|
|
| Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 20 |
||
|
| (555361) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 17 17:25:12 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).It could if you stuck a platform over one of the express tracks... |
|
|
| (555362) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:27:15 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. Haha, well if you consider that and the Franklin Ave Shuttle, those two win....but if you only consider a "real" line, the G wins hands down. The Rockaway Park Shuttle may even get some beach people in the summer. I am not a tourist, but when I was a teenager, I would often go to Playland station or Seaside to get the beach, or Rockaway Park if we wanted a slice of pizza or something first. I would do this with friends, but if my cousins were visiting we would do it to. So I guess, other people may bring "tourist" friends or relatives to the beach there too. But yes, a tourist line (if you can call the shuttle that) it's not. |
|
|
| (555363) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 17 17:27:37 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. Those three people can change at Ely.ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (555364) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:29:05 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 17 17:20:00 2008. It's a real good educated guess. I don't think anyone can name a line more less likely to get random tourists than the G line. |
|
|
| (555365) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 17:29:05 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. How are they disadvantaged if they already have and will continue to have their services though?Because you can't have G, R and V service operating simultaneously on the Queens Boulevard local tracks. Only two lines can operate at once, and since the R and V are what the majority wants, then that's what operates. Operating the G and R would be inconveniencing those who want to go to Manhattan, which, last time I checked, are the majority. 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. So you won't have any R service to Manhattan. The V offers an extremely viable substitute to Broadway local destinations, as you can simply walk. |
|
|
| (555366) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 17:30:23 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 17 17:27:37 2008. Exactly. |
|
|
| (555367) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Jan 17 17:31:28 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:27:15 2008. I'd venture a guess that the Franklin Shuttle gets *slightly* more tourists than the Rockaway Park Shuttle, given the Franklin's proximity to the Botanic Garden.But I've never seen tourists on it. |
|
|
| (555368) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:31:32 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. 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)No, Instead of just getting one local line to Manhattan, Queens Blvd now has two. while (G) service heads towards a whole different ballpark. Yes, where most people from Queens Blvd don't want to go. I guess I'm more about flexibility than others. What good is flexibiluty when the second train doesn't go where most people want to go. |
|
|
| (555369) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:32:04 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:39:17 2008. The vast majority of them. |
|
|
| (555370) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:32:52 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 15:25:49 2008. "Major" service cut.LOL. |
|
|
| (555371) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:35:24 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:03:34 2008. Lines with more ridership need more pie. |
|
|
| (555373) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:37:07 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 17:09:21 2008. Probably better than 90% of the Queens Blvd people want Manhattan, not the G train. |
|
|
| (555375) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:40:51 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by BMTLines on Thu Jan 17 17:23:08 2008. and dumped the RR on us... [Astoria]Ugh, that was a sentence worse than death! The only line that was more crapped on than the G, M, J, or L in the 60's and 70's, and even until the 80's was the R. It was only after they switched the N and the R to Queens Blvd did the R begin to gain some respect. On the opposite, the M got even less respect when it was thrown off the Brighton in 1987. It wasn't too bad until that point. Of course Astoria gained pretty well when the N and R switched terminals and Astoria got the N. |
|
|
| (555376) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:43:44 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 16:48:49 2008. If done decades ago perhaps, but extending it to Church is probably cheaper and more useful Smith and 9th should never have been used as a terminal to begin with. I have no idea why the IND even did that. It probably was only supposed to be a temporary thing whil the prolonged work to connect the South Brooklyn Subway to the Culver el was dragged out. Unfortunately, that "temporary" terminal became a permanent one. What a ridiculous place to terminate a train. |
|
|
| (555377) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 17:43:58 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 17:29:05 2008. Because you can't have G, R and V service operating simultaneously on the Queens Boulevard local tracks. Only two lines can operate at once, and since the R and V are what the majority wants, then that's what operates. Operating the G and R would be inconveniencing those who want to go to Manhattan, which, last time I checked, are the majority.To be clear, the problem with operating all three services simultaneously on the local tracks appears to the terminal at Forest Hills and the relay operations using only empty trains. To my mind, to figure out a way around this problem that's viable would do a lot of good. Two ideas: 1. Since labor is concerned about physical attack while relaying, use MTA police as part of the relay operation. 2. Build a new local line station, perhaps in the vicinity of or at Jamaica Yard, above-ground, to keep costs low. |
|
|
| (555378) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 17:46:00 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 17:43:58 2008. As an addendum to my post, I would add that if more local service could be added, first preference should be given to the R and V routes. |
|
|
| (555379) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:46:25 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 17:31:28 2008. Perhaps, but they are probably better off taking the IRT there. But that being said, after your statement, I may even think that the Franklin Shuttle could get more tourists than the G! |
|
|
| (555380) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by kknj on Thu Jan 17 17:51:57 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 17 06:22:25 2008. No, the Q is going to go up Second Avenue when that line is complete. |
|
|
| (555382) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:56:36 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 17:43:58 2008. 2. Build a new local line station, perhaps in the vicinity of or at Jamaica Yard, above-ground, to keep costs low.Not worth valuable transit funds for a line as low use as the G line. I can think of 100's of transit projects that would be more important than spending money for a new G train terminal. |
|
|
| (555385) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 18:03:02 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:56:36 2008. Please note the addendum to my post, which clarified to the end that greater terminal capacity should be used for the R and V routes, and I'll now add, perhaps someday for a Queens Blvd-2nd Av local route. |
|
|
| (555392) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 18:11:26 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 18:03:02 2008. Yes, I didn't see that before I posted. I thought you meant that for the G train! I wonder though if they could add more local service by having some long running R's up to 179th St? It would be a lot cheaper adding a few trainsets for that than adding a new terminal. |
|
|
| (555398) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 18:25:22 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 18:11:26 2008. They'd have the same problem at 179th St eventually with the relay, though, no? And then they would give up control over alternating R/V trains going southbound from Forest Hills.They could, however deal with this, with a well-placed set of switches into 179th St, which should eliminate the need for relays. Then again, that's got cost too. |
|
|
| (555401) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:28:54 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 17 17:27:37 2008. 3? If there were only 3 people riding it I wouldn't argue in the first place. Also, the Ely transfer is hell and the Queens Plaza one is way more convenient. |
|
|
| (555402) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:30:08 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:35:24 2008. Not at the risk of other lines. |
|
|
| (555404) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:33:03 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:31:32 2008. No, Instead of just getting one local line to Manhattan, Queens Blvd now has two.One is fine enough as long as the other service that the "minority" uses provides additional service to Manhattan-bound trains. Yes, where most people from Queens Blvd don't want to go. But it's still well used. What good is flexibiluty when the second train doesn't go where most people want to go. Well, it does serve where people want to go, but not as much and it's good because it serves those people. |
|
|
| (555405) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:33:56 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:32:04 2008. Although the "other" service is still well used. |
|
|
| (555406) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:34:59 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:32:52 2008. It is, miles of the routing are being taken away because some people don't feel like walking across the platform. |
|
|
| (555408) | |
Re: M/V combo on weekends |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Jan 17 18:35:28 2008, in response to Re: M/V combo on weekends, posted by jsun21 on Wed Jan 16 23:30:18 2008. Cab time wouldn't exceed 2 hours. The crews would of course have a break at Continental, as with every other line that turns there. It's the trains I'm dealing with now, as far at the time foor round trips.Yes, there are some J's kept at Canarsie, with a few jobs that start there, even. As for spending more money, they are considering extending the M service to Manhattan on weekends anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if there may also be a demand for weekend V service, especially with the whole G cutback issue. If both happens, a combined route would be basically the same length, and cost the same amount to run. Also, the tunnel is kept in operating order (because moves are still done through it), and the Tower should be paying attention regardless. |
|
|
| (555409) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 18:35:58 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:30:08 2008. Yes, at the risk of other lines. If all the transit funds/infastructure/manpower is a pie, OBVIOUSLY busy lines are going to and should get larger shares of the pie. It makes no sense to starve busy lines at the expense of less used lines. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, but some lines have to have much larger pieces. |
|
|
| (555410) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:36:03 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:37:07 2008. Hmm, a good amount seeing the amount of people that use it. |
|
|
| (555411) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 18:36:15 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 16:38:02 2008. The trouble with your argument is that G riders have already acclimated to using the truncated line. They have been riding a shortened G since 2001 and there is no groundswell of demand to lengthen it again. They've adjusted very well and the one real deficiency, the number of trains per hour/length of trains, is being addressed.The number of people dependendent on the G has increased due to the population in the Greenpoint area. However, the number of people riding the Manhattan bound services has increased even more, so the G line's ridership % of Queens riders has dropped since 2001. Lastly, New York is full of hyperbole. Get a paper cut on your finger, and the sky is falling. Let's put things in perspective: Getting royally screwed is when you lose your life savings to a swindler, or when your mom gets mugged and ends up in the ICU, or when your boss fires you and disputes your claim for unemployment and your landlord kicks you out. Having to transfer from the G to another train isn;t getting screwed. It's not even an inconvenience. It's an excuse to get some exercise so you don't add inches to your waist. |
|
|
| (555413) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:37:52 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 17:20:25 2008. 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.But still the (G) is well used between the Queens Boulevard and Crosstown lines. The same can be done with the redundant (V) service and better (R) service, but then you're screwing over (G) riders because some people don't like walking across the platform, which is not fair at all. |
|
|
| (555415) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 18:38:46 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:28:54 2008. " If there were only 3 people riding it I wouldn't argue in the first place."Compared to the number of people going through to Manhattan, the number of people on the G might as well be 3. Even if you fill every train car all the time, it's still tiny compared toManhattan-bound trains. |
|
|
| (555416) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:39:15 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 17:29:05 2008. Because you can't have G, R and V service operating simultaneously on the Queens Boulevard local tracks. Only two lines can operate at once, and since the R and V are what the majority wants, then that's what operates. Operating the G and R would be inconveniencing those who want to go to Manhattan, which, last time I checked, are the majority.I never said operate all 3 of them at once, I said operate the (G) there when it can. If the "majority" doesn't like walking across the platform then too bad for them. |
|
|
| (555417) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 18:42:00 2008, in response to Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 18:36:15 2008. They've adjusted very well and the one real deficiency, the number of trains per hour/length of trains, is being addressed.Source for train length on G consists getting longer? |
|
|
| (555419) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:42:57 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 18:35:58 2008. If you put a major cut service on one line screwing a lot of riders, it's not fair at all most of the time, and does not allow the subway to be as convenient as it could be, which I think it the point of the subway in a way. |
|
|
| (555423) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 18:45:13 2008, in response to Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 17 18:42:00 2008. Actually, I lumped that all together. I should not have. The TA has announced an increase in G train frequency, so that's my source, but I do not know for a fact that the trains will be lengthened.Hey, call your elected officials. |
|
|
| (555428) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:56:23 2008, in response to Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 18:36:15 2008. The trouble with your argument is that G riders have already acclimated to using the truncated line. They have been riding a shortened G since 2001 and there is no groundswell of demand to lengthen it again. They've adjusted very well and the one real deficiency, the number of trains per hour/length of trains, is being addressed.Well, I don't think they have adjusted, if they did, I wouldn't argue in the first place, hear a lot of sighs when people see that it ends at Court Square, or see the Save the G train! site. The two biggest deficiencies IMO are the lack of trains to Queens Plaza for the more convenient transfers (during the peak hours too), and the poor frequency and regularity of the trains for growing ridership. The number of people dependendent on the G has increased due to the population in the Greenpoint area. However, the number of people riding the Manhattan bound services has increased even more, so the G line's ridership % of Queens riders has dropped since 2001. Well, I'm not surprised as most of the times, it only serves 2 of the Queens stations and one of them is one of the least used in the system. Having to transfer from the G to another train isn;t getting screwed. It's not even an inconvenience. It's an excuse to get some exercise so you don't add inches to your waist. To me and plenty of other riders, now having the (G) going to Queens Plaza is getting screwed. Maybe you don't think so, but hey, different strokes for different folks. |
|
|
| (555434) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:08:05 2008, in response to Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:56:23 2008. "hear a lot of sighs when people see that it ends at Court Square, or see the Save the G train! site. "It only takes one person to set up a website. And it only takes one person to sigh many times (OK, 2 people, because at least one other person has to hear the sighing). |
|
|
| (555435) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:09:20 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:33:56 2008. And it's well-used now. No need to change it, other than adding frequency. |
|
|
| (555439) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 19:13:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:09:20 2008. And adding service to where people want it to go, Queens Plaza, along with longer trains. |
|
|
| (555442) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 19:14:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:08:05 2008. Well, at least that's one (or two in the case of a sigh) more people who understand me. |
|
|
| (555443) | |
Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:16:37 2008, in response to Re: G Train % of Queens ridership drops, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 19:14:01 2008. I understand you. I just don't agree. |
|
|
| (555444) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:17:20 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 19:13:01 2008. Nope. It's fine the way it is. Everybody gets to go where they want, if not how they want. |
|
|
| (555449) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 19:25:27 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:17:20 2008. Not really, it would be nice if I could go to Queens Plaza from my origin station for the numerous bus connections there that take my to my commuting destination, it would also be nice if I could run less to catch the train (maybe you're right, it is the MTA trying to get us to lose weight), it would also be nice for the train to run more often during the rush. |
|
|
| (555450) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:28:51 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 19:25:27 2008. "It would be nice" does not count as a need. It's a preference, not a priority, and Manhatan bound traffic is a priority."It would be nice" if I could ride the subway for free. |
|
|
| (555457) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 20:02:59 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 19:28:51 2008. "It would be nice" does not count as a need. It's a preference, not a priority, and Manhatan bound traffic is a priority.Well, in this case, preference is priority and preference to Manhattan so apparently that's priority, although I disagree with that logic as seeing what's happening to the well used (G) service north of Long Island City. "It would be nice" if I could ride the subway for free. Agreed. |
|
|
| (555458) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 20:03:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 18:42:57 2008. No, the point of the subway is to move the most amount of riders in the most efficient way. That means that the lines that have more ridership get more of the pie. |
|
|
| (555462) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 20:10:12 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 17 20:03:01 2008. Well, they're not doing that right now with the (G) :-) |
|
|
| (555464) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Jan 17 20:22:34 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 17 20:10:12 2008. When they add more trains to the schedule they will. :0) |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 20 |
||
