Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

  by pablo
 
Perhaps. I must defer to those who use and know the system.

It seems they're saying the same thing here as in other threads you've posted in.

Dave Becker
  by SystemsConsciousness
 
Hebrewman9 wrote: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.
You're right about this, but given the trade off of going into Manhattan or a few stops already served by the F, I would choose Manhattan. Especially since the E terminates at WTC.

Let me clarify this point of the "loop" issue.

This is complicated without a map so bare with me.

The E would extend to the present C destination and the C would extend along the G line to LIC.

To answer the point raised about the schedule difference of 7 vs. 10 minutes. That is 2 trains an hour. Let 2 trains every hour terminate at WTC instead of going up the G line. This would make things even.

As far as service that is not needed. Perhaps there is light usage because the train doesn't go into Manhattan and people are driving instead. Once the proposed changes are made and usage increases, service can increase to match it.

Have I converted anyone yet?

sC
  by Kamen Rider
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote: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
OH for the love of... I told you before, you can't put a switch in at Hoyt. the G tracks at both ends enter the station on grades. and it would be two switchs (my proff you have no clue what your talking about) one going north and one going south. you may think it's a good idea, but some of us have been around the transit block alot more and we kinda know what were talking about.

and what about the people who ride the G to the stops south of Hoyt? say for example, someone who lived on the G wanted to go to that new IKEA in redhook.
why should they be made to go the extra distance for the sake of someone else?

and you will never get us to agree with you becuae you are wrong.
  by mhig9000
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote: 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 signaling on the L line is an isolated case, and was done because the L line has no way to easily expand service other than spacing trains closer using computer based signaling.

This has been a very major change as anyone who has ridden the line with any regularity over the past 10 years has seen, new signals, tons of track work, electronic boards that display when the next train will arrive, and of course replacing the entire rolling stock on the line. This was all done due to overwhelming increases in ridership that absolutely warranted the expenditure.

This is how changes/expansion to the subway system works. There needs to be an existing demand for a service change in order for it to happen, and at the moment there are plenty of other projects that this money could go to (2nd avenue subway sticking out most prominently in my mind). Sending the money to a wish-list G train extension to Manhattan to benefit a line that cannot even fill a full length train would be insulting to those people who suffer due to extremely poor or non-existant service. Especially since the G train riders can simply wait for a train across the platform to take them where this extension would.

In addition, NYCT has made it very obvious that it does not place a priority on weekend service, as can be seen every weekend as they do maintenance, even on the G line, where it has been running in two sections pretty regularly. How would this service benefit G train riders in that situation, if they had to wait for 2 G trains anyway? Even off periods on weekdays are not a priority, the priority is always rush hour so this makes a service meant to benefit off hours extremely unlikely.

I will admit, that in a perfect world, this service would benefit some people. However, unless there were a massive influx of people to the area surrounding the southern end of the G line who worked far south of 14th street this group would be very small in comparison to the ridership of most other lines.

The idea does make sense and if the two lines could be connected easily (which still seems dubious) it would be a fairly logical situation in theory.

However, considering the real world factors of practicality and limited money, in addition to a large amount of potential projects which would benefit more people, it is simply not something that NYCT should bother with anytime in the next 50 years given the current state of the subway system.
  by SystemsConsciousness
 
The L is the first step in implementing computerize signally systemwide. These R143s are running on more lines than the L so they weren't bought for this purpose.

There are short periods of time when the A/C line is packed with trains. During this period, I would agree, don't have the train go into Manhattan. But at other times, why not?

You mention how little the train is used. This is because the train is not that useful--taking it into Manhattan would make it more useful. I agree about the progression for investment.

But what would the investment be really? We're trading mileage at the end of the G line for Manhattan mileage. The E train (can be switched with the C) terminates at WTC. So what is the real cost? Adding one switch at H/S, changing maps, what else? And the benefit? Property values increase and more property taxes for the city. So a small capital expenditure equal a recurring increase in revenue for the city. I wish I had more ideas that would offer this.

sC
  by SystemsConsciousness
 
KR-

Obviously I mean two switches, but do you really need to nitpick to make your argument. As far as going south goes, some trains could still take the old G route, while other people can change to catch the F south. Changing is no be deal, right? After all it is just across the platform. Do you think there are more G riders (where the G is by itself) who want to go to Manhattan or who want to go to the stops on the G already served by the F?

The only problem I have with what you say is that you are so emotionally against my idea that I wonder if this doesn't color your thinking when considering the cost of installing TWO switches. Does anyone else have any knowledge of the conditions at H/S and what it would take to put TWO switches in?
  by mhig9000
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote: But what would the investment be really? We're trading mileage at the end of the G line for Manhattan mileage. The E train (can be switched with the C) terminates at WTC. So what is the real cost? Adding one switch at H/S, changing maps, what else? And the benefit? Property values increase and more property taxes for the city. So a small capital expenditure equal a recurring increase in revenue for the city. I wish I had more ideas that would offer this.
First of all, from what I have read, the reason the signal upgrades were implemented on the L line first, was because that only one line runs on the L tracks. The only other line that has this feature is the 7 line, which I have heard is being looked at to next receive these upgrades, and even the 7 line is more complicated due to the express service east of LIC. Considering almost every other line in the city has express/local tracks and multiple lines sharing the same trackage in Manhattan, it will be a long time before the upgrades are attempted on such complicated trackage.

You also seem to selectively ignore evidence presented to you by others. There are only a very limited number of stops that could possibly benefit at all from this service, in addition only the people who live close to those stops and need to go to far southern Manhattan would benefit. Unless you can come up with some statistics that can show that this is a significant group of people, common sense would seem to indicate that this is a small demographic.

As mentioned before, its as easy to get into lower manhattan from the G as stepping across the platform and waiting for a few minutes. Are you saying that this extremely easy transfer is keeping people from moving to the areas around the G line?
  by SystemsConsciousness
 
Its true. Waiting for 10 minutes for one train and another 10 afterwards discourages people from taking the train. Even it is not true, the possibility is there. This makes real estate along the G line less attractive than other real estate.

If I lived on the G and it went into Manhattan and I wanted to go to--for example--50th and 8 Ave, I would take it directly rather than changing to the L to change again at 14 street. Or today even i would take the train to H/S and then transfer to the A or C. Moreover, people could then transfer at Fulton to go almost anywhere. So it would benefit more than the people who go to southern Manhattan--it would benefit all G riders.

But the key part of the question is not only how many people it serves, but how much it costs. It seems to me the cost is relatively little. I could be wrong, but it would be good to hear some facts relating to this.

thanks,

sC
  by Kamen Rider
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:The L is the first step in implementing computerize signally systemwide. These R143s are running on more lines than the L so they weren't bought for this purpose.
the R143s run on the L only. They had been on the M for weekend shuttles, but that was becuase they are full cabs. The R160s are the "mainline production version".
Last edited by Kamen Rider on Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by Gerry6309
 
Running the A, C and E through the Cranberry St. Tunnel off peak would probably rival the peak hour service with just the A and C. Additionally, the F would experience delays due to the loss of the G south of Hoyt-Shermerhorn. Since the E and C would enter Manhattan Loaded, local users south of 53rd St. would suffer. Any cutback of the C to WTC would overload the A in Brooklyn. Any changes in the ACE would meet strong resistance from the ridership. Also, the E depends on Jamaica alone, while the AC use two yards, 207/Concourse and Pitkin. 4 car (75') G trains would pull back to Jamaica at the end of morning rush while several 10 car (60') E trains would stay in service to serve the G. This would affect equipment cycling and mileage.
  by Hebrewman9
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote: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
Your idea is a good one, but it's not much more than an theoretical possibility. For multiple reasons this just isn't practical. Many, if not most, subway riders have to change to get to their destination. That's the reality of the situation. We get it, you have an idea, but you've made your point. I'm sure this thing will be locked pretty soon.
  by RearOfSignal
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:You mention how little the train is used. This is because the train is not that useful--taking it into Manhattan would make it more useful.
Actually, the G does get good usage. In fact straphangers campaigned to the MTA not to reduce service on the (G), when cuts were proposed. (G) riders did not complain about not having direct service into Manhattan, rather they complained about the MTA proposing changes to where they could transfer to other services.

Do some research.
SystemsConsciousness wrote:As far as service that is not needed. Perhaps there is light usage because the train doesn't go into Manhattan and people are driving instead. Once the proposed changes are made and usage increases, service can increase to match it.
No it would not increase service. Either people take the subway or they don't. Adding service to Manhattan despite the physical restraints mentioned earlier would not increase ridership. Especially since they can transfer so easily to so many other services on the (G) the way it is now.
  by SystemsConsciousness
 
Neither one of us will convince the other on this, so I propose we agree to disagree.
  by RearOfSignal
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:Neither one of us will convince the other on this, so I propose we agree to disagree.
Well, at least I got to increase my post count. :-)
  by mhig9000
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:Its true. Waiting for 10 minutes for one train and another 10 afterwards discourages people from taking the train. Even it is not true, the possibility is there. This makes real estate along the G line less attractive than other real estate.

If I lived on the G and it went into Manhattan and I wanted to go to--for example--50th and 8 Ave, I would take it directly rather than changing to the L to change again at 14 street. Or today even i would take the train to H/S and then transfer to the A or C. Moreover, people could then transfer at Fulton to go almost anywhere. So it would benefit more than the people who go to southern Manhattan--it would benefit all G riders.
These two statements are just false:

The first cannot possibly be true unless there is a service interruption on the A/C line, because during weekday rush hours, A or C trains come at least every 3 minutes, so it would be impossible to wait longer than 3 minutes for the transfer (it is possible to wait up to 10 minutes for a G train as we all know). If you were talking about off peak hours, then you would be describing basically any transfer in the city. On weekends the 1 train comes every 10 minutes if you're lucky, and you can easily wait for a 2 or 3 train another 10 minutes, all without leaving Manhattan. The fact is rush hour is the key factor in determining train service for the vast majority of riders, and your plan does not greatly impact it.

And as far as your 50th and 8th ave example, if you lived at Myrtle-Willoughby or north, it would almost always be faster to take the G to 23rd/Ely, then transfer to the E and go 4 stops to 50th and 8th ave (a maximum of 11 stops and one transfer), instead of going south and then through Manhattan and back north if the G ran on the C into Manhattan (a minimum of 17 stops by my count). I think this example adequately explains how the plan only benefits a very small portion of G train stations.