|
|
| Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 20 |
||
|
| (555245) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 14:37:57 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 14:22:53 2008. I assume it gets "some." Since neither of us has any data, it's silly to decide that it's one per month. |
|
|
| (555246) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 14:45:21 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 14:37:57 2008. Well, okay, we'll leave it as the G gets the least tourists out of any of the lines in the system, as that's just about a given. |
|
|
| (555248) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 14:48:11 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 14:45:21 2008. We can't even do that 100%, without data. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (555250) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 14:49:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Thu Jan 17 13:54:39 2008. Because the new equipment is still in its test period? |
|
|
| (555257) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:06:31 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 09:54:22 2008. There are only a limited amount of funds available. It does way big more good for using that money somewhere else where it will enhance more people's commute than spending it on a part of a line that has relative low use. The money is better spent expanding R sevice to Queens Blvd, or V service, etc.Sending the (G) to Queens Boulevard enhances many peoples commutes so yes, I think that funds going there would be well spent. It's not bullshit reasons, the money is better spent on something that will serve more people. How does cutting it back to Court Square help serve more people? There are plenty of hellish transfers in the system that people have to use. It's Hellish to live along the J or M lines when you want midtown service, and your train goes down Nassau. That's life. Yes, but that does not make shoving one down our throats when one that was available and more popular amongst riders and taking it away any right, or to put it simpler, two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
|
| (555258) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:10:56 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 10:02:09 2008. The transfer at Court Square is easier than the transfer at 53rd/Lex.When you have to go through both of them during the rush, which is what a lot of (G) riders do, it does not seem like that. Other than that, I agree with Chris 38's remarks. G riders are not getting shafted; they are getting service to both Queens and Brooklyn in a way that maximizes the availability of resources to everyone and matches service to demand. They are getting shafted and they aren't maximizing the resources, if they were, then the (G) would stay on Queens Boulevard in the first place. Also, demand is not to Court Square, it's to Manhattan, and I'm pretty sure that if you ask any (G) rider if they would rather change at Queens Plaza over Court Square, they would choose Queens Plaza. I guess the MTA will never get as to why the (G) got a failing grade on the report card. |
|
|
| (555259) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:13:27 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 14:21:06 2008. They do Forest Hills during the off-peak times and I have never seen anyone confused about it, then again the damn train barely goes up there. |
|
|
| (555260) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:18:29 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 09:56:42 2008. Well, I think Queens Boulevard riders would be better served with (G) service over (V) service as (V) service is really just complimentary to the (E) and (F) while (G) service heads towards a whole different ballpark. I guess I'm more about flexibility than others. |
|
|
| (555262) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:21:37 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 09:46:05 2008. If (G) trains got longer cars, then I would definitely forget about the rest of the service cuts. |
|
|
| (555264) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:22:00 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:06:31 2008. "Sending the (G) to Queens Boulevard enhances many peoples commutes so yes, I think that funds going there would be well spent."Spending the money on other lines heps a lot more people and is even better spent. Spending more money to increase G train frequency will help G riders appropriately and MTA will be spending that money. Case closed. |
|
|
| (555265) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:24:06 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:10:56 2008. "they aren't maximizing the resources, if they were, then the (G) would stay on Queens Boulevard in the first place."But it's not physically possible to do during the week and not cost-effective during the weekend, so it's silly to insist on it. "I'm pretty sure that if you ask any (G) rider if they would rather change at Queens Plaza over Court Square, they would choose Queens Plaza." True, except that they are being outvoted 100 to 1 by other Queens Blvd riders. Oh well. |
|
|
| (555266) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:24:51 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 10:28:16 2008. The point is that it doesn't get good ridership relative to other service that could be used with that same equipment and money.Doesn't meant it's not a lot. It would be nice if the R went all the way to Jamaica Center too providing the "more options on either end" you feel every line should have, but that doesn't mean it would be a good use of infastructure, crews, and money. At least the (R) train never went there instead of going there well used, and being taken away. |
|
|
| (555268) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:25:49 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 10:05:54 2008. That's a legitimate complaint, and MTA is fixing that. G service is in fact being expanded by increasing frequency of trains.I'll believe it when I see it, I think the MTA is just trying to say that to sugarcoat the major service cut. |
|
|
| (555271) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:27:34 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:24:51 2008. "At least the (R) train never went there instead of going there well used, and being taken away."Not relevant. |
|
|
| (555272) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:29:12 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:25:49 2008. Write to MTA and let them know. |
|
|
| (555276) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:31:18 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:27:34 2008. Yes, because that's what happening to the (G). |
|
|
| (555277) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:32:16 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:31:18 2008. Again, not relevant. |
|
|
| (555281) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:32:52 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:13:27 2008. You don't pay attention much. |
|
|
| (555283) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:33:33 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:18:29 2008. Queens Blvd riders disagree with you. They have told MTA exactly the opposite. |
|
|
| (555284) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:33:50 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:22:00 2008. Spending the money on other lines heps a lot more people and is even better spent.Surely not towards eliminating the (G). Spending more money to increase G train frequency will help G riders appropriately and MTA will be spending that money. Exactly. |
|
|
| (555289) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:37:51 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Fytton on Thu Jan 17 09:54:42 2008. To give Queens Boulevard local riders the destination that the large majority of them want to go to (Manhattan), even at times when there are G.O.s reducing the capacity of the Queens Blvd line at nights and weekendsWhy would they have to cut service from the (G) to accomplish that if the (R) seemingly does that fine currently? Also, so what if the majority is Manhattan, it still does not mean that not a lot of people don't utilize the (G) from those points. to increase the frequency and reliability of the G line without needing more trains and crews. The (G) train uses a one-man crew mostly when it actually goes to Forest Hills and I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to run the (G) up there on the weekends rather than sending more (R) trains up there. |
|
|
| (555290) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:38:25 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:29:12 2008. Trust me, I did. |
|
|
| (555293) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:39:17 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:33:33 2008. Not all of them. |
|
|
| (555295) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:40:16 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:32:52 2008. No, I just simply never seen a rider confused about it. |
|
|
| (555296) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:41:35 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 15:32:16 2008. Yes, because that's what happening to the (G). |
|
|
| (555311) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 15:57:06 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:24:51 2008. At least the (R) train never went there instead of going there well used, and being taken away.Doesn't matter. And it's not "well used" compared to other things that can be done with the equipment, money, and crews. |
|
|
| (555317) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:03:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:06:31 2008. Sending the (G) to Queens Boulevard enhances many peoples commutes so yes, I think that funds going there would be well spent.More people's commutes commutes will be enhanced as a result, and G service can also have trains added to it lessening headways, perhaps longer trains, and better service on Queens Blvd without it. That's for the better good, and more good than the some (not many) that used the connection. How does cutting it back to Court Square help serve more people? It serves more people through better local service on Queens Blvd to Manhattan which many more people use, and increasing and enhancing G service on the Court Square to Church Ave segment, thus also increasing the majority of the people that use the G train's commute. That is the MAJORITY of users. |
|
|
| (555318) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:03:34 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 15:57:06 2008. And it's not "well used" compared to other things that can be done with the equipment, money, and crews.I don't think it matters as long as everyone gets about the same piece of the pie. |
|
|
| (555322) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:04:30 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:33:50 2008. Surely not towards eliminating the (G).The G is not eliminated. It is cut back on the unpopular part of the route. As a result, service can be enhanced on Queens Blvd to Manhattan where more people use it, and G service can be enhanced on the rest of the line, making shorter wait times, longer trains, etc. |
|
|
| (555327) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:11:07 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:10:56 2008. They are getting shafted and they aren't maximizing the resources, if they were, then the (G) would stay on Queens Boulevard in the first place.No, maximizing resources is discontinuing lower use service to provide better service to more used service, in addition to decreasing headways. Also, demand is not to Court Square, it's to Manhattan, and I'm pretty sure that if you ask any (G) rider if they would rather change at Queens Plaza over Court Square, they would choose Queens Plaza. Of course it's Manhattan, but it's not the MTA's fault that the IND designed the G line not to go to Manhattan. And yes, Queens Plaza is easier than Court Square, but the G can not terminate at Queens Plaza (unfortunately), also by design, so this is the next best thing. It isn't logistical or cost effective to run it to Queens Plaza, so Court Square it is. Increasing Manhattan local service on the Queens Blvd line is a lot more important and serves a lot more people than when the G line runs there in the way. I guess the MTA will never get as to why the (G) got a failing grade on the report card. Again, it's by design, not the MTA's fault. And for the few people that are upset by this, there's 1000 more on Queens Blvd that will give it a high mark. Unfortunately that's the breaks of living along a lesser used line. It's not going to get the resourses or service that a well used line will get. |
|
|
| (555328) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:11:20 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:10:56 2008. They are getting shafted and they aren't maximizing the resources, if they were, then the (G) would stay on Queens Boulevard in the first place.No, maximizing resources is discontinuing lower use service to provide better service to more used service, in addition to decreasing headways. Also, demand is not to Court Square, it's to Manhattan, and I'm pretty sure that if you ask any (G) rider if they would rather change at Queens Plaza over Court Square, they would choose Queens Plaza. Of course it's Manhattan, but it's not the MTA's fault that the IND designed the G line not to go to Manhattan. And yes, Queens Plaza is easier than Court Square, but the G can not terminate at Queens Plaza (unfortunately), also by design, so this is the next best thing. It isn't logistical or cost effective to run it to Queens Plaza, so Court Square it is. Increasing Manhattan local service on the Queens Blvd line is a lot more important and serves a lot more people than when the G line runs there in the way. I guess the MTA will never get as to why the (G) got a failing grade on the report card. Again, it's by design, not the MTA's fault. And for the few people that are upset by this, there's 1000 more on Queens Blvd that will give it a high mark. Unfortunately that's the breaks of living along a lesser used line. It's not going to get the resourses or service that a well used line will get. |
|
|
| (555329) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:13:00 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:03:01 2008. More people's commutes commutes will be enhanced as a resultWith even more screwed. and G service can also have trains added to it lessening headways, perhaps longer trains, and better service on Queens Blvd without it. That's for the better good, and more good than the some (not many) that used the connection. I think that Queens Boulevard would be better with the (G) as it provides a unique service in addition to supplementing the unreliable (R). It serves more people through better local service on Queens Blvd to Manhattan which many more people use, and increasing and enhancing G service on the Court Square to Church Ave segment, thus also increasing the majority of the people that use the G train's commute. That is the MAJORITY of users. Service would not get better with the (V) over the (G) but rather more redundant IMO, if they (Queens Boulevard local riders) cannot walk across the platform at Queens Plaza, Jackson Heights, Forest Hills to get 6th Avenue service, then that's too bad for them. The (G) on the other hand supplements the (R) while also providing service from Queens Boulevard to a line that none of the others serve (Crosstown). To be honest I cannot see that much more commuter attraction to the (G) after its extension to Church Avenue besides the somewhat convenient 4th Avenue-9th Street transfer, I think that the (G) would be better used on the Queens Boulevard line than the Culver Line south of 4th Avenue. |
|
|
| (555330) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:20:08 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:11:07 2008. No, maximizing resources is discontinuing lower use service to provide better service to more used service, in addition to decreasing headways.True, but if other riders are screwed over because of the discontinuations, then I don't think that it really maximizing them. Of course it's Manhattan, but it's not the MTA's fault that the IND designed the G line not to go to Manhattan. And yes, Queens Plaza is easier than Court Square, but the G can not terminate at Queens Plaza (unfortunately), also by design, so this is the next best thing. It isn't logistical or cost effective to run it to Queens Plaza, so Court Square it is. Increasing Manhattan local service on the Queens Blvd line is a lot more important and serves a lot more people than when the G line runs there in the way. I know that it's not the best thing to end it at Queens Plaza, which is why I think it should go all the way to Forest Hills like it has in the past 70 years to give them the extra service and option too. there's 1000 more on Queens Blvd that will give it a high mark. That doesn't mean that the needs of the others should be ignored necessarily though. |
|
|
| (555331) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:22:28 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:13:00 2008. With even more screwed.No not at all. I think that Queens Boulevard would be better with the (G) as it provides a unique service in addition to supplementing the unreliable (R). That's the problem. "I think" or "Unique Service" means nothing. Most people only use the G as a stepping stone to the next express station. More people will be served with increased R service that actually goes where people want to go, Manhattan, instead of having to get off the G at Roosevelt or Queens Plaza, than having the G there. Service would not get better with the (V) over the (G) but rather more redundant IMO I don't believe that the V is going to be replacing the G on weekends. And even if it was, then it would be like during the week. With the introduction of the V, they took away a line that everyone transfered off of, and didn't want, and replaced it with a line that actually goes where people want to go. To be honest I cannot see that much more commuter attraction to the (G) after its extension to Church Avenue besides the somewhat convenient 4th Avenue-9th Street transfer, I think that the (G) would be better used on the Queens Boulevard line than the Culver Line south of 4th Avenue. The Smith and 9th Street station was a RIDICULOUS place for a terminal, and it's a sin that the G was even ever made to terminate there all these years. It's one station short of 4th Ave transfer, and Church makes much more sense as a terminal. (4th Ave can not be a terminal). I was a G rider for MANY years, so I know very well the problems. I can't count the times I walked up from the N train downstairs all the way up to 4th Ave just to see the G train I needed pull out and away as I stood on the 4th Ave platform, while I was stuck having to wait for the F train to take me only one stop to get it. |
|
|
| (555332) | |
Re: M/V combo on weekends |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Thu Jan 17 16:23:00 2008, in response to Re: M/V combo on weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 17 05:36:54 2008. The M is more logical. You don't want that train to end at Myrtle and have the riders transfer to a J and then another train.Besides the weekend M/V could be the experiment for potential 19/7 or 24/7 M/V service. |
|
|
| (555336) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:28:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:20:08 2008. True, but if other riders are screwed over because of the discontinuations, then I don't think that it really maximizing them.Any service change is going to screw over some riders. You are never going to have 100% improvement for everyone, but if it's the vast majority, then it makes sense to change it. I know that it's not the best thing to end it at Queens Plaza, which is why I think it should go all the way to Forest Hills like it has in the past 70 years to give them the extra service and option too. You can't run a service for the sole reason that it was "like that for 70 years". If that was the case, we would still be changing for the Broadway Ferry at the foot of the East River before the Williamsburg Bridge opened, or riding the 3rd ave horsecar tracks in manhattan. That doesn't mean that the needs of the others should be ignored necessarily though. When it's 100 to 1 there's not much you can do. You can't not do service changes because a small minority of people have a problem with it. |
|
|
| (555340) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 16:36:45 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 08:02:57 2008. If you design a transit system based on giving preferential treatment to the few who would benefit from something rather than the majority of people who would not, you're not getting anywhere.You are getting somewhere, the majority gets their service, and the minority gets their service too, everyone is happy. ::sigh:: That's not what I said. Let me restate it. If you design a transit system based on giving preferential treatment to the few who would benefit from something rather than the majority of people who would be disadvantaged, you're not getting anywhere. At least the bus service never existed and isn't being taken away from you for some bulls*** reasons. I'd call the reasons legitimate. And you can always transfer at Court Square -- it really isn't that difficult! The (G) is not the "few" though, it's just the minority, also the Court Square-Ely Avenue transfer is hell, especially during the rush when the staircases are all clogged up. So use the 7, or transfer at Metro/Grand for the L, or even take the G in the other direction and transfer at Hoyt/Schermerhorn for the A or C. There are other options available. Besides, if you're transferring at Court Square/23rd/Ely Avenue, then why would you be taking the G further into Queens anyway? You're arguing for G service between Forest Hills and Court Square, but you say that most people want Manhattan and that they transfer at Court Square. That sounds like there isn't much use for the line after Court Square (or Queens Plaza, if you want to stretch it.) |
|
|
| (555342) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:38:02 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:22:28 2008. No not at all.Well, a whole line will be screwed over by this, that's a lot IMO. That's the problem. "I think" or "Unique Service" means nothing. Most people only use the G as a stepping stone to the next express station. More people will be served with increased R service that actually goes where people want to go, Manhattan, instead of having to get off the G at Roosevelt or Queens Plaza, than having the G there. Unique service to a line means a lot as it provides the line with even more service and flexibility. Sure, perhaps some people use the (G) as a stepping stone for the next express station, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the amount who take it through isn't large and demand is non existent. I don't believe that the V is going to be replacing the G on weekends. And even if it was, then it would be like during the week. With the introduction of the V, they took away a line that everyone transfered off of, and didn't want, and replaced it with a line that actually goes where people want to go. I know, but we're arguing the usefulness of one or the other so I just brought up a scenario (which did happen 7 years ago) to help prove my point. Not everyone didn't want the (G) there (including me), and people still transfer off the (V) at the express stations onto the IINM still overcrowded express trains like in every local-express service scenario. Maybe the (V) line does go where more people want to go, but if it's not being taken advantage of to the fullest (or at least, that's my opinion) and takes away a service to a different place that plenty of people use then I really do not see the true usefulness of the line. The Smith and 9th Street station was a RIDICULOUS place for a terminal, and it's a sin that the G was even ever made to terminate there all these years. It's one station short of 4th Ave transfer, and Church makes much more sense as a terminal. (4th Ave can not be a terminal). I was a G rider for MANY years, so I know very well the problems. I can't count the times I walked up from the N train downstairs all the way up to 4th Ave just to see the G train I needed pull out and away as I stood on the 4th Ave platform, while I was stuck having to wait for the F train to take me only one stop to get it. I'm a (G) rider currently too (which is why I'm arguing for it so much), and I agree that Smith-9th Streets is a ridiculous terminal, it's just that I think that the Forest Hills-Long Island City part of the line benefits more than the this new extension to Church Avenue, although I guess we'll have to wait until when we see the ridership of the new extension. |
|
|
| (555343) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:42:03 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 14:48:11 2008. Show me a line that gets less tourists than the G line. |
|
|
| (555345) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:48:15 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:28:01 2008. Any service change is going to screw over some riders. You are never going to have 100% improvement for everyone, but if it's the vast majority, then it makes sense to change it.The thing is though, the majority already has 3 lines that go to where they want to go, and run pretty frequently when combined with the "minority" line, to me, what more could they want? Not everybody is headed their way. You can't run a service for the sole reason that it was "like that for 70 years". If that was the case, we would still be changing for the Broadway Ferry at the foot of the East River before the Williamsburg Bridge opened, or riding the 3rd ave horsecar tracks in manhattan. It wasn't really an argument itself, just a fact to help the overall argument. When it's 100 to 1 there's not much you can do. You can't not do service changes because a small minority of people have a problem with it. Well, I just think that service should be more dedicated and open minded towards the flexibility of some riders. If riders have something that they like and is well used, I don't think it's fair at all to take it away from them in that point-of-view. Damn I hate that the (G) has no political pull. |
|
|
| (555346) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 16:48:49 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:22:28 2008. (4th Ave can not be a terminal).I've often toyed with the idea of constructing a wooden platform over one of the "express" tracks at 4th Avenue, and using that as a "terminal" platform for the G. Of course, you'd have to build an overpass to one of the F platforms, possibly dismantling part of the platform canopy as well, and it wouldn't be ADA-compliant at all. |
|
|
| (555347) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 16:50:19 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 16:42:03 2008. The Rockaway Park Shuttle? |
|
|
| (555348) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 17:02:13 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 16:36:45 2008. If you design a transit system based on giving preferential treatment to the few who would benefit from something rather than the majority of people who would be disadvantaged, you're not getting anywhere.How are they disadvantaged if they already have and will continue to have their services though? As long as the services continue to run, they shouldn't be any disadvantage besides the across the platform transfers which are not bad compared to the Court Square transfer. I'd call the reasons legitimate. And you can always transfer at Court Square -- it really isn't that difficult! Yes, you can transfer at Court Square, but that still is an inconvenience and really does not solve the problem compared to the situation at Queens Plaza. Besides, if you're transferring at Court Square/23rd/Ely Avenue, then why would you be taking the G further into Queens anyway? You're arguing for G service between Forest Hills and Court Square, but you say that most people want Manhattan and that they transfer at Court Square. That sounds like there isn't much use for the line after Court Square (or Queens Plaza, if you want to stretch it.) Yes, most people do want Manhattan and do transfer at Court Square (by force), but I'm not saying that the Forest Hills trains are empty neither. |
|
|
| (555349) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 17 17:06:21 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:18:29 2008. They are not interested in flexibility, they are interested in MANHATTAN!ROAR |
|
|
| (555351) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 17 17:08:22 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 17 13:20:34 2008. They'll never live it down... |
|
|
| (555352) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 17:09:21 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 17 17:06:21 2008. Not all of them. |
|
|
| (555355) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 17 17:17:08 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 16:50:19 2008. The Rockaway Park Shuttle?Actually, that probably gets more by virtue of stupid tourists going to the wrong platform at Howard Beach, getting on a diamond-A, and having to ride the Shuttle back! |
|
|
| (555357) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 17 17:20:00 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 14:48:11 2008. But we can make educated guesses from such things as the all too familiar fear that some tourists have of getting on the wrong train and ending up in Brooklyn, as if Brooklyn were a long way out of "the City". |
|
|
| (555358) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:20:25 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 17:02:13 2008. but I'm not saying that the Forest Hills trains are empty neither.Yes, they just have mostly Queens Blvd people using the G as a stepping stone to get to the next express station, if the G just happens to come first. The same can be done with V service, or better R service, and at least those trains go and come from where people want to go. |
|
|
| (555360) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Jan 17 17:23:08 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Kriston Lewis on Wed Jan 16 17:38:32 2008. Those GOs were practice runsJust testing to see how politically powerful the "G" riders are - since they did not get much opposition they did what they always wanted to do anyway. Just like they shafted Astoria back in 1967 when they took away the glorious T, QB/QT and dumped the RR on us... |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 20 |
||
