mhig9000 wrote:The G train has the lowest amount of service on the system, every train is only 4 cars, and they come substantially less frequently than any other line I have ridden. If a new tunnel is built, it might make sense to run the G into Manhattan since it would not disturb other services, however with such low ridership that will never happen. Likewise, it would be very difficult to justify adding a new train to already congested tunnels going into Manhattan with such low ridership.
But is there really that much congestion on the A/C tunnel? Perhaps signally could be improved to accommodate more trains. I think there would be a benefit to have the G be a fully functioning train going into Manhattan. Perhaps the reason the service usage is so low is that it doesn't go into Manhattan.
It could be argued that ridership would increase somewhat if it went into Mahattan, but it would be quicker for people living north of the Myrtle-Willoughby stop to get into Manhattan by taking the G to the L, or the G to the 7 if they lived further north (this also depends on where in Manhattan they're going).
In any case, G service to the financial district seems to be like something that will never be in great demand, given that there are two transfers to trains coming in at 14th and 42nd streets (both of which go all the way to 8th avenue)
OK, frist off; it's not a "this is the way it's always been done so it must be right" mind set; it's a "this is the purpose the object was created for, therefor it must do the job it was given".
Also, the cranberry tube is a bottle neck with two tracks full of every A and C train. where the two lines meet (canal going S/B, H/S going north) there arelready delays cuased by the two shareing space. The one must wait until the other clears far enough. and you want to add a third train to this mess?
next; H/S's design puts the G on a grade coming into the station at both ends. it's not level enough with A3 & A4.