the G-train requires several switch movements to get the train into and out of the station - which could impact the other running through lines. One may want to argue that during the midnight hours there is indeed enough time to complete the train movements without much impact on the other trains, and most transit fans would agree. However in choosing between a situation where currently there is no interference, and one where there may be interference - guess which one the TA will choose. Bottom line - no G-train to Queens Plaza - whatever, whenever, that battle is over with. One chief complaint of G-train riders was the waiting between trains, that has been solved with more frequent service. Transit fans have long talked about extending the G-train to Church Avenue which is about to be done. Queens Blvd riders have long wanted more direct to Manhattan service which the R-train running 24/7/365 provides plus additional transfers. I believe that the TA figures it can live with the transit fans and G-train riders who long for the old pattern/route - since they have effectively established the current route as the one that will run 24/7/365. The folks that are not happy will just have to transfer to other trains to get where they are going - its that simple. Improving things for the majority of riders is much easier to do. Mike |
|
|
| (539314) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:04:53 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sun Dec 23 12:58:46 2007. Nicely put. |
|
|
| (539317) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:09:34 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 10:51:35 2007. My offer stands. I guarantee you I win. |
|
|
| (539318) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:28:12 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:09:34 2007. Nope. |
|
|
| (539319) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 13:28:46 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 12:55:29 2007. Sure. Management *could* do it. Gather all of the supervisors into a meeting and tell them what is expected of them, that the employees are valuable assets. Respect and professionalism must come from the top.Let supervisors know that when they bang in an employee, they are admitting that they need help with their jobs too. AND THEY SHOULD GET IT. Every employee concern NEEDS to be addressed THAT DAY! Employees MUST NOT be ragged on for mistakes, but must be re-trained in the area that needs attention. It should be done right away without hassles or repercussions. Every manager and supervisor is EXPECTED forthwith to treat all in their departments with utmost respect, even if that is not returned right away. ROAR |
|
|
| (539322) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:31:43 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 13:28:46 2007. And give this a couple of years, and maybe you'd see some results. |
|
|
| (539323) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:32:07 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:28:12 2007. Yup. I win. |
|
|
| (539328) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:43:53 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sun Dec 23 12:58:46 2007. Do you ride the (G) daily? On weekends (and even sometimes on the weekdays) (G) service is pathetic, sometimes during the rush you can wait 15 minutes for a jam packed train after the previous one left you in your face because it doesn't stop near your exit. If (G) train service has improved I wonder why at least twice a week I have to wait more than 10 minutes for the train during the rush.Extending the (G) to Church to me does not benefit that many people besides Brooklyn Tech-Park Slope/Kensington students and maybe some people who want Methodist Hospital. No Crosstown rider heading to a destination in Manhattan (which is a lot of them) benefits from the connection to the (R) at 4th Avenue. |
|
|
| (539329) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:44:42 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:32:07 2007. I meant no, I don't want your salary. |
|
|
| (539332) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 13:55:52 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sun Dec 23 12:58:46 2007. From a train operation point of view, the G-train requires several switch movements to get the train into and out of the station - which could impact the other running through lines. One may want to argue that during the midnight hours there is indeed enough time to complete the train movements without much impact on the other trains, and most transit fans would agree. However in choosing between a situation where currently there is no interference, and one where there may be interference - guess which one the TA will choose. Bottom line - no G-train to Queens Plaza - whatever, whenever, that battle is over with.While you draw a curious - and a tad condescending - distinction between what "transit fans" want and what is feasible, that's a straw man in this case, isn't it? The relay operation in question has been done in the past, as well as during recent Sundays, hasn't it? I believe that the TA figures it can live with the transit fans and G-train riders who long for the old pattern/route - since they have effectively established the current route as the one that will run 24/7/365. The folks that are not happy will just have to transfer to other trains to get where they are going - its that simple. Improving things for the majority of riders is much easier to do. You 'explain' this all away as if it's a zero-sum game, but you're missing a premise or two. You're creating the false dichotomy that extending the G route to Queens Plaza at certain times - even overnights - will thwart the will of a majority of riders. But that's not only not established by you; it's probably even false that riders - not "transit fans" - would prefer not to have a viable transfer to the G route. I find this stance of yours altogether puzzling when, as I recall, you support the present practice of sending 5 trains to/from the East Side IRT to Brooklyn college and sending 3 trains to/from the West Side IRT to New Lots Av. Because no doubt operations would likely go smoother throughout if as many West Side IRT trains as possible went to Brooklyn College. The folks that are not happy will just have to transfer to other trains to get where they are going - its that simple. No; its not. If it were, then the MTA would just announce the change when it's officially done, and people will goose-step as commanded. Perhaps the proposal will eventually be adopted. Perhaps things will just continue as they presently do. Or perhaps they will end up otherwise. At all events, one hopes that public discussion will, if not prevail on the most sound solution - whatever that is - then at least be a factor. |
|
|
| (539333) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:56:44 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:43:53 2007. "Extending the (G) to Church to me does not benefit that many people besides Brooklyn Tech-Park Slope/Kensington students and maybe some people who want Methodist Hospital."There's a lot more employment in Brooklyn than that. If you are referring to Polytechnic University, that place has gotten bigger and there are more people who need to go there. Plus, if you want to go crosstown toQueens on the G, and you're in Brooklyn, the extending the G is very helpful. Transferring at Court Squyare is a lot better than meandering through Manhattan. Agreed that the G doesn't run often enough. But the MTA is addressing that. "No Crosstown rider heading to a destination in Manhattan (which is a lot of them) benefits from the connection to the (R) at 4th Avenue. " Except all the ones who want to go to the financial district, the school district, city hall, South Street Seaport, the World Trade Center (which is now one office building at 7 WTC but that will change)... yeah, there's no destination in Lower Manhattan that anybody wants... |
|
|
| (539334) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:57:28 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:56:44 2007. I said School District/..I meant Health Department on Worth Street, my bad... |
|
|
| (539335) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:03:12 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 13:55:52 2007. "While you draw a curious - and a tad condescending - distinction between what "transit fans" want"It isn't condescending; it's reality. Foamers like trains. They could care less whether the trains are full of people or boxes of breakfast cereal. They get upset when trains don't use evey possible route. It's their reality and it's wrong to deny it and pretend it's not there. "You're creating the false dichotomy that extending the G route to Queens Plaza at certain times - even overnights - will thwart the will of a majority of riders." It's not a false dichotomy. It reflects allocation of resources. Yes, the TA can run G's along with other services overnight, but it also has to pay crews to do it. It's not cost-effective and not worth the money, and with budget problems looming the TA chooses to spend the money where it will benefit most riders. "If it were, then the MTA would just announce the change when it's officially done, and people will goose-step as commanded" The change will occur because it reflects what most riders want given available operational budget. |
|
|
| (539337) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:05:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:44:42 2007. So you forfeit. OK. Next debate topic... |
|
|
| (539338) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:05:48 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:05:02 2007. Possibly. |
|
|
| (539342) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:09:36 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 13:56:44 2007. The (G) train doesn't even serve Polytechnic University, people from Polytechnic would rather take the B38 if they're heading east or the (F) if they're heading south.Why would a Crosstown rider go all the way down to Park Slope to transfer to the (R) back to Manhattan for? The (A) and (C) go to practically the same destinations in Lower Manhattan and have a accross the platform transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. |
|
|
| (539343) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Dec 23 14:10:05 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:03:12 2007. Unless the E runs local at all times the V does not operate, the cost of running the G to Queens Plaza when the V doesn't operate might be worth it, to give G riders a direct connection to the Queens Boulevard local. In a completely ideal situation, there would be enough capacity to send all 5 lines to Forest Hills and everyone would be happy. But two transfers, including one long one, is a bit much when cutting an existing service. When service is frequent enough as it is during the day, I don't think the Court Square transfer is so bad. But nights are probably another story. |
|
|
| (539346) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:14:08 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:03:12 2007. "It isn't condescending; it's reality. Foamers like trains. They could care less whether the trains are full of people or boxes of breakfast cereal. They get upset when trains don't use evey possible route. It's their reality and it's wrong to deny it and pretend it's not there."The many people using Queens Plaza over Court Square on the weekends when the (G) serves there are not foamers. |
|
|
| (539348) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 14:14:37 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 12:57:22 2007. As to weekends and late nights, given X and Y being the number of trainsets available, I wouldn't oppose leaving it to the ridership whether it's more popular to have an off-peak through-route to Forest Hills with rather less frequency-of-service or to have a shorter route terminating at Court Sq/Queens Plz with rather more frequency-of-service.Personally, I'd vote for the latter option, but were I outvoted, I'd have no problem endorsing the former option. |
|
|
| (539351) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:18:08 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:09:36 2007. OK. I was referring more to destination than train. Good point by you. |
|
|
| (539352) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:19:49 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:14:08 2007. They are not foamers, but they are using foamer type arguments to try to get around the fact that they have been outvoted. |
|
|
| (539353) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:20:42 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:05:48 2007. ... Yes. |
|
|
| (539354) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:21:47 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:20:42 2007. I accept your fallen king on the chessboard and look forward to our rematch. You'll have a fair shot at winning the next one. |
|
|
| (539356) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Dec 23 14:24:13 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Sun Dec 23 08:46:04 2007. No, this was two to 95.Although I did work 333 once, which is an R-32 put-in at Coney Island Yard, one trip, and a layup. |
|
|
| (539357) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Dec 23 14:26:23 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 01:24:28 2007. I've worked the (G) often, and I've only seen the walkway moving once. |
|
|
| (539363) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trains61 on Sun Dec 23 14:38:24 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:03:12 2007. TA chooses to spend the money where it will benefit most riders.Most riders are not going toward Manhattan on the Q.B. Lines at night coming from Eastern Queens. They are coming from the City headed toward Queens or coming from Bklyn headed toward the City. So how is the TA benefiting most riders by cutting service back to Court Sq.? It is a much easier transfer at Queens Plaza with more options(R train) than it is at Court Sq. After all, G train haters arguments have been, "Do what`s best for the majority of riders." So which is it? |
|
|
| (539364) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 14:40:01 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:03:12 2007. It isn't condescending; it's reality. Foamers like trains. They could care less whether the trains are full of people or boxes of breakfast cereal. They get upset when trains don't use evey possible route. It's their reality and it's wrong to deny it and pretend it's not there.Fine. All that said, there are plenty of non-foamer reasons why a given service should be run. The goal of extending the G route at certain hours isn't to fulfill foamer fantasies but to better serve the public. Plus, since the train doesn't go express, your average foamer could care less about it until the NX route is restored in service. Yes, the TA can run G's along with other services overnight, but it also has to pay crews to do it. It's not cost-effective and not worth the money, and with budget problems looming the TA chooses to spend the money where it will benefit most riders. You write that as though I contest the greatest part of it. In fact, I agree that MTA should "spend the money where it will benefit most riders", but I disagree about how that's to be done. Maybe, in the final analysis, it will be cost-effective to reduce frequency-of-service at some times by some margin to terminate G trains at Queens Plaza at some times. Or maybe not. But I do think that this is a factual question that should be investigated before a judgment on the merit of the current proposal is made. Currently, I haven't seen where anyone published their data on this point, especially not in Mr. Michael549's post. The change will occur because it reflects what most riders want given available operational budget. Again, a budget only says how much money is available. Let that sum be X. The question of how X is to be spent should depend on what riders in fact want, given the magnitude of X. So saying that X=X while perfectly valid, doesn't tell us how X is best spent. I frankly don't know whether G riders wouldn't trade some tph at some intervals to pay the cost of extension to Queens Plaza at some (other) intervals. But my point is that either way, the money spent is still X, but it's a question of what that X is spent on. The question isn't about the magnitude of X; it's about the division of X to be spent. |
|
|
| (539365) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 14:40:56 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Dec 23 14:10:05 2007. When service is frequent enough as it is during the day, I don't think the Court Square transfer is so bad. But nights are probably another story.That's precisely my concern. |
|
|
| (539366) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Dec 23 14:42:14 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by checkthedoorlight on Sun Dec 23 12:36:06 2007. That is not consistent with my experience and with signs the MTA put up when this transfer was implemented. |
|
|
| (539367) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:44:31 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trains61 on Sun Dec 23 14:38:24 2007. "Most riders are not going toward Manhattan on the Q.B. Lines at night coming from Eastern Queens."That's what you think. Besides night workers, there's a whole night life in Manhattan and the people in the clubs and shows are not all from Manhattan. "They are coming from the City headed toward Queens or coming from Bklyn headed toward the City" Which means the TA would rather spend money running trains for them than running a non-Manhattan crosstown line they don't use. |
|
|
| (539368) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Dec 23 14:47:35 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by checkthedoorlight on Sun Dec 23 12:36:06 2007. No you don't. |
|
|
| (539369) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:49:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 14:40:01 2007. "Plus, since the train doesn't go express, your average foamer could care less about it until the NX route is restored in service."OK, good point! I won't disagree wit the rest of your post, except that Michael brought up a valid operational argument. However, the TA has not actually implemented the changes yet. So there is still time for you and others to argue the alternatives you want. Doing so is not a waste of time. MTA has made compromises before and needs to hear from you. I encourage you to speak up. And if the foamers want to call MTA and fill up its mailboxes with requests to restore express service to the (you fill in the line) they can and should (and no doubt do!) |
|
|
| (539371) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trains61 on Sun Dec 23 14:55:32 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:44:31 2007. No Ron, That`s what I know, having used the G train for several years during the evenings. How about you? Contrary to common belief folks do use the crosstown line and with the regentrification of neighborhoods along the line, the numbers will only get highier.As Osmois Jones pointed out, it`s not uncommon to wait 20 minutes or more for the G train and when they do come they are packed. All this from a line that nobody uses... |
|
|
| (539373) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 14:59:49 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:49:02 2007. I won't disagree wit the rest of your post, except that Michael brought up a valid operational argument. However, the TA has not actually implemented the changes yet. So there is still time for you and others to argue the alternatives you want. Doing so is not a waste of time. MTA has made compromises before and needs to hear from you. I encourage you to speak up.OK, his operational point was noted, and it is valid. But that hardly disposes of the matter, and, as you say, the jury's still out on this one. We'll stay tuned, and I plan to chime in on this one, so hopefully we'll have many reports to come on this item. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
