|
|
| G Train Hearing at City Hall (597772) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 8 |
|
|
| (597772) | |
G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 00:24:08 2008 There was a public hearing today held by the City Council Transportation Committee about improving G service. There was supposed to be testimony from G riders and the MTA. Did anyone go and was there anything that came out of it?Info here: http://savetheg.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| (597776) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by BenYankee on Wed Apr 9 00:28:31 2008, in response to G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 00:24:08 2008. I posted a recap here, if I may indulge in a little self-promotion. It was your typical council meeting; Liu's committee had an issue they could easily support with no political fallout, and the MTA has the unenviable position of saying that they have no money. |
|
|
| (597799) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 01:22:43 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by BenYankee on Wed Apr 9 00:28:31 2008. The blog entry with the newspaper article was a good recap; thanks alot. Peter Cafiero is a very smart, knowledgeable person; he's an alum from my school and I had the chance to meet him once.I've been following the G Train issue since 2001 and I've wondered what would be a good compromise for G riders. I right now feel the best compromise would be to terminate at Court Square 24/7, add more frequent service, and increase the length of trains to full length (at least weekdays). The problem with the full length trains is that the cars will rack up mileage and increase maintenance and inspection costs. If full length trains cannot be run, then (if possible at certain stations), unused portions of the platform should be roped off to designate boarding areas). The G will be extended to Church Avenue for the duration of the Culver Viaduct work and should permanently terminate at Church Avenue to allow connections at 4th Avenue and service to the high ridership stations of Park Slope. Again the problem with this, is that the cars will again run more miles than if they terminated at Smith-9th. But if rush hour service is increased, the relay capabilities of Church Av (yard) is advantageous to 4th Av (one track to relay). I fully admit, I am a Queens Blvd. local rider, but my reasons for no G service to Forest Hills is as follows: Weekdays, the demand for Queens Blvd. riders is for Manhattan. By replacing G service with V service, it allowed for more trains to go to Manhattan. I used to remember pre-2001, very crowded R Trains going to the city and G trains that would dump their load from local stops at Roosevelt and Queens Plaza. Although the V trains do not carry the volume of riders as an E Train, they are not empty and have quite a few standees coming into Manhattan. Many people from local stations and also express stations take the R and V all the way into Manhattan. A Queens Blvd. Local-6th Av. route is in demand on weekdays. The demand for Queens to Brooklyn service is relatively lower than Queens to Manhattan service and the G riders that come to Queens from Brooklyn mostly transfer to Manhattan bound trains at Court Square. The several people travelling into Queens can tranfer to the V local. People transfer at many places in the subway. As for the weekends, pre-2001 we only had the E, F, and R trains. G trains ended at Court Square. One had to transfer to the E and F, then an R to reach Queens Blvd. local stops. Again there is not enough demand to run the G all the way to Forest Hilss (I acknowlede some shoppers, daytrippers going to Queens Center, Forest Hills and the). The amount of riders going from Queens Blvd. destinations to Brooklyn seem to be in a minority (from my observations). It seems most people who use the G in Queens just use it for intermediate destinations within Queens (a couple more R rains or E local trains can take the load instead). It doesn't seem to justify 28tph (7tph E, 7tph F, 7 tph R, 7tpr G). It is just extra trains racking extra mileage and time to pay for crews. The G didn't run on the blvd. pre-2001 weekends, why now? The problem with ending the G at Court Square weekends creates the problem of two transfers for local service. Thus, I believe the E should run local during the weekends to supplement the R service, instead of the G. Having the E run local will require just one transfer from the G. Yes a couple more crews and trainsets will have to be used for the E local, but less thsn what would be for the extended G. As for 24/7 R service, I really hope that comes through: it's long overdue. This direct Manhattan service will serve Queens Blvd. better than the G late at night. As another compromise for ending at Court Square, the station should be made ADA accessible, and the moving walkways inspected more often(like that will happen). A free walking transfer should be created between Broadway (G) and Lorimer St (J, M). So to summarize: 1) More frequent service throughout the day 2) Longer trains if possible 3) Court Square 24/7 Terminal 4) E local when V does not run (weekends), F still express 5) ADA Court Square/Ely 6)Metrocard Transfer to the J and M 7) Extension to Church Av I guess I'll end my ranting... Kyle |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (597803) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Apr 9 01:44:14 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 01:22:43 2008. I like your post. You've thought about a lot of different factors and I like the way you approached your proposal. |
|
|
| (597820) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 9 03:00:32 2008, in response to G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 00:24:08 2008. Well, I agree that Queens needs better, much better local service. The E going local would infuriate Jamaica residents with the added running time. Throw in real world scenarios like the E getting plugged behind an R at Continental, or waiting for the R to leave Queens Plaza first and then cross over tracks with wheel detectors, and you're adding significant running time to the line. More R trains on the weekend, with some turning at Whitehall to provide shorter headways between Manhattan and Queens is the only solution I see. |
|
|
| (597952) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by jsun21 on Wed Apr 9 09:25:36 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 01:22:43 2008. Well thought out. A few things I'd like to say:1) Transit has made it clear they will not be creating an out-of-system transfer between the G and the J. 2) I agree that the G is not really contributing to the rush hour needs, but I wonder why the trains you were unwilling to add were a concern as I think the E local and 24/7 R are certainly more trains then an extended G. Also considering that R32s are on their way out(still good cars mind you) I'm not sure that the E should be local. 3)AFAIK the cars that were used to make up 6 on the G went to the V so extending trains may only be possible on weekends. In all honesty the G needs longer trains only during school commuting hours(I dare you to find space at Metro Av). 4)As far as your more frequent service I'm not sure we have the cars, but I think we can pick on some odd F trains(the ones that start and end at Kings Highway and maybe two regulars) and send them up the Crosstown, this would add cars in the rush hour. If your worried about stock imbalance you can send them up the Culver express after Ditmas, or stick them behind the G going on the express tracks. People may or may not like it, but it will keep the service running. |
|
|
| (597995) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Wed Apr 9 10:45:34 2008, in response to G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 00:24:08 2008. Is this blog yours too?.....http://f-train-express.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| (598007) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 11:14:33 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by jsun21 on Wed Apr 9 09:25:36 2008. 2) I agree that the G is not really contributing to the rush hour needs, but I wonder why the trains you were unwilling to add were a concern as I think the E local and 24/7 R are certainly more trains then an extended G. Also considering that R32s are on their way out(still good cars mind you) I'm not sure that the E should be local.When I was talking about the E local, I meant weekends, when the V isn't running. The E would allow one to transfer from the G and access all local stops. This would be more convenient than transfering to the E, then to the R to complete the trip to local stops. Also, although the R has handled the local service by itself since 1987, I thought running the E local would boost service and provide local riders with the option of a direct service to 53rd Street (which is provided by the V on weekdays). The Queens Blvd stops especially Steinway and the stops between Roosevelt and Continental have very high ridership weekdays and weekends (and like I said before the R provided full service prior to 2001). R train service levels could remain the same as before or be increased and it could be sufficient. But at the same time, why should 7 TPH (the E) not service these high riderhship local stations. Another argument for E local service is that local service can be increased probabaly at a lower cost than adding extra R trains (there will be an existing 7 TPH E service added, instead of adding several more TPH on the R which would have to travel a significant length of the line to maybe Whitehall Street. With no G, 7TPH is eliminated from the Blvd. This could be replaced by E local service or increased R service. I think any two of the alternatives to the G service will reduce the number of trains and car miles run. If the E runs local--> Possibly 2 extra trains to cover service If the R service is increased--> Depends on the new frequency of service. Some trains can end at Whitehall street. Late nights is a different story. While the G will be cut back and costs saved on car miles, maintenance and crews, the R will essentially replace the G. But with the R running 24/7, the costs of running the G service and 24/7 R service can be debated, as R line maintenance costs, crews, and car miles go up too. Before 2001, only the E and F lines ran along Queens Blvd. at night. The addition of the G was a service increase (albeit not as useful as the local F service that existed previous to 2001). However, there is great benefit and demand for a Queens Blvd./Broadway service at night and would better serve the Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn portions of the route than the current setup. I'm not sure what you mean by lack of trains (R32's), but whatever Phase II's are reefed, there will be Phase I's or any other car class to replace the reefed cars. 3)AFAIK the cars that were used to make up 6 on the G went to the V so extending trains may only be possible on weekends. In all honesty the G needs longer trains only during school commuting hours(I dare you to find space at Metro Av). With all the new R160's coming in, there might be a chance that enough cars could be freed up for 8 car trains. Rumored on the board, eventually the C will get 10 car trains. I'm not sure. But like before, running longer trains increases operating costs. I think 8 car trains should be used weekdays (when they're sorely needed) and 4 cars nights and weekends. 4)As far as your more frequent service I'm not sure we have the cars, but I think we can pick on some odd F trains(the ones that start and end at Kings Highway and maybe two regulars) and send them up the Crosstown, this would add cars in the rush hour. If your worried about stock imbalance you can send them up the Culver express after Ditmas, or stick them behind the G going on the express tracks. People may or may not like it, but it will keep the service running. As said above I'm not sure that there may be enough cars for 8 cars trains, however, for the increased service that the MTA was touting, I'm sure they had a source of where to the get the added trainsets (prob 4 car trains). As the F rereoute the F needs all the trains it can to serve the Brooklyn-manhattan market and Manhattan-Queens Market. The trains that end at Kings Highway are short-turns that reduce the number of trains required if all trains had to go to CI. Also, I don't think CI can handle 15tph in the terminal. Kyle |
|
|
| (598010) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 11:18:45 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by vfrt on Wed Apr 9 10:45:34 2008. No, I don't have blogs. I just referenced he above blog for information.Anyway I don't believe in the F Express service. The situation would end up being having a majority of trains skip the higher ridership stops on the Culver Line. Above Church Avenue is where the ridership is and I don't think it would be wise to have express trains skip these stations with the few people on board from below Church. |
|
|
| (598088) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Apr 9 16:02:24 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 11:14:33 2008. One of the problems with increasing G train length at this time is that due to the Culver viaduct work, the temporary platforms at Smith/9 St will not be able to accomodate long trains so that until the work is completed, only short G trains will be able to stop there. Therefore, until the viaduct work is completed, longer trains on the G will not be possible. |
|
|
| (598220) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 9 19:54:40 2008, in response to G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 00:24:08 2008. Dammit! I wish I knew about this before, I would have loved to went, will there be any more hearings? |
|
|
| (598229) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 9 20:03:50 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 01:22:43 2008. What is wrong with the (G) and (V) both getting 8 cars (or 6 60 feet long cars)? The (G) has more overcrowding issues than the (V) (especially at Nassau Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue). |
|
|
| (598398) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 23:53:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 9 20:03:50 2008. I said the G should get more cars (full legth trains). I was also explaining the factors that go into expanding train lengths (car mileage, costs, etc.). |
|
|
| (598412) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 00:25:40 2008, in response to G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 00:24:08 2008. Just to chime in my opinion, as a daily G rider.The #1 priority for improvement on the G line is BETTER HEADWAYS. It is unacceptable that this line never gets better than 8 minute headways, aside from a couple of shorter headways during the morning rush, which balance back out to 8 minutes after getting held at 21 St for a slot to get into Court Square (more on that in a minute). Outside of rush hours, the line runs at 10 minutes, and is also one of the earliest lines to get into the 15 and 20 minute headways at night. If they run more trains (4 or 5 minute headways during rush hour, and 8 minute headways to replace the 10 minute headways on off-peak hours) then the only issue of running 4 cars is going to be having to run 300 feet down the platform at some stations (i.e. entering at Norman Ave at the Nassau St station), and even THAT becomes less of a run-for-your-life situation if you know that you're not going to have to wait 8-10 minutes for the next one. The G line is the ONLY line in the system where I really feel bummed out by just missing a train, no matter what hour of the day, because the wait for the next one can be an eternity, and odds are, at one of the most dilapidated stations in the system. In order to have better headways, something needs to be done about the terminals. You'd think that with tail tracks, Court Square would be a more efficient terminal. However, this is not the case, due to the stupid layout of it. Rather than just having a regular diamond crossover, there is a center track which has a 10mph speed restriction, which means that every other train must enter Court Square at a restricted speed, and every other train must leave it at a restricted speed. Usage of the center track also holds up trains entering or leaving the station half of the time (the ideal situation is a train arriving on the Queens-bound platform while the other train is leaving from the Brooklyn-bound platform, but when the opposite occurs, you're gonna be spending an extra 2-3 minutes waiting). Now, I'm no expert on track structure or construction, but it can't be THAT expensive in the long-run to improve the flow of this station, by one of three means - 1. upgrade the center track and switches so that trains may use it at a faster speed. 2. install new switches that allow a crossover to the right track directly at the station - most of the IRT Bronx terminals have a layout like this in place. 3. install a diamond crossover north of the station, and run it the same way that 205 St is - with all trains entering and leaving the station on the right track, and relaying north of it. Since the Church Ave terminal change is already set in stone, I'm not going to discuss how to improve Smith-9 St. We already know that Church is going to be more effective, so there shouldn't be any issues at that end. Yes, having shorter trains (and thus oversized platforms and overcrowded cars) is an issue. Yes, not having direct access to Queens Blvd is an issue. Yes, not having very many transfers to other lines (Lorimer J/M, Atlantic-Pacific) is an issue. But the goddamn headways is what kills that line the most. It doesn't matter how many transfers you get if it takes you forever to get to them! We all know that riders want a way to Manhattan, and this is true for me about 90% of the time, and the best way to provide that with us is to get us in and out of the crosstown line as fast as possible. |
|
|
| (598415) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 00:32:11 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 00:25:40 2008. The layout is not stupid at Court Square.The run for your life situation is something that needs to be addressed on both the G and C lines. It's dangerous, and unnecessary. |
|
|
| (598425) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Apr 10 01:13:01 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by randyo on Wed Apr 9 16:02:24 2008. Are full-size F-trains also stopping at these same stations?Mike |
|
|
| (598637) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Thu Apr 10 13:45:18 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Michael549 on Thu Apr 10 01:13:01 2008. F trains will skip Smth-9th in certain directions at diferent stages of the project. |
|
|
| (598687) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 14:53:27 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 9 03:00:32 2008. This would cost the most but...How about extending the R to 179, local all the way. F to 179 same as before, but express east of CTL. All E's to Parsons (ie no need for the 179th E's). SOME G and ALL V to CTL. Every other G terminates N/B at 21st Van Alst and relays, every other makes it onto Queens Blvd. Crazy but it just might work... only thing is the QBlvd G's should be at least 6 cars IMO to be effective... but like i said it would cost the most, but it seems like it'd make everyone happy |
|
|
| (598694) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 15:05:39 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 14:53:27 2008. Too much money to pay all the R crews for the extra running time to 179 and ridership does not justify doing so. The bulk of ridership is between Forest Hills and Manhattan, and Whitehall is ideal for relays on weekends when the W is not running. This would help Queens/Manhattan riders tremendously. |
|
|
| (598700) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:17:29 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 15:05:39 2008. true, money's always the kicker...was that why they discontinued Romeo service to 179? |
|
|
| (598702) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:20:14 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:17:29 2008. whoops...meant to say was the low ridership why they discontinued Romeo service to 179? |
|
|
| (598703) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 10 15:20:27 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 14:53:27 2008. Turing (G) trains at Van Alst is a bad idea. |
|
|
| (598708) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:26:03 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 10 15:20:27 2008. it would only be every other train, and it could relay on the middle track before turning S/B...with the G headways this would be possible to fumigate trains and turn them here. Plus there's still connection to the Larry for the folks along IND Crosstown who want to get into Manhattan and the Brooklyn stops still get the same amount of servicejust my 2c though...the problem with using Court Sq as a terminal is This (2nd big paragraph) |
|
|
| (598717) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 15:40:25 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:20:14 2008. Money. Ridership. Congestion.You're talking about an extra hour cab time per day for R crews if they go to 179. Not enough ridership to justify it. |
|
|
| (598721) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:47:04 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 10 15:40:25 2008. OK. thanks for the explanation |
|
|
| (598734) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 16:04:11 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 15:26:03 2008. Terminating every other train at 21/VA is an awful idea. It would COMPLETELY eliminate the point of running that G to Queens at all. NOBODY rides the G to 21 st. 99% of riders boarding north of Metropolitan are going to either Manhattan or somewhere in Queens outside of Hunters Point. Denying us the chance to even get to Court Square, where transfers to 3 other lines are available, is just plain retarded, and I really hope you're suffering from a case of looking at the structure instead of the riders, rathering than actually thinking its a good plan for anyone. |
|
|
| (598754) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Thu Apr 10 16:33:13 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Wed Apr 9 01:22:43 2008. NO!! Whatever you do the E must not run local.Make the F run local to supplement the R service since the F is local most of the way anyway, but please do not make the E local that is just a BAD idea. |
|
|
| (598784) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 17:23:07 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 16:04:11 2008. Well yes thats looking at the structure...because how could the G improve headways and the MTA run 3 locals on Queens Blvd without delays due to the CTL relays? The problem is besides Van Alst/Court Sq, the next place to short turn trains would be Bedford-Nostrand and that seems like it would do even less good. |
|
|
| (598786) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 17:24:55 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 14:53:27 2008. The R heading to 179st would waste track space since no one east of 71st would use it. |
|
|
| (598820) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Thu Apr 10 18:28:43 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by error46146 on Thu Apr 10 16:33:13 2008. My reasoning for the E to run local (if R service wouldn't be increased) is that it replicates the 53rd Street service that the V provides during the weekdays. The 53rd Street corridor is a larger destination for most riders (Queeens Plaza, 23 St, Lex/53 with the 6 train transfer and 5 Av/53rd Street) than 63rd Street.Also it allows G riders one transfer to reach Qiueens Blvd. local stops instead of two if the E ran express. I admit I am also using the late night service patter (E local, and F express as a template for my proposal). Trains don't run express for the sake of running express. True, the E running express from 71st to Queens Plaza saves 6-8 minutes of running time for outer zone riders. But trains have to serve passengers and if the E has to run local to serve the busy Queens Blvd. local stops, then so be it. Many Queens Blvd. local passengers desire 53rd St, so why can't the train directly stop and take them there? It uses less resources to send the E local or run 1-2 more R runs an hour than to send 7 tph of G trains on top of the E , F, and R already. |
|
|
| (598924) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 20:54:24 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by KLCS on Thu Apr 10 18:28:43 2008. Pure BS. Every week there's a different attempt to stick it to the outer boroughs. Last week it was congestion pricing. This week it's this nonsense. Even on weekends the E is SRO. It's unfair to run the E local just to appease a few people in Rego Park and Elmhurst. |
|
|
| (598936) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 10 21:01:24 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 20:54:24 2008. Even on weekends the E is SRO. It's unfair to run the E local just to appease a few people in Rego Park and Elmhurst.You don't have a clue. Do the ridership counts. Then come back with facts. |
|
|
| (599006) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 22:33:59 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 17:23:07 2008. cutting the # of trains that go to Court Square in half would be WORSENING service, not increasing it. Any rider who wants to get to the E/V/7 would have to skip every other train that comes to their station, and unless headways get decreased to 3 or 4 minutes, that station/transfer would have LESS service, not more! Sure, it would help out riders going to any other station in Brooklyn, but I would say a vast percentage (at LEAST 25%, probably even more) want Court Square, as it's the only transfer that gets you above 14 St.It's also completely idiotic to make 21/VA the new short-turn station, as the ONLY riders going under the Newtown Creek would be those who weren't paying attention to announcements/displays that said this run would not get them anywhere EXCEPT to one of the 5 least used stations in the city, and 21/VA would suddenly become populated....by pissed off riders waiting to transfer to the full length G 4 minutes behind it. Yes, it WOULD make more sense to have Bedford-Nostrand be a short turn station, but even that doesn't make sense as the crosstown line is short enough that better headways can be added without having to add more than 1 or 2 additional crews. |
|
|
| (599009) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 22:38:50 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 20:54:24 2008. Running the E local on weekends actually DOES make sense, as far as trying to help as many people as possible goes. What would make even MORE sense would be to run the V on weekends, and keep the E as it is. Remember that prior to 2001, 53 St had TWO lines run regularly with the E & F on weekends. One of those probably should have been local, but lets not get into what decisions were made in the past.On weekends when there is actual construction on the Queens Blvd line (aka every weekend), cancel the V. |
|
|
| (599011) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Apr 10 22:47:39 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 22:33:59 2008. well what would you propose as a suitable alternative then? |
|
|
| (599056) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 00:03:17 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 20:54:24 2008. A few people eh...Taken from www.gothamgazette.com/reports/CONGESTION_PRICING_REPORT. Since we are debating local stations: Station, 2006 Ridership, System Ranking 67th Av 2,719,842 160 63rd Drive 4,797,795 82 Woodhaven Blvd 7,121,569 44 Grand Av 5,428,004 66 Elmhurst Av 4,198,892 99 65th St 987,693 340 Northern Blvd. 2,137,222 195 46th Street 2,904,102 149 Steinway St 4,355,617 94 36 Street 910,220 349 To be fair, a comparison with express stops: Forest Hills 8,123,956 35 Queens Plaza 2,264,150 188 I didn't count Roosevelt due to the fact that it is a transfer point and the 7 stops there but for turnstyle count info: Jackson Heights Complex 14,759,672 Rank 16 I also didn't count stations east of Forest Hills due to the fact that they are served by the E and F trains (Express) only as it is. Kyle |
|
|
| (599058) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 00:06:30 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 20:54:24 2008. A few people eh...Taken from www.gothamgazette.com/reports/CONGESTION_PRICING_REPORT. Since we are debating local stations: Station, 2006 Ridership, System Ranking 67th Av _________2,719,842_______ 160 63rd Drive_______ 4,797,795 _______82 Woodhaven Blvd___ 7,121,569_______ 44 Grand Av_________ 5,428,004 _______66 Elmhurst Av _____4,198,892 ________99 65th St _________987,693_________ 340 Northern Blvd.___ 2,137,222______ 195 46th Street______ 2,904,102_______ 149 Steinway St______ 4,355,617________ 94 36 Street________ 910,220 __________349 To be fair, a comparison with express stops: Forest Hills ________8,123,956 _____35 Queens Plaza ________2,264,150______ 188 I didn't count Roosevelt due to the fact that it is a transfer point and the 7 stops there but for turnstyle count info: Jackson Heights Complex____ 14,759,672 ____Rank 16 I also didn't count stations east of Forest Hills due to the fact that they are served by the E and F trains (Express) only as it is. Kyle |
|
|
| (599130) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Apr 11 04:47:47 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 10 21:01:24 2008. Attacking another one of your favorite targets I see. Troll rating 2.9. |
|
|
| (599132) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 04:52:23 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Apr 10 20:54:24 2008. I agree that the E and F should run express. And I'm more of a local passenger, although I can walk to Continental. So I would benefit from better local service, and truly feel the pain of Queens customers. |
|
|
| (599134) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 04:57:45 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 00:06:30 2008. Aside from 67th Ave, all local stops between CTL and Woodside rank in the top 100 for ridership.Woodhaven ranking 44 shows we need better service on the local tracks. 63rd and Grand ain't too shabby. Put up the numbers east/north of Continental/Forest Hills. It would probably strengthen the argument for those wanting to turn the E or F local on weekends. |
|
|
| (599147) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 05:19:32 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 00:06:30 2008. System-wide, I wonder:How many local stations rank in the top 50? 75? and how many of these local stations in the top 50 and 75 are on the Queens Corridor? |
|
|
| (599185) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Apr 11 06:44:52 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Apr 11 04:47:47 2008. Attacking another one of your favorite targets I see. Troll rating 2.9. |
|
|
| (599412) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 16:23:31 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 04:57:45 2008. Station, Ridership, Rank75th Av____________1,141,863__________316 Union Tpk__________7,630,925__________38 Briarwood__________1,794,900__________230 Supthin Blvd(F)____1,377,422__________290 Parsons Blvd(F)____1,782,783__________232 169 St_____________2,404,252__________173 179 St_____________6,696,942__________51 Archer Av Branch Jamaica/VW_________1,466,843__________276 *Supthin/Archer_____5,831,016__________59 *Jamaica Center_____11,259,917_________20 * Since I think these are turnstyle counts, they don't count people going to the J/Z or transfering from the J/Z to the E, so the numbers will be different. |
|
|
| (599433) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 16:50:22 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 05:19:32 2008. I got these numbers from http://www.gothamgazette.com/reports/CONGESTION_PRICING_REPORT.pdfThey don't include Manhattan numbers but they include the outer boroughs: But here are local stations (on lines where express trains skip these stops) by borough, where the ranking is below 100 Queens: 7 Line *74 St-Bway/Roosevelt Avenue Complex___14,759,672_____16 90th Street/Elmhurst___________________5,513,425______63 82nd Street____________________________5,481,685______64 103 St-Corona__________________________5,142,820______73 46th Street-Bliss______________________4,499,243______87 *Because 74th Street is a complex, and these are fare counts, it doe snot include transfers or people going to the IND. But from everyone's experience, the 7 train portion is very busy. Queens IND Woodhaven Blvd___________7,121,569____________44 Grand Av_________________5,428,004____________66 63rd Drive_______________4,797,795____________82 Steinway Street__________4,355,617____________94 Elmhurst Av______________4,198,892____________99 Brooklyn: No local stops in top 100 Bronx: Concourse IND *161 St-Yankee___________7,462,504____________39 *Turnstyle counts, so does not include people going to the 4 line or transferees. Kyle |
|
|
| (599450) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 17:26:46 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 22:38:50 2008. I don't think the V should run on weekends. I just believe 4 train lines (each running 7tph) on a Saturday or Sunday is excessive and there isn't enough demand. Running the V would a be a lot of extra car miles (wear and tear), lots of crews to pay, and maintenance and inspection costs.By running a couple more R trains per hour or the E local is just a reallocation of resources to serve the needs better. |
|
|
| (599474) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 18:12:48 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 16:23:31 2008. Notice that the stations that rank in the top 75 are terminals or express stops. Or they share turnstiles with other lines like the J.This is even more evidence that Queens needs better service on the local tracks. Especially between Forest Hills and Woodside. I'll bet if you look at the ratio of passengers compared to trains per hour at a stations like Woodhaven, Grand and Rego, they're the most underserved stations in the city. |
|
|
| (599606) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Fri Apr 11 22:43:18 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 11 04:57:45 2008. At least make the F local. The current weekday service pattern on Queens Blvd favors local riders. They talk about getting suburban commuters to use the subway. Unnecessarily making their trains run local isn't the solution. |
|
|
| (599610) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 11 23:12:49 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by checkthedoorlight on Thu Apr 10 22:38:50 2008. No, running the (E) local on weekends just screws over too many riders, especially those transferring to the Lexington Avenue line or heading to the 8th Avenue line. Just add more (R) service and/or actually run the (G)to Forest Hills and you have your solution, anyways I bet that the politicians wouldn't let that happen. |
|
|
| (599615) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 23:33:00 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 11 23:12:49 2008. How does running the E local screw riders? An extra 4 minutes (from Roosevelt) or 7-8 minutes (from Continental)?By serving local riders, the E would provide service to more people and require less transfers for local riders. |
|
|
| (599616) | |
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view) |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Fri Apr 11 23:35:50 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (Make the statistics clearer to view), posted by Forest Glen on Fri Apr 11 22:43:18 2008. Where does surburban commuters come into this? My proposal for running the E local is during weekends. Besides, I can't think of many park-and-rides on the eastern part of the Queens IND. There are some in LIC and Sunnyside. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 8 |
|
