this would be a nice upgrade but a much better option is to avoid merging the (G) (M) and (R) trains and run both (F) and (M) services on local and running (E) and a new (K) service on express. for a brief summary that doesnt go into how this would work with the rest of the system, this would allow trains to run more consistently and prevent express trains from being slower than local trains at some points. merging is a simple math problem, involving the least common multiple concept, meaning that no matter how good scheduling is, trains are bound to enter a merge at the same time at some point. keeping trains on the same tracks for the majority of their route would be great, and id say that increasing (G) train service and headways would be more important than getting 10 car trains. instead of a 10 car train every ~8 minutes people can see a 5 car train every ~4 minutes, dissipating crowds faster, and leading to a lesser wait and better overall commute. living on the (G) line myself, i do find it annoying that the trains are so short, but the more annoying thing that affects my commute most is the immense loss that comes with just missing a train. due to the nature of the way subway cars are built, the only options right now are 4 cars with a stock switch, 5 cars, 8 cars with a stock switch, or 10 cars. the better option would be to increase service and then increase car length later and consider building a new extension on the (G) above court square, possibly providing extra service in astoria through a new connection with the (N)/(W) lines, extending the (G) in a completely new line, and more, all of which will greatly benefit the line.
I don't get why the MTA does not add more cars to the G, it is not like it requires extra staffing. You still have a driver and a conductor. Yet, they rather leave these extra train cars in their railyard collecting rust...
@@RantRantJoe I understand that. I don’t have a work from home job either. But if they were to do these upgrades on only nights and weekends it would take years to complete. A full shutdown for weeks to a couple months gives them uninterrupted access to the tracks to do the work and it also saves a lot of money to do one long shutdown rather than many weekend shutdowns. The MBTA in Boston did a full 30 day shutdown of its orange line (their second busiest subway line) from August to September in 2022 to carry out urgent repairs. They were able to accomplish FIVE YEARS worth of repairs in 30 days by doing it in one shot. We have to bite the bullet at times. It will pay off.
YES LET THE G COME BACK TO FOREST HILLS!!!! It isn't 22 people. It is hundreds asking for this. Glad 22 people took a voice though. Also she is slightly wrong the (G) now has 5 cars ever since the R68s and R46s were swapped out for the R160s.
this would be a nice upgrade but a much better option is to avoid merging the (G) (M) and (R) trains and run both (F) and (M) services on local and running (E) and a new (K) service on express. for a brief summary that doesnt go into how this would work with the rest of the system, this would allow trains to run more consistently and prevent express trains from being slower than local trains at some points. merging is a simple math problem, involving the least common multiple concept, meaning that no matter how good scheduling is, trains are bound to enter a merge at the same time at some point. keeping trains on the same tracks for the majority of their route would be great, and id say that increasing (G) train service and headways would be more important than getting 10 car trains. instead of a 10 car train every ~8 minutes people can see a 5 car train every ~4 minutes, dissipating crowds faster, and leading to a lesser wait and better overall commute. living on the (G) line myself, i do find it annoying that the trains are so short, but the more annoying thing that affects my commute most is the immense loss that comes with just missing a train. due to the nature of the way subway cars are built, the only options right now are 4 cars with a stock switch, 5 cars, 8 cars with a stock switch, or 10 cars. the better option would be to increase service and then increase car length later and consider building a new extension on the (G) above court square, possibly providing extra service in astoria through a new connection with the (N)/(W) lines, extending the (G) in a completely new line, and more, all of which will greatly benefit the line.
Until the IBX gets done, that would be fairly substantial and cover more ground in just Brooklyn & Queens. This seems like an easy line to upgrade signals compared to the others
In my day short cars were always short on the Weekends when The AA local 8th Avenue was running in Manhattan. It was dangerous for passengers running for these limited subway cars I'm surprised the G Train is doing this unsafe practice.
@@HaroldAlexis-bb8sd It’s because the MTA doesn’t have enough subway cars for full length G trains. The R211T entered service today on the C train. It’s undergoing the 30 day revenue testing period. If it passes, then more trains will be added and hopefully soon they can make the G trains a full ten cars long.
You know… had with ZERO subway service in my neighborhood for 2 whole months and then 8 months of an inconsistent shuttle train, while the M train in Ridgewood and Bushwick was rebuilt between 2017 and 2018. I swear, no one has perspective.
The G train should definitely go from Church Ave back to Forest Hills! And if not 10 cars, then at least 8 cars. If the MTA would repair, renovate and reopen Bergen St lower level for the F train to go express over the Smith & 9th Ave bridge, the F and G lines won't be sharing the same tracks. It would improve the F train's commute time and cut down the wait time for G trains.
The M and R fill all available capacity on the Queens blvd local. Everybody who looks at this already knows it, but politicians need to project caring and involvement. The M needs to go somewhere other than a dead end in lower Manhattan, so Forest Hills it is. Most Queens residents on the M and R want Manhattan, not the G train. Most G riders change at Court Sq for Manhattan anyway. The status quo exists for a reason.
M is not a dead end. Plenty of people use it to get from downtown to 5th Avenue. There's construction on the F right now, so the F is running on that section now, but when it goes back to Roosevelt Island, the M is needed.
@@aserenezephyr It traditionally went to Broad Street and points in Brooklyn with low ridership outside rush hour. I'm not talking about the temporary terminal at 57th (which is not in LOWER Manhattan).
Bruh, they can literally just send the M to 179th street, than there will be enough room to handle both rush hour g trains and R trains at Forest Hills. Hell, they used to have the R train running tl 179th during rush hours back in the 90s
1 . The G train should be extended right back to 71st Street Continental Avenue & Forest Hills. 2. Reroute the G to the F line or E line catching the Shuttle buses at Queens Plaza. 3. The yellow lines have The N, R & W running local except when the N Train switches to become an Express after Times Square & reverse Uptown becoming Local serving 49 th Street. With all these subway modifications these new signals should be compatible with all the subway cars in service also including the Transit Museum cars. These projects have gone on for years to no good results. 1930's ? 😳 I thought those signals were replaced years ago . Lets keep some of the vintage but lets keep these trains & tracks maintained & running.
this would be a nice upgrade but a much better option is to avoid merging the (G) (M) and (R) trains and run both (F) and (M) services on local and running (E) and a new (K) service on express. for a brief summary that doesnt go into how this would work with the rest of the system, this would allow trains to run more consistently and prevent express trains from being slower than local trains at some points. merging is a simple math problem, involving the least common multiple concept, meaning that no matter how good scheduling is, trains are bound to enter a merge at the same time at some point. keeping trains on the same tracks for the majority of their route would be great, and id say that increasing (G) train service and headways would be more important than getting 10 car trains. instead of a 10 car train every ~8 minutes people can see a 5 car train every ~4 minutes, dissipating crowds faster, and leading to a lesser wait and better overall commute. living on the (G) line myself, i do find it annoying that the trains are so short, but the more annoying thing that affects my commute most is the immense loss that comes with just missing a train. due to the nature of the way subway cars are built, the only options right now are 4 cars with a stock switch, 5 cars, 8 cars with a stock switch, or 10 cars. the better option would be to increase service and then increase car length later and consider building a new extension on the (G) above court square, possibly providing extra service in astoria through a new connection with the (N)/(W) lines, extending the (G) in a completely new line, and more, all of which will greatly benefit the line. also, the (N) merging with the (R) and (W) massively delays the broadway line on a regular because merging is just not optimal in high service areas like these. theres full in depth solutions to these types of problems like the above suggestion to run the (F)/(M) on queens boulevard local and the (E) and (K) to run on the express, moving the (R) to astoria, increasing service on the (R) but removing the (W), and rerouting the (N) to run with the (Q) on second ave. ideally more would be done, but thats just the tip of the iceberg
RIGHT HERE THEY NEED TO PUT N.Y.P.D. POLICE TRANSIT 🚇🚇🚇 DISTRICT COPS 👮♀️ 👮♂️ 🚔 INSIDE THE SUBWAY TRAIN 🚇🚇🚇 STATION CAB 🚇 CARS NOT AT THE TURNSTYLES WHERE YOU SCAN & $$$ PAY 2.90 CENTS WITH YOUR OMNY SCANNER CARD PASS.
The G used to be the express F. In Brooklyn you can see a secondary track that goes behind certain stops on the F, north of Stillwell. I agree it should also be extended far past it terminus at court square
@Jmar1024 The F tracks are above ground from Stillwell, there is no "behind". I feel like you're confusing the Culver shuttle, which went to Lower 9th Ave as that's the only "behind"... That still wasn't the G though.
@Jmar1024 Again, no. There is one station on the D that has a "behind the wall" and that's at Bay 50th where there is a connection with the yard. The only "behind the wall" on that part of the network would be the Q line but that was from when the LIRR ran down there years ago.
@meli4157cozy traffic and detour on the road is till better than standing on a platform or street waiting for a train or bus jam packed of angry riders full of frustration, baring the miserable heat, cold, and wet weather. In the end when MTA breaks down everyone ends up calling for a cab..
Absolutely. The G train should definitely go back to Forest Hills! And at least do 6 or 8 cars.
It should , I don’t know why they got rid of the Rush hour service to 71 Av!!
@@xpertt4kexclusiveness_mov669 yea ppl have to walk that long tunnel in Court Square. Moronic
No full 10 cars.
this would be a nice upgrade but a much better option is to avoid merging the (G) (M) and (R) trains and run both (F) and (M) services on local and running (E) and a new (K) service on express. for a brief summary that doesnt go into how this would work with the rest of the system, this would allow trains to run more consistently and prevent express trains from being slower than local trains at some points. merging is a simple math problem, involving the least common multiple concept, meaning that no matter how good scheduling is, trains are bound to enter a merge at the same time at some point. keeping trains on the same tracks for the majority of their route would be great, and id say that increasing (G) train service and headways would be more important than getting 10 car trains. instead of a 10 car train every ~8 minutes people can see a 5 car train every ~4 minutes, dissipating crowds faster, and leading to a lesser wait and better overall commute. living on the (G) line myself, i do find it annoying that the trains are so short, but the more annoying thing that affects my commute most is the immense loss that comes with just missing a train. due to the nature of the way subway cars are built, the only options right now are 4 cars with a stock switch, 5 cars, 8 cars with a stock switch, or 10 cars. the better option would be to increase service and then increase car length later and consider building a new extension on the (G) above court square, possibly providing extra service in astoria through a new connection with the (N)/(W) lines, extending the (G) in a completely new line, and more, all of which will greatly benefit the line.
I don't get why the MTA does not add more cars to the G, it is not like it requires extra staffing. You still have a driver and a conductor. Yet, they rather leave these extra train cars in their railyard collecting rust...
There’s no gain without some pain. A shutdown is the fastest way to complete upgrades.
Not everyone has a work from home job..
@@RantRantJoe I understand that. I don’t have a work from home job either. But if they were to do these upgrades on only nights and weekends it would take years to complete. A full shutdown for weeks to a couple months gives them uninterrupted access to the tracks to do the work and it also saves a lot of money to do one long shutdown rather than many weekend shutdowns. The MBTA in Boston did a full 30 day shutdown of its orange line (their second busiest subway line) from August to September in 2022 to carry out urgent repairs. They were able to accomplish FIVE YEARS worth of repairs in 30 days by doing it in one shot. We have to bite the bullet at times. It will pay off.
Fastest and least expensive
YES LET THE G COME BACK TO FOREST HILLS!!!!
It isn't 22 people. It is hundreds asking for this. Glad 22 people took a voice though.
Also she is slightly wrong the (G) now has 5 cars ever since the R68s and R46s were swapped out for the R160s.
this would be a nice upgrade but a much better option is to avoid merging the (G) (M) and (R) trains and run both (F) and (M) services on local and running (E) and a new (K) service on express. for a brief summary that doesnt go into how this would work with the rest of the system, this would allow trains to run more consistently and prevent express trains from being slower than local trains at some points. merging is a simple math problem, involving the least common multiple concept, meaning that no matter how good scheduling is, trains are bound to enter a merge at the same time at some point. keeping trains on the same tracks for the majority of their route would be great, and id say that increasing (G) train service and headways would be more important than getting 10 car trains. instead of a 10 car train every ~8 minutes people can see a 5 car train every ~4 minutes, dissipating crowds faster, and leading to a lesser wait and better overall commute. living on the (G) line myself, i do find it annoying that the trains are so short, but the more annoying thing that affects my commute most is the immense loss that comes with just missing a train. due to the nature of the way subway cars are built, the only options right now are 4 cars with a stock switch, 5 cars, 8 cars with a stock switch, or 10 cars. the better option would be to increase service and then increase car length later and consider building a new extension on the (G) above court square, possibly providing extra service in astoria through a new connection with the (N)/(W) lines, extending the (G) in a completely new line, and more, all of which will greatly benefit the line.
Bro u dumb, she's asking for 10 car sets
What they left out, is that they’re shutting it down in segments, not from Church Av to Court Sq 24/7
That council woman was adorable
Allow our G train to be an adult lol
Until the IBX gets done, that would be fairly substantial and cover more ground in just Brooklyn & Queens. This seems like an easy line to upgrade signals compared to the others
Be an adult....10 cars....hilarious!
That would be roughly half a thousand people that can’t jump on those four cars everyday.
That was pretty funny.
In my day short cars were always short on the Weekends when The AA local 8th Avenue was running in Manhattan. It was dangerous for passengers running for these limited subway cars I'm surprised the G Train is doing this unsafe practice.
People running the MTA may be causing more harm than good to the Public as an institution.@@HaroldAlexis-bb8sd
@@HaroldAlexis-bb8sd It’s because the MTA doesn’t have enough subway cars for full length G trains. The R211T entered service today on the C train. It’s undergoing the 30 day revenue testing period. If it passes, then more trains will be added and hopefully soon they can make the G trains a full ten cars long.
You know… had with ZERO subway service in my neighborhood for 2 whole months and then 8 months of an inconsistent shuttle train, while the M train in Ridgewood and Bushwick was rebuilt between 2017 and 2018.
I swear, no one has perspective.
The G train should definitely go from Church Ave back to Forest Hills! And if not 10 cars, then at least 8 cars. If the MTA would repair, renovate and reopen Bergen St lower level for the F train to go express over the Smith & 9th Ave bridge, the F and G lines won't be sharing the same tracks. It would improve the F train's commute time and cut down the wait time for G trains.
All they are installing is CBTC boxes and wayside cabinet controllers in little already made closets in the tunnels.
On the Queens Blvd line they also replaced all the signals themselves, and TONS of new wiring needs to be installed.
Oh nahhhh she’s correct! 😂😂 the G should go back to Forest Hills! Never should have been truncated to begin with
Well, for a long time; it used equipment not allowed on the Queens Blvd line…
@@metropodback then Queens Blvd didn't even have CBTC yet
Shuttle bus service has been terrible these past few weeknights on the G with drivers not knowing the route. Or maybe it's just my bad luck.
On the 7 line too with the shuttle buses it’s a headache
The M and R fill all available capacity on the Queens blvd local. Everybody who looks at this already knows it, but politicians need to project caring and involvement. The M needs to go somewhere other than a dead end in lower Manhattan, so Forest Hills it is. Most Queens residents on the M and R want Manhattan, not the G train. Most G riders change at Court Sq for Manhattan anyway. The status quo exists for a reason.
M will most likely go back to going to bay parkway and chambers st
M is not a dead end. Plenty of people use it to get from downtown to 5th Avenue. There's construction on the F right now, so the F is running on that section now, but when it goes back to Roosevelt Island, the M is needed.
@@aserenezephyr It traditionally went to Broad Street and points in Brooklyn with low ridership outside rush hour. I'm not talking about the temporary terminal at 57th (which is not in LOWER Manhattan).
I disagree. The (G) can help QBL since Local trains in QBL are subject to very low frequencies sometimes.
Bruh, they can literally just send the M to 179th street, than there will be enough room to handle both rush hour g trains and R trains at Forest Hills.
Hell, they used to have the R train running tl 179th during rush hours back in the 90s
1 . The G train should be extended right back to 71st Street Continental Avenue & Forest Hills.
2. Reroute the G to the F line or E line catching the Shuttle buses at Queens Plaza.
3. The yellow lines have
The N, R & W running local except when the N Train switches to become an Express after Times Square & reverse Uptown becoming Local serving 49 th Street.
With all these subway modifications these new signals should be compatible with all the subway cars in service also including the Transit Museum cars. These projects have gone on for years to no good results. 1930's ? 😳 I thought those signals were replaced years ago . Lets keep some of the vintage but lets keep these trains & tracks maintained & running.
this would be a nice upgrade but a much better option is to avoid merging the (G) (M) and (R) trains and run both (F) and (M) services on local and running (E) and a new (K) service on express. for a brief summary that doesnt go into how this would work with the rest of the system, this would allow trains to run more consistently and prevent express trains from being slower than local trains at some points. merging is a simple math problem, involving the least common multiple concept, meaning that no matter how good scheduling is, trains are bound to enter a merge at the same time at some point. keeping trains on the same tracks for the majority of their route would be great, and id say that increasing (G) train service and headways would be more important than getting 10 car trains. instead of a 10 car train every ~8 minutes people can see a 5 car train every ~4 minutes, dissipating crowds faster, and leading to a lesser wait and better overall commute. living on the (G) line myself, i do find it annoying that the trains are so short, but the more annoying thing that affects my commute most is the immense loss that comes with just missing a train. due to the nature of the way subway cars are built, the only options right now are 4 cars with a stock switch, 5 cars, 8 cars with a stock switch, or 10 cars. the better option would be to increase service and then increase car length later and consider building a new extension on the (G) above court square, possibly providing extra service in astoria through a new connection with the (N)/(W) lines, extending the (G) in a completely new line, and more, all of which will greatly benefit the line.
also, the (N) merging with the (R) and (W) massively delays the broadway line on a regular because merging is just not optimal in high service areas like these. theres full in depth solutions to these types of problems like the above suggestion to run the (F)/(M) on queens boulevard local and the (E) and (K) to run on the express, moving the (R) to astoria, increasing service on the (R) but removing the (W), and rerouting the (N) to run with the (Q) on second ave. ideally more would be done, but thats just the tip of the iceberg
Bro called the N Q R W the yellow line 💀
@@Elogical9 Well in other subway lines in Chicago that's what they are. Orange, Purple, Blue etc ..
@@HaroldAlexis-bb8sd that's in Chicago 😲☝️
@HaroldAlexis-bb8sd we are calling it the Broadway line like it's supposed too
Heyo Janno, how about sending them G trains back to Forest Hills/71!!!
it’s happening rn :/
Ues, please let the G train grow up. We're fed up with sprinting down the damn platform.
What a bunch of whiny brats. They can’t wait six weeks, while the subway 🚇 is improved.
Hope its quiet. How is the dangerous light pollution?
Shuttle busses are shit 😊
RIGHT HERE THEY NEED TO PUT N.Y.P.D. POLICE TRANSIT 🚇🚇🚇 DISTRICT COPS 👮♀️ 👮♂️ 🚔 INSIDE THE SUBWAY TRAIN 🚇🚇🚇 STATION CAB 🚇 CARS NOT AT THE TURNSTYLES WHERE YOU SCAN & $$$ PAY 2.90 CENTS WITH YOUR OMNY SCANNER CARD PASS.
The G used to be the express F. In Brooklyn you can see a secondary track that goes behind certain stops on the F, north of Stillwell. I agree it should also be extended far past it terminus at court square
The G was never an express F. The G was local while the F could go express. And behind what stops? You got your history and lines wrong.
@@Shinycelebi I haven't taken the F in Brooklyn in awhile but I know it's between Stillwell and Church. Closer to Stillwell
@Jmar1024 The F tracks are above ground from Stillwell, there is no "behind". I feel like you're confusing the Culver shuttle, which went to Lower 9th Ave as that's the only "behind"... That still wasn't the G though.
@@Shinycelebi I may be confusing the F with the D because I know I've seen tracks go behind stations north of Stillwell
@Jmar1024 Again, no. There is one station on the D that has a "behind the wall" and that's at Bay 50th where there is a connection with the yard. The only "behind the wall" on that part of the network would be the Q line but that was from when the LIRR ran down there years ago.
that gay dominican or black makes some good questions
He had a zesty grip on that mic
MTA SERVICE BUSES MTA OK IS OK AND not SHUTDOWN OK
MTA SERVICE BUSES MTA OK
People, time to go to your nearest dealership and get something more dependable...
And pay 600 dollars a month for insurance? No thank you
@meli4157cozy traffic and detour on the road is till better than standing on a platform or street waiting for a train or bus jam packed of angry riders full of frustration, baring the miserable heat, cold, and wet weather. In the end when MTA breaks down everyone ends up calling for a cab..
@@dominic5386 yes. If my insurance is that high, I wouldn't as well.
nobody casually got 30k laying around like that
@@RantRantJoe Keep wishful thinking, but nothing beats trains
RIGHT HERE I BELIEVE THAT ALL LIVES MATTER 110% ALL THE WAYYY.
RIGHT HERE I BELIEVE THAT ALL LIVES MATTER 110% ALL THE WAYYY.