G Train Service to Manhattan

[Kamen Rider]

it's not restricted to transit and i never said that. but you have no clue what so ever about what your talking about and shouldn't be telling anyone else how they should do things. the point of what i said was unless you have some experience in the operations of the system you shouldn't be blabbing off like you've been.

I'm not upset, i'm just ticked off that yet another moron with crazy "they should do this" ideas has arrived. I've been on the transit/rail/bus forums for about 4 years now, and every few months, another person like you comes along. you want to know how many times i've heard about sending the R to SI? TO MANY! oh, by the way, you just said the L is "not reliable" meanwhile you want to send it up 10th ave!

and i might also point out the Independent is the least "redundant" of the bunch.

[SystemsConsciousness]

it's not restricted to transit and i never said that. but you have no clue what so ever about what your talking about and shouldn't be telling anyone else how they should do things. the point of what i said was unless you have some experience in the operations of the system you shouldn't be blabbing off like you've been.

I'm not upset, i'm just ticked off that yet another moron with crazy "they should do this" ideas has arrived. I've been on the transit/rail/bus forums for about 4 years now, and every few months, another person like you comes along. you want to know how many times i've heard about sending the R to SI? TO MANY! oh, by the way, you just said the L is "not reliable" meanwhile you want to send it up 10th ave!

Why is the L not reliable? Because it is constantly being worked on during the weekend and because it has a two track terminus, it is not because of its color or letter. These things are solvable. One way is to send it up 10th avenue to connect to a train going to Queens and serve passengers along the way. So it is obvious from your response you don't understand my idea.

Second, of course R to SI is an old idea, but not when thought about in conjunction with the Jerry Nadler's freight tunnel idea. Both are not viable on their own, but together they become at least more viable, although at a time with numerous capital projects, I admit it is harder, but I still think quite worthy. The mistake would be to choose the Jersey City to Brooklyn route for freight tunnel and loose this potential synergy that a multi-level tunnel would offer. Was this an idea that was mentioned a lot? If so, I missed it, so my apologies.

Third, because of your not understanding and your emotional reaction, I wonder about the problems you bring up with switching between the A/C and G lines. What are the difficulties exactly? This I really could use your help in understanding, but not if you are taking a religious position against any changes to the subway system. Logic is always a good thing in these situations.

sC

[pablo]

sC, you've been spreading the crap around throughout these forums, and I'm pretty sure I have you figured out. Unfortunately, there is no rhyme or reason to your silliness throughout these boards. You've been asked politely and publicly to stop wasting people's time, and yet you persist. I smell a ban coming.

Dave Becker

[SystemsConsciousness]

sC, you've been spreading the crap around throughout these forums, and I'm pretty sure I have you figured out. Unfortunately, there is no rhyme or reason to your silliness throughout these boards. You've been asked politely and publicly to stop wasting people's time, and yet you persist. I smell a ban coming.

Dave Becker

Dave,

How am I wasting people's time any more than any activity on this site is a "waste of time"?

Are any new ideas "crap"?

How can you both have me "figured out" and say there is no "rhyme or reason to your silliness""?

To the topic at hand. The idea of extending the G in Manhattan is a very good idea. Aside from the difficulties with traffic at rush hour (a small slice of time when a connection is pretty painless anyway), at other times it makes complete sense and will provide a boon to the city by making real estate along the G line more valuable. I live in Manhattan. I have plenty of friends who have moved to Brooklyn and moving near the C line is far preferable to the G because the train goes directly into Manhattan. This is a fact.

I think the topic at hand is a good one. I would be interested in a substantive conversation about the idea and if there are things that make it infeasible such as the difficulty of installing a switch at H/S, I would like to understand that better, but calling names isn't going to help anyone.

Best to you,

sC

[Kamen Rider]

the problem with putting switches at H/S can't be done becuase the tracks entering the station are on grades.

[SystemsConsciousness]

What about leaving the station?

[Kamen Rider]

when i said entering it means both directions.

[RearOfSignal]

What about leaving the station?

Oh my goodness, where did we get this guy?

Anyway, several points you stated make no sense. You said wait until off-peak periods to allow the G into Manhattan through the (A)&(C) tunnels. Did you ever think about what you said before you posted? Why during periods of less ridership would you make the G go into Manhattan when fewer riders are taking the train anyway? Just because you can? That's like running one train every hour during the morning rush, but two every hour during late nights. Just because you could doesn't mean you should or that its practical.

Improve the signalling? Well then explain how. Do you even know how the signal system works? You can only fit so many trains one right behind the other on the same track no matter the signal system used.

You fail to understand one very important point... There has to be a demand for service in order for it to be useful. Services that aren't useful are wasteful, waste cost money. What happened to the (9)? It did not provide a useful service, since very similar service was provided by the (1).

[SystemsConsciousness]

What about leaving the station?

Oh my goodness, where did we get this guy?

Anyway, several points you stated make no sense. You said wait until off-peak periods to allow the G into Manhattan through the (A)&(C) tunnels. Did you ever think about what you said before you posted? Why during periods of less ridership would you make the G go into Manhattan when fewer riders are taking the train anyway? Just because you can? That's like running one train every hour during the morning rush, but two every hour during late nights. Just because you could doesn't mean you should or that its practical.

Improve the signalling? Well then explain how. Do you even know how the signal system works? You can only fit so many trains one right behind the other on the same track no matter the signal system used.

You fail to understand one very important point... There has to be a demand for service in order for it to be useful. Services that aren't useful are wasteful, waste cost money. What happened to the (9)? It did not provide a useful service, since very similar service was provided by the (1).

Ok, let me try to clarify:

>> Anyway, several points you stated make no sense. You said wait until off-peak periods to allow the G into Manhattan through the (A)&(C) tunnels. Did you ever think about what you said before you posted? Why during periods of less ridership would you make the G go into Manhattan when fewer riders are taking the train anyway? Just because you can? That's like running one train every hour during the morning rush, but two every hour during late nights. Just because you could doesn't mean you should or that its practical.<<

If the E were to merge with the G train (and not making stops south of H/S) then the mileage would be roughly the same, so it would not be additional service. I realize this is a bit complicated with out a visual diagram, but do you get what I mean here? If there were a single seat ride to Manhattan there would be more ridership than there is now in off peak times and because of the truncation of the G where it overlaps with the F and the use of the E which terminated at WTC it wouldn't require additional miles, just a few more cars as the E trains are full length.

Here is another clearer way to say what I mean. At off peak times, the E can extend into Brooklyn and up the G route. These trains would replace G trains that would be running then, so it would be neutral. If you don't the idea of the E doing it because it goes to LIC anyway, then switch the E with the C and have the C go there and the E extend to where the C presently terminates.

>>Improve the signalling? Well then explain how. Do you even know how the signal system works? You can only fit so many trains one right behind the other on the same track no matter the signal system used.<<

As far as signaling goes. There is an ongoing project to improve signaling throughout the subway. This is why the L train is not running on weekends. Once the new signaling is in on that line trains can be spaced closer together. This is all I am saying about the A/C brooklyn tunnel signaling. Make sense?

>>You fail to understand one very important point... There has to be a demand for service in order for it to be useful. Services that aren't useful are wasteful, waste cost money. What happened to the (9)? It did not provide a useful service, since very similar service was provided by the 9<<

I am not sure if you are familiar with the 1/9 train idea, but it was really just a stop skipping idea. I don't think they added any trains or removed them when the 9 was taken away, they just stopped skipping stops, so this is apples and oranges.

Demand is based on usefulness of service. If there was no one living on the G line I would agree with you, but there are plenty of people moving there now. These people--many of them--work in Manhattan, why not take the train into Manhattan then, especially since it will cost very little since the aforementioned connection to the E train which terminates at WTC.

Does this make sense now?

[Kamen Rider]

What about leaving the station?

Oh my goodness, where did we get this guy?

I don't know, but I hope they have a refund policy

Just because you could doesn't mean you should or that its practical.

I very much agree with you there.

[SystemsConsciousness]

Kamen,

And what exactly are you contributing to the discussion here?

Do us all a favor and try to keep things on topic.

sC

[pablo]

OK, to explain my original points:

1. Your ideas are pure foolishness across the board because you are simply coming out with pie in the sky ideas that ignore, at the very least, the cost of doing things. I am waiting to hear the request to build a train to the moon and let New Jersey Transit run it because they are so good. We could like connect to Buffalo on the way through the cutoff...

2. New ideas by themselves are not crap. Ideas that make no sense, serve little practical purpose, and would cost more money than they are worth are indeed crap. I'm actually excited, though, to have someone continue posting garbage in the face of all reason. It's been a while...and fun to sharpen our collective wits.

3a. Re: figured you out: You merely enjoy stirring the pot. A few of us have more elaborate hypotheses, but we'll wait and see how that goes.

3b. RE: "no rhyme or reason to your silliness": I'm just not sure where you're going...with anything you say. It's a fun ride, though.

Keep bringing the crazy.

Dave Becker

[Hebrewman9]

The G is the Brooklyn-Queens crosstown route. That's what it's there for. Extending it to Manhattan would cause further congestion and hurt it's effectiveness as a crosstown.

[Kamen Rider]

Ok, let me try to clarify:

>> Anyway, several points you stated make no sense. You said wait until off-peak periods to allow the G into Manhattan through the (A)&(C) tunnels. Did you ever think about what you said before you posted? Why during periods of less ridership would you make the G go into Manhattan when fewer riders are taking the train anyway? Just because you can? That's like running one train every hour during the morning rush, but two every hour during late nights. Just because you could doesn't mean you should or that its practical.<<

If the E were to merge with the G train (and not making stops south of H/S) then the mileage would be roughly the same, so it would not be additional service. I realize this is a bit complicated with out a visual diagram, but do you get what I mean here? If there were a single seat ride to Manhattan there would be more ridership than there is now in off peak times and because of the truncation of the G where it overlaps with the F and the use of the E which terminated at WTC it wouldn't require additional miles, just a few more cars as the E trains are full length.

Here is another clearer way to say what I mean. At off peak times, the E can extend into Brooklyn and up the G route. These trains would replace G trains that would be running then, so it would be neutral. If you don't the idea of the E doing it because it goes to LIC anyway, then switch the E with the C and have the C go there and the E extend to where the C presently terminates.

The mileage would not be the same. you are also filling the G with extra service it doesn't really need. the E come about every 7 minutes, while the G comes every 10 during the midday hours.

>>Improve the signalling? Well then explain how. Do you even know how the signal system works? You can only fit so many trains one right behind the other on the same track no matter the signal system used.<<

As far as signaling goes. There is an ongoing project to improve signaling throughout the subway. This is why the L train is not running on weekends. Once the new signaling is in on that line trains can be spaced closer together. This is all I am saying about the A/C brooklyn tunnel signaling. Make sense?

The signal system won't be installed there for years. secondly, it will require the new cars in order to work properly. and most importanly, who do you think deserves the most space in the tunnel? a train looping back on itself through brooklyn, or the train to the far off reaches with no other subway service and the train to the airport to boot. there are options for G riders. The E,V and 7 at LIC, useing an unlimited card from Broadway and walking to the Broadway-Brooklyn, the L at metro, the A and C at hoyt and the F on the South Brooklyn IND. meanwhile Joe rockaway has only the A.

>>You fail to understand one very important point... There has to be a demand for service in order for it to be useful. Services that aren't useful are wasteful, waste cost money. What happened to the (9)? It did not provide a useful service, since very similar service was provided by the 9<<

I am not sure if you are familiar with the 1/9 train idea, but it was really just a stop skipping idea. I don't think they added any trains or removed them when the 9 was taken away, they just stopped skipping stops, so this is apples and oranges.

Demand is based on usefulness of service. If there was no one living on the G line I would agree with you, but there are plenty of people moving there now. These people--many of them--work in Manhattan, why not take the train into Manhattan then, especially since it will cost very little since the aforementioned connection to the E train which terminates at WTC.

Does this make sense now?

Even with the aformention singal upgrades, there is no logical way you could get away with shoving that many trains through a two track tunnel. This isn't a simple idea, the IND was desinged to not allow this to happen.

I live in Ridgewood. On the weekends, the M is a shuttle and the L doesn't always go through the tunnel. and even when it does work, i don't have much of a reason to be going to 14th street, so I'm changing trains anyway.

[SystemsConsciousness]

Dave,

I think you have me mistaken.

My ideas may be out there, but they are pretty good. At least I think so.

Next the topic at hand is the G Train service to Manhattan.

This is pretty simple to do--it will require minimal if any additional service and the installation of a single switch at H/S. The benefits: people who live along the G route will be able to do what everyone else in Brooklyn and Queens can do from their local subway station--take a train directly into Manhattan.

It's lack of cost, as I explained earlier, comes from cutting the last three stops of the G and merging it with the E that terminates at WTC.

I appreciate that you appreciate my willingness to "stir the pot," but the ideas I propose I do with the utmost seriousness and this one in particular seems quite feasible given its low capital and operating costs.

sC