Extending the G is not about "options" or "one seat rides," it is a conversation on whether the MTA should forever hardwire the G/M/R train frequencies. The G/M/R trains are some of the most complained about services in the systems, and the MTA is trying to increase service on all three of them. So in the event fumigation is reformed, or Queenslink is built, wouldn't you want to add more service to the R train? I am pretty sure Bay Ridge would like the R to run every 4-5 minutes. Same deal with the M, if Myrtle Junction gets grade separated, where would the extra M trains go? To QBL. Finally, extending the G to Forest Hills would also cut into G train frequencies. Remember, you are sharing tracks with the M and R trains, two services that need to be boosted. I am open to a conversation to send the G somewhere else. Astoria would be my first pick. But sending the G to Forest Hills invites some huge consequences to the future of the G/M/R trains.
I agree. Let's first see Queenslink get built and the Myrtle Junction get restructured. As for the G Train itself, instead of a route extension, I'd rather extend it to 8 cars. With all the pre-1973 cars retired and the post-1973 ones permanently in groups of 4 or 5, we're never again having exactly 6 car trains in the B division.
The M and the R running down Queens Boulevard is absolute torture. They get backed up and can’t turn back fast enough sometimes you’ll have 4 trains a station away. You watch like 5 express trains pass you and you still haven’t moved one station. I just need to get off at 67th Ave to visit my aunt !!! I think it actually runs smother in the weekend when the M is not running in Queens. Going forest hills bound on queens Blvd I think the Q60 bus might be faster
Getting from Brooklyn to Astoria is annoying having to transfer at Court Sq just to transfer again one station later. Also if the Astoria Line gets extended to the airport, taking the G to a combined Queens Plaza Queensboro Plaza station would give Brooklyn riders a better way. The G actually going to Astoria would be ideal, but that's trying to build new tunnels and stations.
I've always been curious about the viability of a G train extension project along 21st Street in Queens but then also going further north into the Bronx and terminating at 161st St - Yankees Stadium myself. In all the maps I ever tried doing, it was always one of my favorite "this is silly but I think there's something there" concepts as it would give the G more utility/attractiveness being a true link between boroughs and secondary cores. Another much older idea saw it turn east to be the Harlem 125th Street crosstown line but I've only relented on that concept because by design the G is built to avoid the city core and such a maneuver might make for weird inconsistency with its initial design.
Remember guys: East of Roosevelt Avenue, people favor the express. It won’t make any difference if you have the G train on QBL. More connections, yes, but if you want to put another train on the line, it has to make a difference. There’s a reason 53rd Street loads are inbalanced.
In terms of improvements to the G train, if you ask me the highest priority is adding a transfer to the J/M at Broadway. The map at 4:33 shows why. It looks like a lot of G train commuters work in Midtown on or near Sixth Avenue, which would be the M train. And a transfer at Broadway would provide another connection to the M (and perhaps a better connection with the M than at Queens Plaza, if the MTA ever consolidated the Lorimer and Hewes stations on the J/M into a single Union Avenue stop). Extending it to Forest Hills is not a priority, in contrast, for the reasons you mentioned. Though Grand Av-Newtown, Woodhaven Blvd, and 63rd Drive on the Queens Blvd Line can get pretty busy on weekends leading up to Christmas because there are big malls near all three stations. So the MTA may want to consider enhanced weekend subway service on the Queens Blvd Local during December weekends leading to Christmas (whether it be more R service, having the M come to Forest Hills, or extending the G), much like it has enhanced service to the Rockaways on summer weekends.
I'll add that it also creates another option for people who work in lower Manhattan: people in Williamsburg and further north can take the J instead of packing into the A or C.
The argument that people don’t go to X or Y doesn’t really make sense to me. I think one of the main reasons why a lot of people don’t travel between Brooklyn and queens or The Bronx is BECAUSE there aren’t a lot of options available. Look at the Q58 bus; It’s always packed. And the Q53 SBS (I think this is only in Queens but it’s a similar route, mostly north/south). If we had more options for people, eventually those options will gradually get used more as more and more people are aware of the option. Plus, it promotes using public transportation instead of private vehicles, and also promotes people traveling interboro instead of just Manhattan. In conclusion, we should give people more options for public transportation routes, regardless if people are taking those routes *now*. As long as you’re connecting popular destinations and neighborhoods, people will eventually use it.
Except if you look at employment data in 2002, not even a year after the G was booted off of QBL, both Crosstown and QBL traffic is Manhattan centric. People don't take the G to get to Brooklyn from QBL, rather they take it to get to the nearest express station. The IND wanted local traffic to feed into the heavy industries in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Except, that never happened, which was why the MTA spent decades to fix the IND's mistake. So the "induced demand" argument for the G doesn't work, that was what the IND, NYCTA, and MTA had been banking on for 50+ years. Also, the G to Forest Hills isn't necessarily giving more "options" to QBL residents that don't want the G, the discussion is whether it is worth it to forever hardwire the garbage M and R train frequencies. Forest Hills can only turn around so many trains, which is a reason why the M/R is trash. So if Forest Hills can turn more trains, why won't you try to boost M/R train service? That is a problem with this bogus "one seat ride" argument, where by making trains share tracks with others, in the event where one service needs more capacity, you can't do it.
@@jointransitassociation agreed the people in QBL want to go to the City Center so boosting service on the M and R would be needed but like you said they have bad frequencies because of how bad Forest Hills is as a terminal causing backups in most instances. I think the better alternative to this Forest Hills terminal problem is extending both the M and R to 179 St since that has a turnaround capacity of 63tph which is slightly more than triple than what Forest Hills can handle. In reality we are only running about 8tph on each the M and R but if extended to 179 St then we can boost their frequencies to about 10-12tph each making 20-24tph combined on the M and R it’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction into improving the M and R lines. For the boosted M and R service to happen the F and M swap needs to come first. So therefore the G is better off ending at Court Square
@@jointransitassociation Yeah like hope isn't lost for your jobs like the G is close to manhattan, all you manchilds need to do is wake your ass up and critize it for a reason not a pathetic one. The same ones who weren't cryijg over the IBX man hate them sort of people. Because of that everything is Manhattan Centric Bound plus you got more manhattan services. 7, N and W: Why do you think we exist.
@@jointransitassociationthe g train used to go to forest hills during late nights and weekends at court Street at the g platform you notice the tunnel keeps on going I think it can connect to the main tunnels if not how last time g trains run and I can personally disagree g trains can be extended to forest hills during weekends plus late nights because the m trains does not run during weekends and late nights so it will be good to improve the local lines frequency
In my opinion, the G train should go to Forest Hills for these reasons: 1. G trains have 100% R160s and can now use the CBTC Queens Blvd line on the weekends 2. It makes no sense to get off at Court Sq and wait for a E train to take it one stop to Queens Plaza for the local service from the R. It is practical to extend the G for the one ride to Queens Blvd Lcl 3. Ridership has boomed on the G train since 2010 4. Many people shop at Queens Center Mall from Brooklyn, and the G train going directly to 71 Av, stops the unnecessary transfers at Court Sq.
Funny how we could fix all the existing US metro systems with one year of funding, High Speed Rail would be the money pit. And of course several cities need to build mass transit from starch.
@@stevenroshni1228 High speed rail will be NOWHERE the "money pit" the interstate stuperhighways have been since the first cupful of concrete was placed for their initial construction.... Besides, the airlines' "no-fly" list grows longer by the second; how else would such people be moved between coasts?!
@TheLiamster Instead of the military budget, why not reduce the presently extremely high level of governmental oversubsidization that both highway and air travel receive from all governmental levels?!
One thing I think everybody can agree on is that the G train is the PATH of the NYC subway. By which I mean that the way most people don’t use PATH trains to go straight to their destination but to get to another rail line, most people use the G train merely to connect to another subway line.
Years ago the G train ran to 71st/Continental Ave. I used to take either the G or the R going to school where I would get off at Woodhaven Blvd-Slattery Plaza.
If it weren't for the 63rd St connector, G trains would still be running to Forest Hills. That's why after 2001, the V was introduced and having 3 services on one track was a no go so they decided to run G trains to Forest hills on weekends when the V wasn't running and rush hours. It's a shame they don't send G trains to 71st av on weekends cuz the R isn't really reliable.
@@activecity4051 agree and if the MTA had did a better job with that connector and a execution of the two track super express, it would have been successful by adding four routes connecting Manhattan and Queens while keeping the G past Court Square
Run the F through 53rd St and the M through 63rd. That way there's no switching to/from the express track. The inbound R train switch at QP is always available and doesn't have the M interfering with a move to the express at QP, and the only switch you need to worry about is at 36th St.
I was reluctant about sending the G to Forest Hills however Last year, I remember you at the Queenslink rally briefly mentioning that Queenslink would allow the G train to return to Forest Hills and as a Queens resident it would allow you to have more connections. I have never believed that G to Forest Hills was a good idea for the same reasons you do, however, I was trying to figure out if there was a way transfers could be improved in Long Island city. But any project to do so would not be priority.
Yeah, it was an extension that was hyped up way too much. As a G train rider, that is was something I supported. Except when I did research on this, it turns out that almost every piece of evidence was against this extension.
@@jointransitassociationG train riders are now in obsercuity because of workers being assholes because we want manhattan service face like now it's overrated in my book and the G is overhated. Like I won't be suprised if the IBX is dead because of this to help with the majority of Manhattan riders.
How about THIS question: "What can the United States do with all the governmental oversubsidization from all levels presently thrown at stuperhighways and air travel, if it were used for rail-based passenger transportation?!"....
Another idea: concerning the (WASTEFULLY) unused center tracks of the Sea Beach line, a very serious reconstruction must be planned for at New Utrecht avenue station, where the West End line crosses overhead. The reconstruction of this station from local to express would fully justify reactivating these center tracks!
Service on the N route is not high enough for express service between 59th and Coney Island without cutting service at local stations. The trackage further up is already jammed.
@@TheRailLeagueryou still can't use it even if the service is high as Kings Hwy is the only station that has interlockings on both sides, it's difficult to how the service can be utilize
The real solution to the G train problems is reducing transfer penalty by running very frequent (2 minute?) service with smaller train sets (3 car?). Don’t extend it (beyond Astoria or queens plaza), make it a trial for a more frequent, OPTO subway
After seeing this video, all nostalgia and hope for G trains to return back to Forrest Hills have diminished. I think there are better chances the dead will return back to life than the G going through Queens Blvd and back to FH
It would take a lotta reroutes for the G to return to Forest Hills. It would take the R/W to run from Astoria to Brighton Beach and Coney Island. The B/D/N/Q has to run down 4th Ave. the D runs to Coney via Sea Beach. The B or Q would have to run via West End while one of them runs to 95 St with the N train but on newly constructed express tracks south of 59 St, most likely Q trains would occupy those express tracks since express tracks directly run on the Sea Beach tracks. The N would run completely local on 4 Ave to 95 St but its opposite terminal would be Jamaica-Parsons/Archer. The E train would terminate at Forest Hills with the M Train or terminates at 179 St on local tracks while F trains run express to that station. F/N would run express from 63 St. If the Queens Bypass line were to be completed, the F/N would run local after Forest Hills-71 Ave; the E would run express, and the G/M would run local between Queens Plaza and Rego Park. G runs to Forest Hills while the M runs to the Rockaways.
my familiarity is almost totally on the R & Q, so I am always gravitating towards those lines, as being prominent, however, I can see the G alone serves an area which is not linked by any other of the major lines... one can say, it sort of the peripheral line riding through the hinterland of the city, and those kind of suburban connectors have a place, but, it seems to be linking two parts of town which, whilst they have a lot of transit, are in no way central or important in the scheme of NYC... is it right (in terms of the needs of passenger flow) to have a part of the system not serving Manhattan in any way?
Relieving the post-pandemic overcrowding on the G seems like a more pressing need than connecting Queens and western Brooklyn in this way. So I also agree that the G probably should not be extended back to Forest Hills. MTA should *boost frequencies on the current, mostly-deinterlined G* instead. They do have room to do this. According to schedules, the G (8 TPH) runs less frequently than the F (12 TPH) at peak, despite interlining. That probably doesn't mean that much today because the F reportedly experiences abominable bunching. But *matching G train frequencies to F train frequencies would boost capacity by about 50%* , even while keeping 5-car trains. This is is something that can be done *today* , because the infrastructure and rolling stock are already there. A Franklin Ave branch would make frequencies even better, to the point that re-extension to Forest Hills is impossible. I'm still a fan of having hyper-frequent service on both Culver local and express to fully deinterline the G, but that'll only work well with other large builds (yeah, I know lol), including: 1) Extending the M from Myrtle Ave-Broadway to the lower level of City Hall, making it a Broadway local service instead of 6th Ave and replacing the W. But this depends on improvements on the Astoria line anyway; otherwise riders would be stuck with 6 TPH instead of 8 or better. Combining this with an extension beyond Metropolitan Ave would help connect NE Queens with downtown Brooklyn - arguably in ways better than extending the G to Forest Hills can, by not taking valuable QBL capacity, and by paralleling the Q58, the #2 ridership bus citywide in 2022. 2) Sending your proposed V train east via Linden Blvd, as the Culver line south of Church Ave doesn't have high demand, and Coney Island is a low-capacity terminal. (Meanwhile, the B35 and B15 are hella busy.) 3) Whichever train terminates at WTC as part of CPW and Queens Blvd deinterlining could be extended down to the Franklin Ave shuttle instead and then also run along Linden Blvd, maybe running express and finally fulfilling that SE Queens-South Brooklyn demand.
Unless every train terminates at 179th I say no. 179th should be the terminal for F,M,R and can even include the G. Keep the F express until the last stop
Where have you heard the rule that 4-track trunks are limited to only 15 tph on the weekends? Because 7 Av runs 24 tph on the weekends (when there's no construction): 10 tph 1, 7-8 tph 2, 6-7 tph 3. That's quite a bit more than 15. And 2-track lines like the L run 15 tph on their own on the weekends.
The rule is 15 tph across any trunk line (2 track or 4 track). This means the 7 and L would run every 4 minutes. I should have made that clear. According to Uday Schultz, scheduled service and actual service are two different things. For example, the MTA "schedules" 10 tph for the M, in reality, it is never more than 9. The MTA "schedules" 18 tph on Astoria, in reality, Astoria does 15. That is because of three things: the MTA scheduling department is understaffed, there is a complex system in approving schedules, and a low demand for operators to work weekends. Uday Schultz has a great piece on it. homesignalblog.wordpress.com/2022/09/03/the-subways-broken-schedules/ Also, the 15 tph is more of a de facto than a de jure rule. Whenever a track on a trunk line is taken out of service, you are first capped at 24-30 tph, because that is the throughput of one track. However, the MTA mandates that trains run 10 mph through construction zones. Low speeds equals low capacity, as the faster you can run your train (within reason), the more trips you can make of limited crews. So really, the capacity drops to 15 tph. Now, with our heavily interlined system, one shutdown can ripple across the system, as those low speeds and low realibilty can impact other trains that it shares tracks with. When there are 5 or 6 shutdowns going on, like this weekend, that is when capacity really begins to suffer. So the schedules can say one thing, but real life says another thing. Again, here is another Uday Schultz piece on it. homesignalblog.wordpress.com/2021/08/15/maintenance-process-and-the-future-of-the-off-peak-subway/
@@jointransitassociationbut you said 15 tph is the limit even when there's no work on the line. And 7 Av running 24 tph on the weekends clearly disproves this, as it's far higher than 15 tph. Even if the MTA doesn't manage to run all of the scheduled trains, they'll run more than 15 tph, and I've seen them do it many times. Maybe this used to be true, but they recently increased weekend frequencies on the 1 and 6, for example.
@@khybersen4822 That is interesting. I went back and checked, and it looks like all the A Division trunk lines combined run more than 20 tph. Almost all the B Division trunk lines combined run less than 18 tph. It probably has to do something with interlining, as the B Division is far more interlined than the A Division, meaning a shutdown of one track is going to ripple across the system. But even if we can make QBL weekend service better, why not run the M to QBL? Not only would QBL wait times be cut in half, we can now justify the F/M Swap without the rotating service attack.
@@jointransitassociationThe R also wouldn’t be the only one to handle local service. While it may not fix reverse branching on Broadway and 6th Svenue, it definently helps boost capacity on QBL.
These stats came at a bit of a surprise and disappointment to me since I am someone who lives along the G train and thought for a while that this could be a good idea. But I guess I was mistaken… But since you mentioned the Franklin Avenue Shuttle I think you should make a separate video talking about if it would be a good idea to make the FAS a branch of the G or extending it to Bedford - Nostrand Avenues with an additional stop at Gates Avenue.
To be fair, this was just the employment data. Commutes for jobs made up around 20 percent of all trips. The MTA just released their origin to destination program, which gives us a bigger picture. That is something I am learning to use. If the results come back and differ a ton from the maps I am showing in this video, I will make an update video.
nah, the M train already going to forest hills is enough, so having the G train return to forrest hills would be an absolute nightmare considering the fact that the queens blvd line already has four trains.
i agree that the G should be extended back to forest hills like it used to be in 2005. but making it permenant is just a little bit too insane. but i really think we should not extend it to forest hills as it would change the ways other services go so its best to leave the system untouched.
In my opinion, extending a branch thru the Franklin Avenue shuttle seems very tedious because the Franklin Avenue shuttle runs both north and south bound trains on one track. I’d propose cutting back the F/G interlining section from Church Avenue to Fort Hamilton Parkway. Build a new tunnel that diverts more east onto Caton Avenue then turns onto Flatbush Avenue where it will terminate at Prospect Park with the B/Q. Stops on this new extension would be Westminster Road, East 18th street (in system transfer to the B/Q trains via path), Parkside Avenue-Flatbush Avenue, lastly Prospect Park-Flatbush Ave. Running it under Flatbush Avenue with tail tracks or tracks like the old city hall station that connect to the B/Q tracks would still give it access to Coney Island. This would improve a lot of people’s lives by righting the wrong of the Franklin Avenue shuttle not reaching the F line. Those who wish to take the to the B don’t have to transfer all the way on 6th Avenue in the city. They can do so here. It would improve service to the park nearby as it would be covered on all sides by transit. It would improve congestion on the B/Q trains as people won’t have to rely on making the out of system transfer from Atlantic Avenue Barclays to Fulton street. It would give more Brooklynites access to other parts of Brooklyn. It would also decongest the busses in the surrounding areas; notibly the b41 bus. It would decongest busses all over the borough that serve South Brooklyn, Williamsburg, Long Island city, and surrounding areas.
This would not be practical considering IBX will provide better cross Brooklyn travel, especially between Brighton and Culver. Also Church Avenue is the ideal place to turn around G trains (or even other local trains in fact), and your Caton Avenue Subway is actually even more tedious and impractical comp rated to extending the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, which more effectively fill in gaps in subway service.
@@TheRailLeaguer I have a question why are you in support of removing SOME elevated lines in your longer term proposals isn't It cheaper to rebuild elevated lines with 4 tracks sorry if this is off topic.
I have one really crazy question.. how is it that the M train, the most interlined train in the system (J, F, E, R, (Z?) manages to be on time 91% of the time?
I think the G train should be extended to Forest Hills on weekends and late nights, because otherwise to get to the local stops on QBL, like 36th Street, Steinway Street, 46th Street, Northern Boulevard, and 65th Street. You'll have to transfer to the E train at Court Square 23rd street, then transfer to the R train at Queens Plaza to get to those stops, that's because the E is the only train that stops at Court Square 23rd street and that train is express, so I think a solution to this transfering to 3 different trains, is to either extend the G train to Forest Hills, run the M train on weekends and late nights, or make the E train local on QBL. Or you can make the R or F train go to Court Square 23rd Street and make them QBL local.
That's because the R train is the only train to serve those local stops on weekends and late nights, the M train doesn't serve there on weekends and late nights. The E and F trains are express and only the R train is local. 2 Express Trains and 1 Local Train, not fair 2 vs 1. You could also take the E train to Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue, and then transfer to an r train back to the local stops, but that would be a waste of time, plus the wait time for the R train at either Queens Plaza or Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue, could be long, on weekends, especially late nights, horrible weekend and late night service here, MTA needs to fix it. This would improve the line on QBL.
Extending up 21st Street to 21st Ave could then turn and go under Randal's Island (with a stop) and over to 125th St running as a crosstown 125th St stopping at all the Manhattan stations. There. The G train now runs into Manhattan.
However there is one small problem, BQX is supposed to astoria via 21 st. Also how your able to use the tracks of Franklin Avenue shuttle since it's aboveground nit underground. Man this is complex.
@@jointransitassociationDang, how did that turned dead. Well this quite complex about the G situation on one hand G would be useful if we boot the R off QBl and be like good times but on the other hand forest hills is a awful terminal so if extended to Jamaica 179 seems less risky than forest hills besides the e and F collision in between Forest hills and kew gardens with the g their maybe we can fix collision points and make ways to prevent much more but now. G is just stuck with just 2 stations unless somehow you manage to get the Extended further. Now that I think about how come no one brought up the Northern Blvd line it's a home that G could run but again Manhattan. Man anything we want go to further, We just get shafted by People going to Manhattan.
@@jointransitassociationlitterally everything is Manhattan centric so G is stuck there forever. God Damn it, in my opinion Manhattan is overlooked and overkilled. We so much that litterally no one wants go on a line that doesn't go to Manhattan like the G. This is why people need to know that Manhattan is over jammed but don't you dare start with the Bronx it's in a shit show.
As far as the Franklin avenue shuttle is concerned, that line should instead be extended to Myrtle Avenue, to eventually reuse the upper level of the Myrtle/Broadway station. The line most definitely should also be extended north of Metropolitan Avenue to connect with the Queens Blvd line; however, a branch will take this line to LaGuardia airport to hopefully connect with the extended Ditmars BMT line, or (EVEN BETTER YET!) be extended into the Bronx to eventually wind its way to Co-op City, where it'd be connected to the extended D train from 205th/Norwood. Now wouldn't THAT be sup'm worth looking into?!
@@CraigFThompson Not really, since it has the potential to do more. There’s a glaring gap in north-south subway service between the northern end of the Franklin Avenue route at Fulton Street to the Bedford-Nostrand Avenue station, where the Crosstown Line turns north along Marcy Avenue to Queens. By connecting the two, the trips between Northern and Southern Brooklyn become much more quicker than driving and more direct compared to “backdooring” via Downtown Brooklyn, Cobble Hill, and the Culver Line. Crosstown-Culver service would terminate at Bedford-Nostrand Avenues.
At a terminal like Forest Hills where the trains goes to a relay track or yard storage - it is a good idea to check if regular people are not still on the train before it goes to the relay track or for train yard storage. In such an instance, panicked or confused riders might pull the emergency cord because the train is not going where it is expected. Plus where the conductors and operators have to walk through the train to "reverse ends" on a relay track - such panicked and/or confused riders have at times in the past assaulted MTA staff. Years ago I remember something similar happened on a #5 train that ended at Bowling Green years ago - which tied up service on the Lexington Avenue line for hours. At "stub end" terminals like the L train at 14th Street-Eighth Avenue - a regular terminating train simply goes back into service in the other direction. The "fate" of the panicked / confused rider is less - they just get off at the next stop or their destination. A train that is sent to a relay or yard storage may not "return to service" for a good amount of time - increasing the reaction of the confused / panicked rider. A rider "trapped on a train sent to the train yard" could easily be on a train that will not return to service until the next day, or several hours later. So checking that the train is clear of regular people makes sense.
The G should take all the 179s off the C n run 8 car trains once more 211s go to pitkin. Jamaica Yard needs to be expanded so the layups can get off D3 n D4 track from Union Turnpike to 169. With that you can have the F n R go to 179. F relay upstairs on express and N/R relay downstairs.
My thoughts about the (G) Train to extend to Forest Hills 71st Continental Avenue's via Queens Boulevard is have the (G) go Forest Hills 71st Continental Avenue's 7 days a week except late nights, and have the 6th Avenue (M) Train run via Queens Boulevard 24/7 and run via 63rd Street Tunnel, for Queens Link going on The Rockaway Beach Branch with the (A) Trian, to replace The Rockaway Park Shuttle Train. Have the (G) Train 10-cars 24/7. The (G) have run Queens Boulevard/Hillside Avenue Local with the (R) with 4 tracks end up to Bellerose 251st Street-Little Neck Parkway Station with 2 Island platforms for the (F) Train extension on the Hillside Avenue Line. The (G)/(R) shouldn't run QBL/Hillside Avenue Line on late nights. That's my opinion for the (G) Train. The (G)/(R) Train's should be extend to Queens Plaza Station for late night service only, to make it easy to transfer to the (E) Train and hopefully the (F) Train in the future for Queens Link for the (M) Train and run via 63rd Street Tunnel.
Any extension will lead to induced demands and changing/new traffic patterns so going by current travel patterns isn’t always the best way to determine what should be done
For all intents and purposes, in 2002, a year after the G got booted, ridership patterns was still identical to 2024. And let's keep it this way, as by interlining QBL even more, you forever hardwired the garbage headways that is the M/R trains. But this is employment data, so I will have to test it with the MTA's data.
For once I agree with you. Keep the G train where it is because of ridership patterns. One thing though, you never mention fleet size. There are no cars to be had in extending the G anywhere.
Most definitely, having the G train going back to Forest Hills, it's definitely a sight for sore eyes, as much as I respect the R train, but it cannot handle Queens Boulevard local on its own
@BLETransitYT Not to be disrespectful, but this video is 11 minutes long and you commented the minute this was published. Unless you can time travel, there is no way you watched the video the entire way.
@@jointransitassociationI mean if this is just for the weekend or night I dont mind the MTA just needs to get rid of that rule and maybe it could work especially with ousting fumigation or extending QBL locals to 179th street then I would support If Queenlink happens then maybe not since You can just have M trains run 24/7
To answer all these questions and answers for sending the G back to FH there are things that need to be factored in. One thing is the QBL local riders favor Manhattan services so it’s would be better for the M and R to get boosted service and by doing that we first need to have the F and M swap implemented this way we can allow for more M and R service on QBL. The next reason on why the G should not be sent to FH Is because of its horrible capacity as a terminal. If QueensLink gets factored in then maybe we can send the G to FH again that would allow the M to take over Rockaway Services sending all A Trains to Lefferts Blvd. In theory it’s better for the G to get longer trains as well as more transfers. Instead of a Court Square and 21 St Stop we should have the G connect with the 7 at Vernon Blvd Jackson Ave which would be its first stop before heading to Astoria. As for the G getting sent to LGA it’s better for the BMT Astoria Line to get that extension as it’s a Manhattan preferred area plus that’s would give it the new Astoria Yard which is where we can store the G and R Trains. The Astoria Yard can also allow the R to keep its service pattern in Brooklyn just with more trains and the QBL Local Services can get taken over by Second Ave services.
I agree that the G should never return to Forest Hills since the G carried air on Queens Blvd since the workforce on QB is more for Manhattan also running the G up Northern is a bad idea since it radiates circumferential and radical line, any line serving Northern Blvd should probably go into Manhattan. Instead the G would be better off going to Astoria for more connections and since most guys go there anyway. If demand calls for it in the future we could maybe extend the G further into the Bronx to Yankee Stadium for even more connections anyway in my opinion the G train extension project should be a lower priority. What the MTA should do for the time being is to reconfigure the switches at Ditmars Blvd to turn around more trains and extend the R to LGA so that we could have Astoria Yard built and reopen the Lower level of City Hall to store some trains that way the R can retain it's current service pattern in Brooklyn.
@@CR1Creativethat’s not a bad idea at all but overall I think we’re better off doing Queens Bronx Connection with the IBX. QBL Local services will be taken over by the SAS and then the Rockaways as well since they are a Manhattan perfered area as well. Those coming from JFK can get a one seat ride straight to Manhattan. If demand calls then we can extend the IRT New Lots Line to Howard Beach JFK to connect with QueensLink Trains.
It has been a long time since I have been to NY. I lived there between '49 and '89. Live in Denver now. Worked at Con Ed in Astoria. Lived in flushing. When I had trains and buses. There use to be the GG local that started at 71 Street.Why did that stop. Also RR.
There actually is a proposal to bring back the Rockaway beach branch, which is connected to the Rockaway line, and would also be connected to the Queens Blvd line. If this does end up getting approved by the mta, either the m or r trains would run from queens Blvd to the Rockaways, replacing the Rockaway shuttle. This would likely lead for an option to bring back the g into Queens Blvd as a replacement for said line.
You would use this opportunity to boost the R train. Again, bringing the G back to Forest Hills will forever hardwire the M and R trains to their garbage headways, and I am pretty sure that won't go well with Bay Ridge and Bushwick commuters. And also, the G going to FH will also forever hardwire the G's frequencies, which I am sure Greenpoint commuters won't want that.
It takes more than the Queens link to solve the QBL issue that the requirements for the QBL improvements aside from the Rockaway connection is the Archer avenue line extension to serve southeast Queens, two track super express tracks and the extension of the QBL past 179 to Springfield Blvd and Little Neck Parkway which is was intended to utilize six subway routes at max capacity while 63rd street connection to QBL towards 36 and the super express tracks turn off towards the Rockaway branch is useful for reroute trains with five of them having access between Manhattan and Queens while the G to Rockaway would be an alternative, combine with CBTC and this is the improvement of QBL that we could have had from the start or work on in advance down the road
Branches on the jeep that’s just gonna make Service like 20 minutes waiting for a train like let’s say me and you are at court Square and the train at 21st Ave. is 10 minutes then the next one just departed, then the next ones in 20 minutes unless if it has cbtc then cancel the idea and just add a new G line like the H or something or just accept the sharp curve option and if you wanna have those lines split like I just said let’s say me and you are at Fort Hamilton Parkway and we need to go to Broadway for example next train on Franklin Avenue line is 10 minutes and then since we’re on a different line. The next train is gonna be another 20 minutes unless it has cbtc just pick one or ever or just make a new line like the h like I said😊
Forget going over to snooty suburban Forest Hills. From Court Square, a very short tunnel should curve NW over to the F line and continue into Manhattan making the G train valuable to all the new housing along the East River. The G would then serve the 3 densest boroughs and be crazy popular. Too bad the MTA is hopelessly corrupt.
(G) Trains should be permanently extended by only one stop to Queens Plaza so that riders can easily connect to the (E) and (M) Trains without transferring to them at Court Square saving them up to 2 minutes of walking from one subway station to another. North of the Queens Plaza station is a relay track the (G) Trains can use to turn around and get send back to Brooklyn, it is situated between the express tracks used by the (E) Trains during the day. The MTA should also look into rebuilding and reactivating the short-lived IND World's Fair Line to extend the (G) line after Forest Hills-71st Avenue to any certain subway-desert area in Queens we can think of.
Tbh I really thought about the g train going to forest hills only on weekends but I’ve changed my mind the branch this guy point for the g train is actually a good idea because I’ve been to Astoria near the water and traffic is so packed over there i think the g train might change that
Rather than send the G train to the rest of Queens… …make F trains run express uninterrupted from Jay Street-MetroTech to/from Church Avenue & in the peak direction to/from Avenue X with the G train terminating there, Kings Highway &/or 18th Avenue as other terminating options.
Extending the ( G ) Train to Forest Hills? I'll throw this out there: since Forest Hills Queens creates a lot of problems with the ( M ) and ( R ) Trains why not Forest Hills in Boston to meet the MBTA Orange Line? All you need is to get over the Triborough Bridge, run up to Boston Road (Rt. 1), then up Rt. 1 all the way to Dedham, MA, and finally up Washington Street Dedham/Boston to Forest Hills! 😊 Okay, it's only in jest; I'll leave the room now.
The fact that nyc's first ever non-manhattan crosstown line only has 2 stops in the outerborough of queens (i consider manhattan and brooklyn as the two interboroughs) is just stupid in my book, and the issue should be rectified at some point atleast in the mid-term future
Okay, maybe, I don't know, stop confusing people and just put a clear and straight idea down: Extend one of the local services, preferably the R, to Jamaica-179th Street, if you do plan to reimplement the G. Just saying, it would most likely fit. Otherwise, build a new terminal platform at 71st with yard relays under the existing platforms. That would make way more sense.
obviously no one sits at Court Square and sees the amount of people getting off the E and M trains to run for the G which the connection doesnt allow for…..observational studies need to be done for stuff like this….Queens Plaza is a better suited terminal for the G….delay in service? send the G to Forest Hills or Jamaica….the 8-10 minute headways it has can surely not be as interfering as running a long corridor and missing the train as you hit the bottom step at Court Square….for me this is one of the worst transfers in the system and was poorly planned out people movers or not….at least at Queens plaza those on the M/R can get onto the G waiting on the center track and allow the G to crossover first on departure….it would not set back G service operations much as long as it keeps its current headway
I have taken the G for 4 years and a lot of people transfer at Court Sq. But more people stay on their Manhattan bound train and even more G train commuters transfer to a Manhattan bound service. And Court Sq is nowhere near one the worst transfers. You clearly have not seen some transfers in Manhattan. Court Sq to the E/M is like 2 minutes, and court Sq to the 7 is also 2 minutes. And if you like sending the G to Queens Plaza, have fun interfering with the E, M, and R trains, as if those trains need any more interlining to begin with. Finally. 8-10 minutes is bad. The G should be down to at most 6 minutes, the target of the Rider's Alliance 6 minute service. Even so, if you want 8-10 minutes, that is 6 to 8 tph less you can run on the M and R. For reference, an addition of just 4 tph on the M brings its wait times down from 8 minutes to 5 minutes.
I Have A Plan During Late Nights Or Weekends When M Only Runs To Delancy St Or Myrtle Ave Or R Late Nights Goes Only To Whitehall St The G Can Go To Forest Hills And During Rush Hours Limited G Service To Forest Hills 2 Trains To Church Ave And 2 To Queens
So Why The G Cant Go To Forest Hills? 1. IT Would Interfear M And R Trains At Queens Plaza So That Means Either The M Or R Runs Express Or The G Runs Express 2. It Would Be A Waste Of Money If No One Is Going To Queens 3. Merging If The G Runs Express Then It Would Have To Interfear E And F Trains Local M And R Trains What The G Train Really Needs Have 10 Car R160s Make It More Frequent
I'd Love to see The G Train Gets Extended to Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer So that it Can Make a Connection to the J/Z Trains for the 1st Time in Years!
That would be a complete waste of track capacity that can be better used to increase service to Manhattan, where everyone is going. Perhaps you’re better off replacing Hewes and Lorimer on the J and M routes with a new stop at Union Avenue, providing the free in-system transfer at Broadway.
To get the G back to eastern Queens, the M has got to go! Here's what I'd like to see: 1. The G extended to 179th street on the local track. 2. The F restored on the express track to 179th. 3. Getting rid of the M on QBL ends the original complication of the V train, which killed the one seat ride from Brooklyn to eastern Queens without the additional time of going through Manhattan, or that horrible transfer at the over-crowded Court Square. There's already Manhattan bound service covering 3 areas: 8th Avenue (E), 6th Avenue (F), and Broadway (R), making M service, wholly unnecessary. Secondly, getting rid of the M would get rid of the annoying transfer to/from the local tracks at Queens Plaza. By sending the G to 179th, it would also lessen the turnaround capacity issues at 71/Continental, where only the R would then have the turnaround capacity. And 179th has the turnaround capacity to easily handle two lines (F and G). As currently constituted, the M & R are nowhere near OBL on weekends, so having the G back out there would solve that problem.
@@ECO473 And what did I say about booting a Manhattan bound service off of QBL? That you are mirroring what pre-2001 service looked like, which meant increasing uncomfortable crowding from 2.2 million hours to 7.1 million hours annually. The M isn't for one seat rides (at least in Queens), it is for capacity. Specifically, to siphon as many riders from 65th St to 36th St that would automatically transfer to the F train of they got the chance. Also, without fumigation reform, 179th St would also be as bad as Forest Hills. A little less bad, but still bad. If you have truly watched the video, then you would know what I said about booting one service off QBL, that it would likely end in disaster during peak periods. It is never about "one seat rides or connections", but about capacity. Specifically, how to lessen the insane crowds seen at 53rd St. And even if you want to go purely by one seat rides, employment data from both 2002 and 2021 shows riders prefer Manhattan bound services. So if anything, boosted M/R trains is better.
@@jointransitassociationwell it's all about one seat rides but to me it's all useless like that's the only reason the current M is a joke because people bitchin for Manhattan even if I had a job at manhattan and I lived at Queens, I'm willing to take G train to Court Sqaure then transfer, I'm that different from others.
@@jointransitassociation If I were the only person who had this opinion, I obviously would not have a case. But there is something to be said for the arguments in favor of the G extension back east that even politicians, railfanners, and other riders are lobbying for it. Even if it's for nights/weekends only, that would be better than nothing. As to the argument that lines can have so many trains running on four tracks per weekend, it would seem to me that the MTA could easily change that rule if it wanted to. Case in point, when the 63rd street tunnel was undergoing repairs and the F was rerouted to 53rd Street, the express service was much better. You, I, and many others were aware of the improvements. So what happened? In spite of the improvements, the MTA sent the F back to 63rd and the M stayed on 53rd. This proves to me that the MTA can change its rules when it suits them, and what the paying ridership wants be damned.
@matthewadonis3020 The G' clearly supposed to support the F to Coney Island...But from my knowledge, that section of the F leading down to coney is either the 2nd or 3rd least used section in the entire system. Ridership is so low that many F trains terminate at Chuch Ave, or I think..Ave N before reaching Coney.
That involves the G train to cross in front of the E trains at Queens Plaza to turn around. Already, Queens Plaza is a horrible junction, and I don't think putting a Rogers Junction like merge is a good idea.
Extending the G is not about "options" or "one seat rides," it is a conversation on whether the MTA should forever hardwire the G/M/R train frequencies. The G/M/R trains are some of the most complained about services in the systems, and the MTA is trying to increase service on all three of them. So in the event fumigation is reformed, or Queenslink is built, wouldn't you want to add more service to the R train? I am pretty sure Bay Ridge would like the R to run every 4-5 minutes. Same deal with the M, if Myrtle Junction gets grade separated, where would the extra M trains go? To QBL. Finally, extending the G to Forest Hills would also cut into G train frequencies. Remember, you are sharing tracks with the M and R trains, two services that need to be boosted.
I am open to a conversation to send the G somewhere else. Astoria would be my first pick. But sending the G to Forest Hills invites some huge consequences to the future of the G/M/R trains.
I agree. Let's first see Queenslink get built and the Myrtle Junction get restructured. As for the G Train itself, instead of a route extension, I'd rather extend it to 8 cars. With all the pre-1973 cars retired and the post-1973 ones permanently in groups of 4 or 5, we're never again having exactly 6 car trains in the B division.
The G train should go to coney island
The M and the R running down Queens Boulevard is absolute torture. They get backed up and can’t turn back fast enough sometimes you’ll have 4 trains a station away. You watch like 5 express trains pass you and you still haven’t moved one station. I just need to get off at 67th Ave to visit my aunt !!! I think it actually runs smother in the weekend when the M is not running in Queens. Going forest hills bound on queens Blvd I think the Q60 bus might be faster
Getting from Brooklyn to Astoria is annoying having to transfer at Court Sq just to transfer again one station later. Also if the Astoria Line gets extended to the airport, taking the G to a combined Queens Plaza Queensboro Plaza station would give Brooklyn riders a better way.
The G actually going to Astoria would be ideal, but that's trying to build new tunnels and stations.
@@stevenroshni1228 that's also trying to duplicate the current Astoria line which is already serve by N and W
I've always been curious about the viability of a G train extension project along 21st Street in Queens but then also going further north into the Bronx and terminating at 161st St - Yankees Stadium myself. In all the maps I ever tried doing, it was always one of my favorite "this is silly but I think there's something there" concepts as it would give the G more utility/attractiveness being a true link between boroughs and secondary cores. Another much older idea saw it turn east to be the Harlem 125th Street crosstown line but I've only relented on that concept because by design the G is built to avoid the city core and such a maneuver might make for weird inconsistency with its initial design.
Eh, I think it would be better to have the IBX do it, should it return to being the TBX, since the route is already there to build it.
Remember guys: East of Roosevelt Avenue, people favor the express. It won’t make any difference if you have the G train on QBL. More connections, yes, but if you want to put another train on the line, it has to make a difference.
There’s a reason 53rd Street loads are inbalanced.
In terms of improvements to the G train, if you ask me the highest priority is adding a transfer to the J/M at Broadway. The map at 4:33 shows why. It looks like a lot of G train commuters work in Midtown on or near Sixth Avenue, which would be the M train. And a transfer at Broadway would provide another connection to the M (and perhaps a better connection with the M than at Queens Plaza, if the MTA ever consolidated the Lorimer and Hewes stations on the J/M into a single Union Avenue stop).
Extending it to Forest Hills is not a priority, in contrast, for the reasons you mentioned. Though Grand Av-Newtown, Woodhaven Blvd, and 63rd Drive on the Queens Blvd Line can get pretty busy on weekends leading up to Christmas because there are big malls near all three stations. So the MTA may want to consider enhanced weekend subway service on the Queens Blvd Local during December weekends leading to Christmas (whether it be more R service, having the M come to Forest Hills, or extending the G), much like it has enhanced service to the Rockaways on summer weekends.
I'll add that it also creates another option for people who work in lower Manhattan: people in Williamsburg and further north can take the J instead of packing into the A or C.
The argument that people don’t go to X or Y doesn’t really make sense to me. I think one of the main reasons why a lot of people don’t travel between Brooklyn and queens or The Bronx is BECAUSE there aren’t a lot of options available. Look at the Q58 bus; It’s always packed. And the Q53 SBS (I think this is only in Queens but it’s a similar route, mostly north/south).
If we had more options for people, eventually those options will gradually get used more as more and more people are aware of the option. Plus, it promotes using public transportation instead of private vehicles, and also promotes people traveling interboro instead of just Manhattan.
In conclusion, we should give people more options for public transportation routes, regardless if people are taking those routes *now*. As long as you’re connecting popular destinations and neighborhoods, people will eventually use it.
Except if you look at employment data in 2002, not even a year after the G was booted off of QBL, both Crosstown and QBL traffic is Manhattan centric. People don't take the G to get to Brooklyn from QBL, rather they take it to get to the nearest express station. The IND wanted local traffic to feed into the heavy industries in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Except, that never happened, which was why the MTA spent decades to fix the IND's mistake. So the "induced demand" argument for the G doesn't work, that was what the IND, NYCTA, and MTA had been banking on for 50+ years.
Also, the G to Forest Hills isn't necessarily giving more "options" to QBL residents that don't want the G, the discussion is whether it is worth it to forever hardwire the garbage M and R train frequencies. Forest Hills can only turn around so many trains, which is a reason why the M/R is trash. So if Forest Hills can turn more trains, why won't you try to boost M/R train service? That is a problem with this bogus "one seat ride" argument, where by making trains share tracks with others, in the event where one service needs more capacity, you can't do it.
@@jointransitassociation agreed the people in QBL want to go to the City Center so boosting service on the M and R would be needed but like you said they have bad frequencies because of how bad Forest Hills is as a terminal causing backups in most instances.
I think the better alternative to this Forest Hills terminal problem is extending both the M and R to 179 St since that has a turnaround capacity of 63tph which is slightly more than triple than what Forest Hills can handle. In reality we are only running about 8tph on each the M and R but if extended to 179 St then we can boost their frequencies to about 10-12tph each making 20-24tph combined on the M and R it’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction into improving the M and R lines. For the boosted M and R service to happen the F and M swap needs to come first. So therefore the G is better off ending at Court Square
@@jointransitassociation Yeah like hope isn't lost for your jobs like the G is close to manhattan, all you manchilds need to do is wake your ass up and critize it for a reason not a pathetic one. The same ones who weren't cryijg over the IBX man hate them sort of people. Because of that everything is Manhattan Centric Bound plus you got more manhattan services. 7, N and W: Why do you think we exist.
@@jointransitassociationthe g train used to go to forest hills during late nights and weekends at court Street at the g platform you notice the tunnel keeps on going I think it can connect to the main tunnels if not how last time g trains run and I can personally disagree g trains can be extended to forest hills during weekends plus late nights because the m trains does not run during weekends and late nights so it will be good to improve the local lines frequency
In my opinion, the G train should go to Forest Hills for these reasons:
1. G trains have 100% R160s and can now use the CBTC Queens Blvd line on the weekends
2. It makes no sense to get off at Court Sq and wait for a E train to take it one stop to Queens Plaza for the local service from the R. It is practical to extend the G for the one ride to Queens Blvd Lcl
3. Ridership has boomed on the G train since 2010
4. Many people shop at Queens Center Mall from Brooklyn, and the G train going directly to 71 Av, stops the unnecessary transfers at Court Sq.
Have you watched the video?
G Train Could also Run Late Nights Replacing E Train Local to Run Along with F Train Express Line
@@56CharlesTadareChannel E local is still needed
I’m excited for the next part of transit with the us military budget. So many projects could be completed with that level of funding
Funny how we could fix all the existing US metro systems with one year of funding, High Speed Rail would be the money pit. And of course several cities need to build mass transit from starch.
@@stevenroshni1228 High speed rail will be NOWHERE the "money pit" the interstate stuperhighways have been since the first cupful of concrete was placed for their initial construction....
Besides, the airlines' "no-fly" list grows longer by the second; how else would such people be moved between coasts?!
@TheLiamster Instead of the military budget, why not reduce the presently extremely high level of governmental oversubsidization that both highway and air travel receive from all governmental levels?!
One thing I think everybody can agree on is that the G train is the PATH of the NYC subway. By which I mean that the way most people don’t use PATH trains to go straight to their destination but to get to another rail line, most people use the G train merely to connect to another subway line.
I think they should just fix QBL altogether before sending anymore trains on it
SSHHHEEEEIITT!
The ENTIRE SYSTEM needs to be fixed!!
This
You need expansion projects for that to work
rebuild the whole QBL don’t care how long it takes
0:19 - I am a bit confused. . . . Some Subway advocates want more one-seat rides, others want less inter-lining -- We can't please both of them.
Years ago the G train ran to 71st/Continental Ave. I used to take either the G or the R going to school where I would get off at Woodhaven Blvd-Slattery Plaza.
If it weren't for the 63rd St connector, G trains would still be running to Forest Hills. That's why after 2001, the V was introduced and having 3 services on one track was a no go so they decided to run G trains to Forest hills on weekends when the V wasn't running and rush hours. It's a shame they don't send G trains to 71st av on weekends cuz the R isn't really reliable.
@@activecity4051 agree and if the MTA had did a better job with that connector and a execution of the two track super express, it would have been successful by adding four routes connecting Manhattan and Queens while keeping the G past Court Square
Run the F through 53rd St and the M through 63rd. That way there's no switching to/from the express track. The inbound R train switch at QP is always available and doesn't have the M interfering with a move to the express at QP, and the only switch you need to worry about is at 36th St.
@@guyfaux3978 F train should run to 63rd St during late nights and Weekends
@@56CharlesTadareChannel Sure, to cover the service, but have it run local in Queens.
@@guyfaux3978It currently runs Local in Queens, but only between 11 at night and 5:15 the next morning.
I was reluctant about sending the G to Forest Hills however
Last year, I remember you at the Queenslink rally briefly mentioning that Queenslink would allow the G train to return to Forest Hills and as a Queens resident it would allow you to have more connections.
I have never believed that G to Forest Hills was a good idea for the same reasons you do, however, I was trying to figure out if there was a way transfers could be improved in Long Island city. But any project to do so would not be priority.
Yeah, it was an extension that was hyped up way too much. As a G train rider, that is was something I supported. Except when I did research on this, it turns out that almost every piece of evidence was against this extension.
@@jointransitassociationG train riders are now in obsercuity because of workers being assholes because we want manhattan service face like now it's overrated in my book and the G is overhated. Like I won't be suprised if the IBX is dead because of this to help with the majority of Manhattan riders.
When will you make part 2 to what can the USA do with the military budget? And which region will part 2 be? Midwest, south, or west?
How about THIS question:
"What can the United States do with all the governmental oversubsidization from all levels presently thrown at stuperhighways and air travel, if it were used for rail-based passenger transportation?!"....
Bring back the era when it was all E F V G R.
Yes definitely
Another idea: concerning the (WASTEFULLY) unused center tracks of the Sea Beach line, a very serious reconstruction must be planned for at New Utrecht avenue station, where the West End line crosses overhead. The reconstruction of this station from local to express would fully justify reactivating these center tracks!
Service on the N route is not high enough for express service between 59th and Coney Island without cutting service at local stations. The trackage further up is already jammed.
@@TheRailLeagueryou still can't use it even if the service is high as Kings Hwy is the only station that has interlockings on both sides, it's difficult to how the service can be utilize
The real solution to the G train problems is reducing transfer penalty by running very frequent (2 minute?) service with smaller train sets (3 car?). Don’t extend it (beyond Astoria or queens plaza), make it a trial for a more frequent, OPTO subway
After seeing this video, all nostalgia and hope for G trains to return back to Forrest Hills have diminished. I think there are better chances the dead will return back to life than the G going through Queens Blvd and back to FH
No, we don’t also need another Broadway Station from the (G), because we have one at Brooklyn, and it could be 33 Av instead of Astoria - Broadway.
It would take a lotta reroutes for the G to return to Forest Hills. It would take the R/W to run from Astoria to Brighton Beach and Coney Island. The B/D/N/Q has to run down 4th Ave. the D runs to Coney via Sea Beach. The B or Q would have to run via West End while one of them runs to 95 St with the N train but on newly constructed express tracks south of 59 St, most likely Q trains would occupy those express tracks since express tracks directly run on the Sea Beach tracks. The N would run completely local on 4 Ave to 95 St but its opposite terminal would be Jamaica-Parsons/Archer. The E train would terminate at Forest Hills with the M Train or terminates at 179 St on local tracks while F trains run express to that station. F/N would run express from 63 St. If the Queens Bypass line were to be completed, the F/N would run local after Forest Hills-71 Ave; the E would run express, and the G/M would run local between Queens Plaza and Rego Park. G runs to Forest Hills while the M runs to the Rockaways.
my familiarity is almost totally on the R & Q, so I am always gravitating towards those lines, as being prominent, however, I can see the G alone serves an area which is not linked by any other of the major lines... one can say, it sort of the peripheral line riding through the hinterland of the city, and those kind of suburban connectors have a place, but, it seems to be linking two parts of town which, whilst they have a lot of transit, are in no way central or important in the scheme of NYC... is it right (in terms of the needs of passenger flow) to have a part of the system not serving Manhattan in any way?
Relieving the post-pandemic overcrowding on the G seems like a more pressing need than connecting Queens and western Brooklyn in this way. So I also agree that the G probably should not be extended back to Forest Hills. MTA should *boost frequencies on the current, mostly-deinterlined G* instead.
They do have room to do this. According to schedules, the G (8 TPH) runs less frequently than the F (12 TPH) at peak, despite interlining. That probably doesn't mean that much today because the F reportedly experiences abominable bunching. But *matching G train frequencies to F train frequencies would boost capacity by about 50%* , even while keeping 5-car trains. This is is something that can be done *today* , because the infrastructure and rolling stock are already there.
A Franklin Ave branch would make frequencies even better, to the point that re-extension to Forest Hills is impossible. I'm still a fan of having hyper-frequent service on both Culver local and express to fully deinterline the G, but that'll only work well with other large builds (yeah, I know lol), including:
1) Extending the M from Myrtle Ave-Broadway to the lower level of City Hall, making it a Broadway local service instead of 6th Ave and replacing the W. But this depends on improvements on the Astoria line anyway; otherwise riders would be stuck with 6 TPH instead of 8 or better. Combining this with an extension beyond Metropolitan Ave would help connect NE Queens with downtown Brooklyn - arguably in ways better than extending the G to Forest Hills can, by not taking valuable QBL capacity, and by paralleling the Q58, the #2 ridership bus citywide in 2022.
2) Sending your proposed V train east via Linden Blvd, as the Culver line south of Church Ave doesn't have high demand, and Coney Island is a low-capacity terminal. (Meanwhile, the B35 and B15 are hella busy.)
3) Whichever train terminates at WTC as part of CPW and Queens Blvd deinterlining could be extended down to the Franklin Ave shuttle instead and then also run along Linden Blvd, maybe running express and finally fulfilling that SE Queens-South Brooklyn demand.
Yes do it now or go all the way to 179 Jamaica that would be good 👍🏿👍🏿
Unless every train terminates at 179th I say no. 179th should be the terminal for F,M,R and can even include the G. Keep the F express until the last stop
Where have you heard the rule that 4-track trunks are limited to only 15 tph on the weekends? Because 7 Av runs 24 tph on the weekends (when there's no construction): 10 tph 1, 7-8 tph 2, 6-7 tph 3. That's quite a bit more than 15. And 2-track lines like the L run 15 tph on their own on the weekends.
The rule is 15 tph across any trunk line (2 track or 4 track). This means the 7 and L would run every 4 minutes. I should have made that clear.
According to Uday Schultz, scheduled service and actual service are two different things. For example, the MTA "schedules" 10 tph for the M, in reality, it is never more than 9. The MTA "schedules" 18 tph on Astoria, in reality, Astoria does 15. That is because of three things: the MTA scheduling department is understaffed, there is a complex system in approving schedules, and a low demand for operators to work weekends. Uday Schultz has a great piece on it.
homesignalblog.wordpress.com/2022/09/03/the-subways-broken-schedules/
Also, the 15 tph is more of a de facto than a de jure rule. Whenever a track on a trunk line is taken out of service, you are first capped at 24-30 tph, because that is the throughput of one track. However, the MTA mandates that trains run 10 mph through construction zones. Low speeds equals low capacity, as the faster you can run your train (within reason), the more trips you can make of limited crews. So really, the capacity drops to 15 tph. Now, with our heavily interlined system, one shutdown can ripple across the system, as those low speeds and low realibilty can impact other trains that it shares tracks with. When there are 5 or 6 shutdowns going on, like this weekend, that is when capacity really begins to suffer. So the schedules can say one thing, but real life says another thing. Again, here is another Uday Schultz piece on it.
homesignalblog.wordpress.com/2021/08/15/maintenance-process-and-the-future-of-the-off-peak-subway/
@@jointransitassociationbut you said 15 tph is the limit even when there's no work on the line. And 7 Av running 24 tph on the weekends clearly disproves this, as it's far higher than 15 tph. Even if the MTA doesn't manage to run all of the scheduled trains, they'll run more than 15 tph, and I've seen them do it many times. Maybe this used to be true, but they recently increased weekend frequencies on the 1 and 6, for example.
@@khybersen4822 That is interesting. I went back and checked, and it looks like all the A Division trunk lines combined run more than 20 tph. Almost all the B Division trunk lines combined run less than 18 tph. It probably has to do something with interlining, as the B Division is far more interlined than the A Division, meaning a shutdown of one track is going to ripple across the system.
But even if we can make QBL weekend service better, why not run the M to QBL? Not only would QBL wait times be cut in half, we can now justify the F/M Swap without the rotating service attack.
@@jointransitassociationThe R also wouldn’t be the only one to handle local service.
While it may not fix reverse branching on Broadway and 6th Svenue, it definently helps boost capacity on QBL.
These stats came at a bit of a surprise and disappointment to me since I am someone who lives along the G train and thought for a while that this could be a good idea. But I guess I was mistaken… But since you mentioned the Franklin Avenue Shuttle I think you should make a separate video talking about if it would be a good idea to make the FAS a branch of the G or extending it to Bedford - Nostrand Avenues with an additional stop at Gates Avenue.
To be fair, this was just the employment data. Commutes for jobs made up around 20 percent of all trips. The MTA just released their origin to destination program, which gives us a bigger picture. That is something I am learning to use. If the results come back and differ a ton from the maps I am showing in this video, I will make an update video.
That was my idea too. I don’t think QBL can handle 3 local trains, even with CBTC activated.
nah, the M train already going to forest hills is enough, so having the G train return to forrest hills would be an absolute nightmare considering the fact that the queens blvd line already has four trains.
support queenslink
i agree that the G should be extended back to forest hills like it used to be in 2005. but making it permenant is just a little bit too insane. but i really think we should not extend it to forest hills as it would change the ways other services go so its best to leave the system untouched.
In my opinion, extending a branch thru the Franklin Avenue shuttle seems very tedious because the Franklin Avenue shuttle runs both north and south bound trains on one track. I’d propose cutting back the F/G interlining section from Church Avenue to Fort Hamilton Parkway. Build a new tunnel that diverts more east onto Caton Avenue then turns onto Flatbush Avenue where it will terminate at Prospect Park with the B/Q. Stops on this new extension would be Westminster Road, East 18th street (in system transfer to the B/Q trains via path), Parkside Avenue-Flatbush Avenue, lastly Prospect Park-Flatbush Ave. Running it under Flatbush Avenue with tail tracks or tracks like the old city hall station that connect to the B/Q tracks would still give it access to Coney Island.
This would improve a lot of people’s lives by righting the wrong of the Franklin Avenue shuttle not reaching the F line. Those who wish to take the to the B don’t have to transfer all the way on 6th Avenue in the city. They can do so here. It would improve service to the park nearby as it would be covered on all sides by transit. It would improve congestion on the B/Q trains as people won’t have to rely on making the out of system transfer from Atlantic Avenue Barclays to Fulton street. It would give more Brooklynites access to other parts of Brooklyn. It would also decongest the busses in the surrounding areas; notibly the b41 bus. It would decongest busses all over the borough that serve South Brooklyn, Williamsburg, Long Island city, and surrounding areas.
This would not be practical considering IBX will provide better cross Brooklyn travel, especially between Brighton and Culver. Also Church Avenue is the ideal place to turn around G trains (or even other local trains in fact), and your Caton Avenue Subway is actually even more tedious and impractical comp rated to extending the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, which more effectively fill in gaps in subway service.
@@TheRailLeaguer
I have a question why are you in support of removing SOME elevated lines in your longer term proposals isn't It cheaper to rebuild elevated lines with 4 tracks sorry if this is off topic.
I have one really crazy question.. how is it that the M train, the most interlined train in the system (J, F, E, R, (Z?) manages to be on time 91% of the time?
Also, the M runs every 6 to 8 minutes, so timing should be a huge factor, so like how does it pull this off?
ANOTHER QBL VIDEO!!! let's go also I support this if queenlink happens or something else to happen
I think the G train should be extended to Forest Hills on weekends and late nights, because otherwise to get to the local stops on QBL, like 36th Street, Steinway Street, 46th Street, Northern Boulevard, and 65th Street. You'll have to transfer to the E train at Court Square 23rd street, then transfer to the R train at Queens Plaza to get to those stops, that's because the E is the only train that stops at Court Square 23rd street and that train is express, so I think a solution to this transfering to 3 different trains, is to either extend the G train to Forest Hills, run the M train on weekends and late nights, or make the E train local on QBL. Or you can make the R or F train go to Court Square 23rd Street and make them QBL local.
That's because the R train is the only train to serve those local stops on weekends and late nights, the M train doesn't serve there on weekends and late nights. The E and F trains are express and only the R train is local. 2 Express Trains and 1 Local Train, not fair 2 vs 1. You could also take the E train to Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue, and then transfer to an r train back to the local stops, but that would be a waste of time, plus the wait time for the R train at either Queens Plaza or Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue, could be long, on weekends, especially late nights, horrible weekend and late night service here, MTA needs to fix it. This would improve the line on QBL.
Extending up 21st Street to 21st Ave could then turn and go under Randal's Island (with a stop) and over to 125th St running as a crosstown 125th St stopping at all the Manhattan stations. There. The G train now runs into Manhattan.
Not the worst idea, but that is super far in the future.
When the M doesn't run on qbl on weekends, I feel like the G should compensate for that. The R with those 80 minute headways dont cut it
Good points. Extending G would reduce cars available for existing service, which already is crowded.
Yea, you’re right. The g is better staying at court sq. Riders like to complain about the m and r trains
However there is one small problem, BQX is supposed to astoria via 21 st. Also how your able to use the tracks of Franklin Avenue shuttle since it's aboveground nit underground. Man this is complex.
That project has been dead for a long time.
@@jointransitassociationDang, how did that turned dead. Well this quite complex about the G situation on one hand G would be useful if we boot the R off QBl and be like good times but on the other hand forest hills is a awful terminal so if extended to Jamaica 179 seems less risky than forest hills besides the e and F collision in between Forest hills and kew gardens with the g their maybe we can fix collision points and make ways to prevent much more but now. G is just stuck with just 2 stations unless somehow you manage to get the Extended further. Now that I think about how come no one brought up the Northern Blvd line it's a home that G could run but again Manhattan. Man anything we want go to further, We just get shafted by People going to Manhattan.
@@jointransitassociationlitterally everything is Manhattan centric so G is stuck there forever. God Damn it, in my opinion Manhattan is overlooked and overkilled. We so much that litterally no one wants go on a line that doesn't go to Manhattan like the G. This is why people need to know that Manhattan is over jammed but don't you dare start with the Bronx it's in a shit show.
Bring the M to 57th, R to FH71 or 179 in peak via 63, F via 53, E via 53, and G to FH71 or 179 in peak
As far as the Franklin avenue shuttle is concerned, that line should instead be extended to Myrtle Avenue, to eventually reuse the upper level of the Myrtle/Broadway station. The line most definitely should also be extended north of Metropolitan Avenue to connect with the Queens Blvd line; however, a branch will take this line to LaGuardia airport to hopefully connect with the extended Ditmars BMT line, or (EVEN BETTER YET!) be extended into the Bronx to eventually wind its way to Co-op City, where it'd be connected to the extended D train from 205th/Norwood.
Now wouldn't THAT be sup'm worth looking into?!
That’s not really worth it compared to connecting it to the Crosstown Line.
@@TheRailLeaguer The crosstown line is just FINE the way it already is.
@@CraigFThompson Not really, since it has the potential to do more. There’s a glaring gap in north-south subway service between the northern end of the Franklin Avenue route at Fulton Street to the Bedford-Nostrand Avenue station, where the Crosstown Line turns north along Marcy Avenue to Queens. By connecting the two, the trips between Northern and Southern Brooklyn become much more quicker than driving and more direct compared to “backdooring” via Downtown Brooklyn, Cobble Hill, and the Culver Line. Crosstown-Culver service would terminate at Bedford-Nostrand Avenues.
What does "fumigation" have to do with passengers pulling the emergency cord?
Passengers missing their stops have a tendency to panic and stop the train for whatever reason....
At a terminal like Forest Hills where the trains goes to a relay track or yard storage - it is a good idea to check if regular people are not still on the train before it goes to the relay track or for train yard storage. In such an instance, panicked or confused riders might pull the emergency cord because the train is not going where it is expected. Plus where the conductors and operators have to walk through the train to "reverse ends" on a relay track - such panicked and/or confused riders have at times in the past assaulted MTA staff. Years ago I remember something similar happened on a #5 train that ended at Bowling Green years ago - which tied up service on the Lexington Avenue line for hours. At "stub end" terminals like the L train at 14th Street-Eighth Avenue - a regular terminating train simply goes back into service in the other direction. The "fate" of the panicked / confused rider is less - they just get off at the next stop or their destination. A train that is sent to a relay or yard storage may not "return to service" for a good amount of time - increasing the reaction of the confused / panicked rider. A rider "trapped on a train sent to the train yard" could easily be on a train that will not return to service until the next day, or several hours later. So checking that the train is clear of regular people makes sense.
What about extending the G Train via QueensLink?
I remember when GRV trains ran on Queens BLVD
V trains are dead ☠️R needs to get tf off QBL and replace with the G
@@TransitFansakadagameszDMR needs to be kicked off QBL and bring the N to QBL via 63rd G stays where it is
The G should take all the 179s off the C n run 8 car trains once more 211s go to pitkin. Jamaica Yard needs to be expanded so the layups can get off D3 n D4 track from Union Turnpike to 169. With that you can have the F n R go to 179. F relay upstairs on express and N/R relay downstairs.
G Train is underrated sometimes dude
My thoughts about the (G) Train to extend to Forest Hills 71st Continental Avenue's via Queens Boulevard is have the (G) go Forest Hills 71st Continental Avenue's 7 days a week except late nights, and have the 6th Avenue (M) Train run via Queens Boulevard 24/7 and run via 63rd Street Tunnel, for Queens Link going on The Rockaway Beach Branch with the (A) Trian, to replace The Rockaway Park Shuttle Train. Have the (G) Train 10-cars 24/7. The (G) have run Queens Boulevard/Hillside Avenue Local with the (R) with 4 tracks end up to Bellerose 251st Street-Little Neck Parkway Station with 2 Island platforms for the (F) Train extension on the Hillside Avenue Line. The (G)/(R) shouldn't run QBL/Hillside Avenue Line on late nights. That's my opinion for the (G) Train. The (G)/(R) Train's should be extend to Queens Plaza Station for late night service only, to make it easy to transfer to the (E) Train and hopefully the (F) Train in the future for Queens Link for the (M) Train and run via 63rd Street Tunnel.
Any extension will lead to induced demands and changing/new traffic patterns so going by current travel patterns isn’t always the best way to determine what should be done
For all intents and purposes, in 2002, a year after the G got booted, ridership patterns was still identical to 2024. And let's keep it this way, as by interlining QBL even more, you forever hardwired the garbage headways that is the M/R trains.
But this is employment data, so I will have to test it with the MTA's data.
YES
For once I agree with you. Keep the G train where it is because of ridership patterns. One thing though, you never mention fleet size. There are no cars to be had in extending the G anywhere.
Only way to extend G would require radical restructuring of the QBL and a rerouting of other services
Most definitely, having the G train going back to Forest Hills, it's definitely a sight for sore eyes, as much as I respect the R train, but it cannot handle Queens Boulevard local on its own
Did you watch the video?
@@jointransitassociation I did
@BLETransitYT
Not to be disrespectful, but this video is 11 minutes long and you commented the minute this was published. Unless you can time travel, there is no way you watched the video the entire way.
@@jointransitassociationI mean if this is just for the weekend or night I dont mind the MTA just needs to get rid of that rule and maybe it could work especially with ousting fumigation or extending QBL locals to 179th street then I would support If Queenlink happens then maybe not since You can just have M trains run 24/7
@@jointransitassociationalso uh do you think it should be dropped in Queenslink so Capacity would increased to the M and R
And now the R only goes to Queens Plaza after 930 or so
To answer all these questions and answers for sending the G back to FH there are things that need to be factored in.
One thing is the QBL local riders favor Manhattan services so it’s would be better for the M and R to get boosted service and by doing that we first need to have the F and M swap implemented this way we can allow for more M and R service on QBL.
The next reason on why the G should not be sent to FH Is because of its horrible capacity as a terminal. If QueensLink gets factored in then maybe we can send the G to FH again that would allow the M to take over Rockaway Services sending all A Trains to Lefferts Blvd.
In theory it’s better for the G to get longer trains as well as more transfers. Instead of a Court Square and 21 St Stop we should have the G connect with the 7 at Vernon Blvd Jackson Ave which would be its first stop before heading to Astoria.
As for the G getting sent to LGA it’s better for the BMT Astoria Line to get that extension as it’s a Manhattan preferred area plus that’s would give it the new Astoria Yard which is where we can store the G and R Trains. The Astoria Yard can also allow the R to keep its service pattern in Brooklyn just with more trains and the QBL Local Services can get taken over by Second Ave services.
I agree that the G should never return to Forest Hills since the G carried air on Queens Blvd since the workforce on QB is more for Manhattan also running the G up Northern is a bad idea since it radiates circumferential and radical line, any line serving Northern Blvd should probably go into Manhattan.
Instead the G would be better off going to Astoria for more connections and since most guys go there anyway. If demand calls for it in the future we could maybe extend the G further into the Bronx to Yankee Stadium for even more connections anyway in my opinion the G train extension project should be a lower priority.
What the MTA should do for the time being is to reconfigure the switches at Ditmars Blvd to turn around more trains and extend the R to LGA so that we could have Astoria Yard built and reopen the Lower level of City Hall to store some trains that way the R can retain it's current service pattern in Brooklyn.
@@CR1Creativethat’s not a bad idea at all but overall I think we’re better off doing Queens Bronx Connection with the IBX.
QBL Local services will be taken over by the SAS and then the Rockaways as well since they are a Manhattan perfered area as well. Those coming from JFK can get a one seat ride straight to Manhattan. If demand calls then we can extend the IRT New Lots Line to Howard Beach JFK to connect with QueensLink Trains.
@@Reformperson
You know eventually in the long run we need a subway connecting East Bronx to East Queens.
Extend G to 179st Hillside
This
@@Iconic_maya9Chloe :)
It has been a long time since I have been to NY. I lived there between '49 and '89. Live in Denver now. Worked at Con Ed in Astoria. Lived in flushing. When I had trains and buses. There use to be the GG local that started at 71 Street.Why did that stop. Also RR.
There actually is a proposal to bring back the Rockaway beach branch, which is connected to the Rockaway line, and would also be connected to the Queens Blvd line. If this does end up getting approved by the mta, either the m or r trains would run from queens Blvd to the Rockaways, replacing the Rockaway shuttle. This would likely lead for an option to bring back the g into Queens Blvd as a replacement for said line.
You would use this opportunity to boost the R train. Again, bringing the G back to Forest Hills will forever hardwire the M and R trains to their garbage headways, and I am pretty sure that won't go well with Bay Ridge and Bushwick commuters.
And also, the G going to FH will also forever hardwire the G's frequencies, which I am sure Greenpoint commuters won't want that.
It takes more than the Queens link to solve the QBL issue that the requirements for the QBL improvements aside from the Rockaway connection is the Archer avenue line extension to serve southeast Queens, two track super express tracks and the extension of the QBL past 179 to Springfield Blvd and Little Neck Parkway which is was intended to utilize six subway routes at max capacity while 63rd street connection to QBL towards 36 and the super express tracks turn off towards the Rockaway branch is useful for reroute trains with five of them having access between Manhattan and Queens while the G to Rockaway would be an alternative, combine with CBTC and this is the improvement of QBL that we could have had from the start or work on in advance down the road
Branches on the jeep that’s just gonna make Service like 20 minutes waiting for a train like let’s say me and you are at court Square and the train at 21st Ave. is 10 minutes then the next one just departed, then the next ones in 20 minutes unless if it has cbtc then cancel the idea and just add a new G line like the H or something or just accept the sharp curve option and if you wanna have those lines split like I just said let’s say me and you are at Fort Hamilton Parkway and we need to go to Broadway for example next train on Franklin Avenue line is 10 minutes and then since we’re on a different line. The next train is gonna be another 20 minutes unless it has cbtc just pick one or ever or just make a new line like the h like I said😊
Forget going over to snooty suburban Forest Hills. From Court Square, a very short tunnel should curve NW over to the F line and continue into Manhattan making the G train valuable to all the new housing along the East River. The G would then serve the 3 densest boroughs and be crazy popular. Too bad the MTA is hopelessly corrupt.
G going to Forest Hills: NO! Not a chance.
G going to Queens Plaza with a potential new yard in Sunnyside: Yeah, much better.
can subways even use sunny side yard
(G) Trains should be permanently extended by only one stop to Queens Plaza so that riders can easily connect to the (E) and (M) Trains without transferring to them at Court Square saving them up to 2 minutes of walking from one subway station to another. North of the Queens Plaza station is a relay track the (G) Trains can use to turn around and get send back to Brooklyn, it is situated between the express tracks used by the (E) Trains during the day. The MTA should also look into rebuilding and reactivating the short-lived IND World's Fair Line to extend the (G) line after Forest Hills-71st Avenue to any certain subway-desert area in Queens we can think of.
That might cause a bottleneck as other trains have to wait for the G to switch multiple tracks which decreases capacity
Bro what are you doing here lol
@@adammars1438
No place to turn around non starter
Yes it should
Tbh I really thought about the g train going to forest hills only on weekends but I’ve changed my mind the branch this guy point for the g train is actually a good idea because I’ve been to Astoria near the water and traffic is so packed over there i think the g train might change that
G train should return to Forest Hills During Evenings,Late Nights and Weekends.
The G tracks are too crowded during peak running times?
@@295g295 They wouldn't be if you got rid of the M.
@@295g295 weekends and late Nights are Good
No one would really take the G on QBL to be honest. Everyone would take it to Court Square or Met Av-Lorimer St, since these stations are used more.
Yay new video, tech transit association videos are interesting
Rather than send the G train to the rest of Queens…
…make F trains run express uninterrupted from Jay Street-MetroTech to/from Church Avenue & in the peak direction to/from Avenue X with the G train terminating there, Kings Highway &/or 18th Avenue as other terminating options.
1:32 Original RR route and Purposed MM routes from the 1960’s!!!
The G train using the horace hoarding line? interesting.
Extending the ( G ) Train to Forest Hills?
I'll throw this out there: since Forest Hills Queens creates a lot of problems with the ( M ) and ( R ) Trains why not Forest Hills in Boston to meet the MBTA Orange Line? All you need is to get over the Triborough Bridge, run up to Boston Road (Rt. 1), then up Rt. 1 all the way to Dedham, MA, and finally up Washington Street Dedham/Boston to Forest Hills! 😊
Okay, it's only in jest; I'll leave the room now.
The fact that nyc's first ever non-manhattan crosstown line only has 2 stops in the outerborough of queens (i consider manhattan and brooklyn as the two interboroughs) is just stupid in my book, and the issue should be rectified at some point atleast in the mid-term future
The G train should use 10 car R160
Better idea would be to swap the '480 (8-car) R179 sets from the C trains and send them to the G that way the C can be 100% '600 ft trains
There’s no reason for it to use 10 cars it uses 5 cars bcuz not a lot of people ride the G
No.
If the G did run 10 car trains, it would likely run every 15-20 minutes.
@@EndIessProductionsyou prolly havent seen it during rush hour then
To have more trains run at forest hills, Mta should create QueensLink.
We need more subwayline in brooklyn or quennes
MTA not gonna do that unless they get rid of a local route
Okay, maybe, I don't know, stop confusing people and just put a clear and straight idea down: Extend one of the local services, preferably the R, to Jamaica-179th Street, if you do plan to reimplement the G. Just saying, it would most likely fit.
Otherwise, build a new terminal platform at 71st with yard relays under the existing platforms. That would make way more sense.
Never … forest hills is already in capacity with many trains with the M/R running local .
You should put the m train to 96 St 2nd Ave with the Q or T trains in Manhattan
Thats gonna cause lots of delays and interlocking
obviously no one sits at Court Square and sees the amount of people getting off the E and M trains to run for the G which the connection doesnt allow for…..observational studies need to be done for stuff like this….Queens Plaza is a better suited terminal for the G….delay in service? send the G to Forest Hills or Jamaica….the 8-10 minute headways it has can surely not be as interfering as running a long corridor and missing the train as you hit the bottom step at Court Square….for me this is one of the worst transfers in the system and was poorly planned out people movers or not….at least at Queens plaza those on the M/R can get onto the G waiting on the center track and allow the G to crossover first on departure….it would not set back G service operations much as long as it keeps its current headway
I have taken the G for 4 years and a lot of people transfer at Court Sq. But more people stay on their Manhattan bound train and even more G train commuters transfer to a Manhattan bound service.
And Court Sq is nowhere near one the worst transfers. You clearly have not seen some transfers in Manhattan. Court Sq to the E/M is like 2 minutes, and court Sq to the 7 is also 2 minutes. And if you like sending the G to Queens Plaza, have fun interfering with the E, M, and R trains, as if those trains need any more interlining to begin with.
Finally. 8-10 minutes is bad. The G should be down to at most 6 minutes, the target of the Rider's Alliance 6 minute service. Even so, if you want 8-10 minutes, that is 6 to 8 tph less you can run on the M and R. For reference, an addition of just 4 tph on the M brings its wait times down from 8 minutes to 5 minutes.
Bring the G line back on the weekends
G to Forest Hills is useless. Most riders is going into Manhattan and not a lot of people take the G
To fix Astoria we could extend the N to LaGuardia!!
g to la guadia airport and maybe even the bronx
Where is the rest of the US military budget video
Reducing Manhattan bound service and adding to the M and R peoblems makes this proposal DOA.
I Have A Plan During Late Nights Or Weekends When M Only Runs To Delancy St Or Myrtle Ave Or R Late Nights Goes Only To Whitehall St The G Can Go To Forest Hills And During Rush Hours Limited G Service To Forest Hills 2 Trains To Church Ave And 2 To Queens
So Why The G Cant Go To Forest Hills?
1. IT Would Interfear M And R Trains At Queens Plaza So That Means Either The M Or R Runs Express Or The G Runs Express
2. It Would Be A Waste Of Money If No One Is Going To Queens
3. Merging If The G Runs Express Then It Would Have To Interfear E And F Trains Local M And R Trains
What The G Train Really Needs Have 10 Car R160s Make It More Frequent
The G should go to 179th St
G's used to go to 71st.
i in brookly it should be extended from chrch street down 18th street to bath beach.
the m and r should be extended to kew gardens
I'd Love to see The G Train Gets Extended to Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer So that it Can Make a Connection to the J/Z Trains for the 1st Time in Years!
That would be a complete waste of track capacity that can be better used to increase service to Manhattan, where everyone is going.
Perhaps you’re better off replacing Hewes and Lorimer on the J and M routes with a new stop at Union Avenue, providing the free in-system transfer at Broadway.
Nah I need to go to Qnsbridge via F
Basically I go from 179 to QnsBridge everyday
if the G was smart, it extends further into Astoria IMO
To get the G back to eastern Queens, the M has got to go! Here's what I'd like to see:
1. The G extended to 179th street on the local track.
2. The F restored on the express track to 179th.
3. Getting rid of the M on QBL ends the original complication of the V train, which killed the one seat ride from Brooklyn to eastern Queens without the additional time of going through Manhattan, or that horrible transfer at the over-crowded Court Square.
There's already Manhattan bound service covering 3 areas: 8th Avenue (E), 6th Avenue (F), and Broadway (R), making M service, wholly unnecessary. Secondly, getting rid of the M would get rid of the annoying transfer to/from the local tracks at Queens Plaza.
By sending the G to 179th, it would also lessen the turnaround capacity issues at 71/Continental, where only the R would then have the turnaround capacity. And 179th has the turnaround capacity to easily handle two lines (F and G).
As currently constituted, the M & R are nowhere near OBL on weekends, so having the G back out there would solve that problem.
Did you watch the consequences of booting a Manhattan bound service off of QBL?
@@jointransitassociation Yes, I did.
@@ECO473 And what did I say about booting a Manhattan bound service off of QBL? That you are mirroring what pre-2001 service looked like, which meant increasing uncomfortable crowding from 2.2 million hours to 7.1 million hours annually. The M isn't for one seat rides (at least in Queens), it is for capacity. Specifically, to siphon as many riders from 65th St to 36th St that would automatically transfer to the F train of they got the chance.
Also, without fumigation reform, 179th St would also be as bad as Forest Hills. A little less bad, but still bad.
If you have truly watched the video, then you would know what I said about booting one service off QBL, that it would likely end in disaster during peak periods. It is never about "one seat rides or connections", but about capacity. Specifically, how to lessen the insane crowds seen at 53rd St.
And even if you want to go purely by one seat rides, employment data from both 2002 and 2021 shows riders prefer Manhattan bound services. So if anything, boosted M/R trains is better.
@@jointransitassociationwell it's all about one seat rides but to me it's all useless like that's the only reason the current M is a joke because people bitchin for Manhattan even if I had a job at manhattan and I lived at Queens, I'm willing to take G train to Court Sqaure then transfer, I'm that different from others.
@@jointransitassociation If I were the only person who had this opinion, I obviously would not have a case. But there is something to be said for the arguments in favor of the G extension back east that even politicians, railfanners, and other riders are lobbying for it. Even if it's for nights/weekends only, that would be better than nothing. As to the argument that lines can have so many trains running on four tracks per weekend, it would seem to me that the MTA could easily change that rule if it wanted to. Case in point, when the 63rd street tunnel was undergoing repairs and the F was rerouted to 53rd Street, the express service was much better. You, I, and many others were aware of the improvements. So what happened? In spite of the improvements, the MTA sent the F back to 63rd and the M stayed on 53rd. This proves to me that the MTA can change its rules when it suits them, and what the paying ridership wants be damned.
The g train is better ending at 20 ave or LaGuardia airport than ending at forest hills
Short answer: no
Just make the G 10 cars at least during rush hour
I don't really think it should be extended to forest hills it should be extended to coney island or something since its a crosstown line
You wish the F does that already so that’s pointless
@matthewadonis3020 The G' clearly supposed to support the F to Coney Island...But from my knowledge, that section of the F leading down to coney is either the 2nd or 3rd least used section in the entire system. Ridership is so low that many F trains terminate at Chuch Ave, or I think..Ave N before reaching Coney.
@@robotx9285kings highway
@@robotx9285 not happening Coney Island is no longer a hot spot
@@robotx9285 the G is more likely to go more into Queens and maybe a little more into Brooklyn 🏝️
Bring the G back to Queens Plaza. That should do it.
That involves the G train to cross in front of the E trains at Queens Plaza to turn around. Already, Queens Plaza is a horrible junction, and I don't think putting a Rogers Junction like merge is a good idea.
@@jointransitassociation I know. I just wish they could somehow make it work.