When the MTA, with much fanfare, raised the fares this past week, many riders complained that they were paying more for the same level of service. New Yorkers, it seems, do not realize that without the fare hikes, they would suffer through crippling service cuts. These straphangers also seem to be more willing to pay higher fares for more service.
It’s not quite true that the MTA did not extend service though, and I want to take a brief second to talk about a couple of recent service extensions. These aren’t quite the service upgrades we need or want, but for now, they will have to do.
First, on Monday, Transit started running the 5 train into Brooklyn during midday, off-peak hours. For years, the 5 had a varying schedule for peak and off-peak hours. It would run express to Flatbush Ave. only from 6:15 to 10 a.m. and from 3:15 to 8:45 p.m. Now, the 5 runs to Flatbush Ave. from 6:15 a.m. straight through until 8:45 p.m. The Franklin St. transfers for midday Flatbush-bound travelers along the East Side IRT has been eliminated. Overall, the MTA has implemented this change to provide more consistent service while working to alleviate the overcrowding on the 4. Sounds good to me.
Further south in Brooklyn, this Sunday marks the extension of the G train to Church Ave. While the G signage has already been updated, the changes go into effect this weekend. The G will now continue south from Smith/9th Sts. with stops at 4th Ave.-9th Street, 7th Ave, 15th Street-Prospect Park, Fort Hamilton Parkway and Church Ave. Riders on the G can now get a one-seat ride from Kensington, Park Slope and Windsor Terrace to Williamsburg and Long Island City, and the stop at 4th Ave.-9th St. offers a connection to the M and R.
This service extension is a direct result of the Culver Viaduct rehabilitation project. However, if it is successful, Transit has expressed a willingness to make it a permanent change. It could also open up the possibility of F Express service in Brooklyn.
Finally, Transit recently wrapped up a 4 express pilot program in the Bronx as well. We’re still waiting for the results, but this too could be a new service option.
These are but small additions to a vast system, but every service extension helps.
11 comments
I’m quite pleased to see this G train extension.
However, with one hand they giveth and with the other they taketh away. Let’s not forget that the MTA still has a de facto permanent service cut to the northern half of the G line (the portion between Court Sq and Forest Hills). They have signs up saying that the G will stop at Court Sq every weekend “until further notice,” and I just noticed a new sign saying that the G will stop at Court Sq every weeknight until September. These signs claim that this is because of “track work,” but I fail to see how that could be (the R still runs local; are they doing track work between Court Sq and Queens Plaza?). It seems like they are cutting G service without going through the bothersome process of making it official. I only wish the G train had a Line Manager so I could ask someone what is going on.
But anyway, hopefully, the MTA will see enough of a demand for this Church Av extension that it is made permanent.
My guess about the G and the R past Court Sq. is that NYCT is doing major work on the switches between Queens Plaza and 36th Street.
They’ve probably moved the E and the V onto the local tracks while they work on the express parts. Thus, they’ve probably cut the G in order to give it’s time slots to the E and V through that work zone. If you stop to think about it, with 4 different active lines moving through there, it’s going to be a nightmare to get the work done with the crews on the tracks still staying safe.
Something had to give, and that something is the G, which always seems to be the ugly duckling in the eyes of NYCT officials (probably because it doesn’t go into Manhattan).
I’m making my educated guesses off of the http://www.nycsubway.org track maps: http://nycsubway.org/maps/track.html (which are an awesome resource to figuring out what the NYCT is actually doing).
That makes sense, Josh. However, if that were true, then wouldn’t there be equivalent service advisories every night and weekend “until further notice” stating that the E or F would be running local? To be fair, I see that recently, the F has been running local between Forest Hills and Roosevelt Ave at certain points during the weekend. And I don’t know what sorts of changes happen in the evenings, because I don’t take the Queens Blvd line very often.
I guess I’m still not convinced that every single evening and weekend they are running one of the expresses on the local track, and therefore this seems to be an unnecessary service elimination. If anyone has any more concrete information, I’d love to be proved wrong.
Silly question here. Why should the G run to Forest hills? Is there really much demand for direct service between Queens Boulevard and the Crostown line? On the rare weekends that G trains do run through, I’ve never seen more than a small handful on trains leaving Queens Plaza for Court Square – the vast majority get off to wait for the E or R.
And from what I’ve seen at Court Square, most of the people transferring off the G there are going to Manhattan, not further into Queens. True, they only have access to the E and V, and the V doesn’t run on weekends. But does it really make sense to run trains all the way out to Forest Hills just to add that transfer option? How popular was it before 2001?
And as I recall from 2001, NYCT had planned to cut the G back to Court Square at all times. Is that because the G is an “ugly duckling in the eyes of NYCT officials”, as Mr. Karpoff suggests, or is it simply because the demand for the service is quite low? Back when the G was one of two weekday locals, it served primarily as a feeder to the expresses. But now that there are two weekday locals that serve Manhattan directly (only one on weekends, but there was only one on weekends before 2001 as well), is the G really very useful north/east of Court Square?
In the end, NYCT caved into political pressure and ran the G to Forest Hills on weekends – but made clear up front that most weekends it would have to be cut back for construction. And that’s exactly what happened. So what’s the problem?
The only problem I see is that the published maps and published timetables and posted signs all state that the G runs to Foret Hills on weekends, when in fact it normally does not. It seems to me that the simplest solution is to allow them to formally cancel the service and correct the signage. That might lead to better service on the Crosstown line itself (since trains won’t have to be scheduled to fit in between R’s). And it would almost certainly save the agency money (since they presumably have to pay enough G crews for the full line even when it’s cut back).
The problem with the whole Court Square thing is on weekends where the E runs express, you have to make two transfers if you’re going anywhere on the Queens Boulevard line except Queens Plaza, Roosevelt Avenue, or Forest Hills/points east. And if you’re going in the other direction and you just miss the G, that’s another 20 minutes you have to waste (in addition to the time you waited for the R to come (I keep hearing reports that the R doesn’t run much on QB over the weekends)).
How many people go from the Crosstown Line to the local QB stations, though? I’d guess that not a lot. Certainly not by the standards of commuters who live north of 59th in Manhattan on the opposite side of 5th Avenue as the one they work on. People who live in Washington Heights or most of Harlem and work on the East Side need two transfers, as well, unless they work near Grand Central. The same is true for people who live on the East Side or in the East Bronx and work on the West Side.
Agreed. And, furthermore, Crosstown riders have single-transfer access to the Queens local on weekdays (and at night, even if the G is cut back to Court Square) – it’s only on weekends that they need to transfer twice. Your other examples require two transfers all the time. Maybe Crosstown riders don’t have it so bad after all.
With all the bad news I’ve been hearing about transit and sustainability both locally and nationally, this comes as a nice present.
Mr. Josh Karpoff, if you what you say is true, that means that they’ve been doing work on these tracks since 2002 – the year when they introduced the V and cut the G. Ever since then, they’ve cut the G for most of its duration, due to “construction.” Now, if there was any construction going on, I would have seen either a construction train, a construction crew, etc… Plus, the E, V, R and even the F use these tracks daily. So I don’t think construction between 36 St and Queens Plaza is it (and I’m inferring from my daily travels to Q. Plaza since 2002). MTA has also stated in its service advisories that they’re doing track work between Q. Plaza and Court Sq. stations. Right…. for 7 years? Maybe … MTA does not have the guts to tell us that they’ve cancelled G service to Continental and are afraid of the backlash. The simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
In regards to G train usage – According to Andrew, a train route has to exist because people will take it from starting point A to end point Z, if I get this right from his reference to the G train. That is not true. As most urban rail networks prove, much of the usage relies on the network’s interdependency and commuters transferring from one line to the next. So even though the G won’t take as many people from Continental to Brooklyn as MTA would like, it will still connect people who are stranded because the R comes every 15-20 minutes and that is unacceptable in a modern urban metro.much of the population that live along the Q. Blvd take the local to Manhattan or to an express station.
I am glad that the Church Ave folks are getting their share of our train, but I hope the MTA will stop its pranks and finally restore the G service to Queens.
The work seems to be mostly on Queens Bouelvard itself. Things already get pretty congested with the E, F, and R running past the construction area – and you want to throw the G into the mix too? Or did you want the G to replace one of those services, which already carry substantial loads between Queens and Manhattan?
NYCT never had any intention to run the G on Queens Boulevard aftr the connector opened in 2001. The demand for service between Queens Boulevard and the Crosstown line is tiny in comparison to the demand between Queens Boulevard and Manhattan. As I said before, the weekend extension to Forest Hills was only instituted as a political concession, and it was instituted with the very clear proviso that most weekends it wouldn’t be able to actually run – which is precisely what’s happened. If four services could fit on weekends, don’t you think the fourth would be the V rather than the G, as on weekdays? In practice, the G is never going to run to Forest Hills on a regular basis on weekends – it can’t. The only question is how long politicians are going to demand that it continue to run on paper (at great expense).
As of a week ago, the R is scheduled to run every 10 minutes on weekends. (It used to be scheduled every 8, but construction schedules reduced it to 12 much of the time.) That may be a pain but it hardly qualifies as “stranded”. If that isn’t enough service at local stations, then maybe some E or F trains should make local stops. There isn’t room for a fourth service – all that can be done is a rejiggering of the existing local/express mix. One of the challenges in a system with four-track lines is maintaining the appropriate balance of local and express service, especially off-peak. It’s not an issue that most systems face.
Whatever there is to say about the G, the 4/5 changes are in some sense a zero-sum game. The midday 5 extension to Flatbush comes with a concomitant reduction in 4 service. Also, the Lex, as we know, is at capacity in the mornings, so the 4 expess pilot was accompanied by equal reductions in local service.
Nevertheless, the fact that things are in flux is good to see, because at least they have a chance of changing for the better.