G Train Service to Manhattan

Kamen Rider wrote:the Tracks on which the G trains approch from both ends of Hoyt are on grades, which means they are not level with the tracks of the A and C, which means you can't put a switch in. how hard is that to understand?

Tell the OP that we'll reroute a G over the F from CTL-71st to Smith-9th once a year and presto, he has a G in Manhattan.

I think you may misunderstand what I have been proposing.

Let me ask this: What will it take to remove the grade at H/S to put the TWO switches in?
sc

Why not go down there, take a look and report back to us?

Good idea.

SystemsConsciousness wrote:"Stop giving this guy attention and then he'll shut up"... Hmmm that's a curious statement... How...Ironic of you to say it.

Now to the substance of your issue you have proposed about the A train to New Lots? Isn't New Lots on the 2/5 train? Not very serious at all at thinking creatively.

I really don't understand the vitriol here. Sure some ideas require lots of money and therefore seem impractical, I understand that. But G service to Manhattan is potentially not expensive at all. The criticism of this idea, when it is not ad hominum, is either it is not needed--people can change and when things are working well, there is no need for direct service or it is compared to an expensive sports car that everyone would want, but can not be afforded. Logic can be flummoxing to the best of us, but trying to reconcile this has been difficult to say the least.

The most intelligent discourse has come from the Karmen guy who brought up the issue of the tracks entering and exiting H/S were on different grades making installing a switch on both sides potentially expensive. No one else has elaborated on these issues, so I have no idea to their validity, but I give Karmen the benefit of the doubt because he seems knowledgeable about the tracks. But since he hates the idea, he doesn't want to think about it more.

sC

Intelligent discourse? You're lecturing us on intelligent discourse? Stop writing this crap and ignoring criticism, and then maybe we'll start to take you seriously.

Criticism is great. It helps shape ideas. I am all for criticism.

I was looking at the RPAs website today and their ideas are far more costly than what I am suggesting. So I am not sure what you mean exactly, but I am all for sticking to the substance of the ideas.

sc

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Criticism is great. It helps shape ideas. I am all for criticism.

If you are all for criticism, then you shouldn't have to respond to every post reiterating that your idea can work. Unless you have any new ideas or questions to add to the mix, you don't need to respond to posts. Simple forum ettiquite.

and SC, it's "kamen" it's Japanese, it means "Masked"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamen_Rider_Series

Honestly, this doesn't seem like a good idea to me as it makes the G less useful to some Brooklyn-Queens riders. Two days ago I visited a friend who lives off the Neptune Avenue stop on the F. I live in Queens and catch the E at Forest Hills. The G in its present form provided the fastest route to his house, and avoided the trek through Manhattan to get to south Brooklyn. I took the E to Ely, walked to the G, and then transferred to the F at Smith and 9th. At no time did I wait 10 minutes for any train. 3 or 4 was the average. Now if the G went straight into Manhattan at Hoyt-Schermerhorn that essentially meant backtracking one stop to Jay Street and getting the F there. That probably adds 3 or 4 minutes to the journey. Most G riders transferring to the F are continuing to go south. The present setup makes the most sense. If you're going to do anything, then extending the G to its old terminus at Church Avenue would give more G riders a one seat ride to their destination than sending it into Manhattan. What exactly is so hard about changing trains anyway? I think I spent a big 7 minutes average each way total waiting for connections. This on a journey which totaled one hour, 40 minutes each way including the bus ride to Forest Hills. Would saving 7 minutes on an already long trip with a one seat matter much? I doubt it. This isn't a trip I would do every day anyhow. Taking the G into Manhattan saves a big 2 minutes on average for those G riders who now transfer to the A/C at Hoyt-Schermerhorm, all while probably making the journey for those who are going into south Brooklyn longer. The net result for all G riders I bet is a loss, not a gain.

I love these kinds of threads, however. Easy to look at a map and think of all kinds of ways to offer one seat rides everywhere. Get into the real world of operating trains and most of these ideas cause more problems than benefits. Sure, it would have been more convenient for me if the G still went down Queens Boulevard. Then the transfer from the E would have been less of a walk, or I could have even gotten on the G at Forest Hills for one less transfer (at the expense of perhaps 7 minutes more travel time). Hey, how about this-let's run the G along Queens Boulevard again, only this time let's make it express! And let's extend it all the way to Coney Island via the F. That way I get a fast, one seat ride for the one or twice a year I visit my friend in Brooklyn! Of course, few people except me will benefit, and running the G express will add to the congestion on Queens Boulevard, but hey, it's another one seat ride for perhaps 0.01% of the G riders!

On a more serious note, if the MTA wants to improve service, especially local service, put the field shunting back in. The local trains just take too long to make their runs thanks to the lousy acceleration above 17 mph. I bet this little change alone chops 5 minutes off the G's run. And by getting the trains over the line faster, you can increase frequency of service with the same number of trains (in theory anyway).

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Criticism is great. It helps shape ideas. I am all for criticism.

If you're for criticism, why don't you take the 6 pages worth and actually think about what you've been proposing instead of repeating yourself over and over again. Continuing to pester people with the same idea is not going to convince them. You need to provide objective evidence that it's 1) provides a service that is needed and not just what you want, 2) the cost of implementing it is not going to exceed the benefit, and in this case, 3) will be benficial to a majority of the riders.

I hope it won't be necessary to repeat why you haven't provided evidence for all 3 points. The others in this forum have provided plenty of examples.

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Now to the substance of your issue you have proposed about the A train to New Lots? Isn't New Lots on the 2/5 train? Not very serious at all at thinking creatively.

I really don't understand the vitriol here. Sure some ideas require lots of money and therefore seem impractical, I understand that. But G service to Manhattan is potentially not expensive at all. The criticism of this idea, when it is not ad hominum, is either it is not needed--people can change and when things are working well, there is no need for direct service or it is compared to an expensive sports car that everyone would want, but can not be afforded. Logic can be flummoxing to the best of us, but trying to reconcile this has been difficult to say the least.
sC

I don't understand why you can't tell when somebody is joking, making an idiomatic expression, or making a serious comment. Note that when the person posted about the (A), he added a smiley after it. Shouldn't this be enough of a clue that it's a joke?

Extending the G into Manhattan is a solution in search of a problem. The G as it is now serves a specific purpose: to travel between Brooklyn and Queens.