Hi, everyone. My name is Lilit Marcus and I’ll be doing some guest posts over the next couple of days while Benjamin is away. My normal home is over at Save the Assistants, but I’m happy to have the opportunity to branch out a little bit.

As Benjamin noted last week, many riders are happy with the new G train extension to Church Avenue in Brooklyn. I live in Williamsburg close to the Metropolitan G stop, and I’ve been a longtime fan of the train – my boyfriend of two years lives in Long Island City, and I’ve told people we might not be together if dating him meant I had to go into Manhattan and switch trains twice. I’ve also had a soft spot for the G train ever since reading Jonathan Lethem’s Motherless Brooklyn, where the protagonist notes that the G is the underdog of the subway system, suffering from insecurity because it’s the only train that doesn’t touch Manhattan.

While the G extension further into Brooklyn is a great (albeit temporary) start, there are two other issues I’d like to see the G address:

1. The G, in order to be even more efficient, needs to extend one stop further past Court Square and go to Queens Plaza. This would connect the G easily with the E, V, and R lines. When the G used to run more reliably to Forest Hills on nights and weekends, it made it a lot easier for G riders to connect with other lines in Queens. Before the extension to Church Avenue, I also thought it would be great for the G to somehow go to Atlantic Avenue, but I can deal with walking from the Fulton Street stop.

2. Get some more damn cars. It’s great that the G now has a longer route and serves more neighborhoods (and that it extends to Coney Island many weekends in place of the F), so it’s more than time to have more than four cars per train. How many of you have had the classic “first time on the G” moment when you realize that you’re standing at the wrong end of the platform and have to haul ass in order to squeeze into the last car? The G isn’t the Times Square/Grand Central shuttle, OK? Time to give it more capacity.

At the end of last week, when New York City Transit announced that some service increases were heading our way in July, one line was noticeably absent from the list. That line was, of course, the IND Crosstown train, better known as the G train.

In fact, in writing about the service changes, Times transit reporter William Neuman explicitly mentioned the G train:

One line that had been scheduled for more service in the original proposal last December but was not included in this round of improvements was the G. Riders on the G often complain of long waits between trains. Officials said the G did not exceed the loading guidelines.

In English, that means that, based on metrics set by NYC Transit, G train capacity and wait times were within acceptable margins. In other words, tough.

G train activists — some of the more vocal in the system — were outraged. “The M.T.A. has done a grave injustice to G train riders and commuters in Brooklyn if it fails to enact service enhancements,” Hakeem Jeffries, Assembly representative from Brooklyn said late last week.

What Mr. Jeffries conveniently left was his anti-congestion pricing stance. While bemoaning the fate of service along a train important to his constituents, Jeffries didn’t offer up a mea culpa on his stance surrounding a plan that would have brought in money for the MTA to fund service upgrades.

This is, of course, nothing new for beleaguered proponents of the G train. While not the most devoted blogger, Teresa Toro’s Save the G organization has long fought for more service on the only major subway line to eschew the borough of Manhattan. And in this case I have to side with Toro, Jeffries and G train riders.

The MT’s loading guidelines view service overall. It’s true that the G train on weekends and off-peak times is mostly empty, and the ten-minute intervals between trains is manageable. But during rush hour, as residents from Gowanus to Greenpoint to and from Forest Hills to Long Island City scramble to make their G train connections, the four-car and six-car trains are packed to the gills. While the MTA needs to balance G train service with the demands of the Queens Boulevard trains, the G — particularly in the norther stretches of Brooklyn — needs more rush hour service. How and when it will happen is anyone’s guess.

The G train activists are so sincere. They have a website and blog devoted to their cause, and they’re working really hard to push the G train connection to Atlantic Ave. The only problem is that their efforts are coming at what is probably the worst time for rider activism in the city.

Yesterday, one day after the MTA learned it wouldn’t have congestion pricing revenues for their coffers, G train activists took their case before the sympathetic City Council. Good ol’ John Liu and the transportation committee were more than willing to take the MTA to task for neglecting the only subway that connects Brooklyn to Queens without traveling into Manhattan. Raanan Geberer from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle tells us more, but it’s nothing all that new:

Brooklyn officials and activists told horror stories and demanded better service on the much-maligned “G” train, while the MTA, in effect, pleaded poverty based on today’s economic situation…

Current MTA plans for the line, which has suffered serious cutbacks since late 2001, involve what could be interpreted as “giving with one hand and taking from the other.” This would involve extending the line from the awkward Smith-9th Street southern terminal in Red Hook down to Church Avenue, adding five well-used stops.

But in return, the permanent northern terminal would become Court Square, near Long Island City. Cutbacks from a Forest Hills terminal to Court Square were what started the G protest rolling back in late 2001 – nowadays, the G only goes to Forest Hills on the weekends and late at night, and when track work ensues, it doesn’t even run then.

There’s nothing like City Council members grandstanding on an obvious issue either. “Many people call the G train the stepchild of the transit system, but I call it the abused child, the abandoned child,” Councilmember Letitia James said. “When I was a girl, when I got a `G’ on a paper, it meant “good.” But in the case of the G train, `G’ means God-awful, and it means the train is running like it’s in a ghetto.”

Said Joanne Simon, “Rider consensus is that the route serves too few stations, that the stations have suffered significant neglect, and the service is inadequate.”

Of course, none of these charges are new, but what’s the MTA to do? They have to balance the demands of the service with the volume in the Queens Boulevard tunnel, the track work on the Culver Viaduct and their currently bleak financial situation. The MTA has already withdrawn plans to add cars and more service to the G line, and they still don’t know if the Church Ave. extension will be permanent or temporary.

Meanwhile, while it’s reasonable for G train advocates to ask for better service, some of their demands — like an underground connection to Atlantic Ave. — are just flat-out absurd. An above-ground free transit would be appropriate, but sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into a 600-foot tunnel will never be the best use of MTA funds.

The G train activists have their point: The G line has become a vital subway line for communities along its path and an important connector for folks wishing to avoid the long trip from Queens to Brooklyn via Manhattan. When the money is there, G train upgrades are seemingly on the top of the MTA’s list. But right now, with congestion price hopes dashed and a nation on the brink of a recession, the G train activists are simply fighting for the right causes but at a very wrong time.

Around these parts, we’ve known for a while that service changes were heading the G train’s way. Earlier this week, the MTA made it officially, and the changes are rather extensive to the much-maligned train.

Of course, as with anything MTA, the changes come with the good and the bad. The Daily News reported on these changes earlier this week. Peter Kadushin gives us the details:

The Transit Authority’s 2008 Service Enhancement Program trades increased frequency of G service – up to 50% on weekday evenings and 20% during afternoons – for the elimination of off-peak service to 13 stations across the borough.

The new plan means G service in Queens will end at Court Square in Long Island City, one stop shy of a key location – Queens Plaza on the E, R and V lines. That will force riders to make an extra transfer to get access to Queens Blvd. and Forest Hills.

Of note also is the Church Ave. extension. The G will now terminate at Chuch Ave., deep in the heart of Brooklyn. But why, oh, why is the train stopping at Court Square? (Yes, yes, I know. They can’t turn the train around at Queens Plaza. But still.)

Gene Russianoff, Straphangers Campaign guru, wasn’t too pleased. “The thrust of the G advocacy has been about building ridership,” he said. “But at every turn, they make it hard. These changes make the line less convenient for people.”

Less waiting; more transfers. That’s a questionable trade-off, but in the end, it’s one I would make.