Will the G train extension remain once the Culver Viaduct rehab is completed?
A few weeks ago, when the MTA opened up the northern staircase at 4th Ave. and 9th St., a few Brooklynites grew concerned over the state of the Culver Viaduct rehab. With over a year still left on the work — and the reopening of Smith/9th Sts. delayed until the fall — these folks grew concerned that the MTA would take away the very useful five-stop G train extension that’s been in place since 2009. Keep it, they rightfully argued.
Now, I know the value of this extension quite well. I live a short walk away from the 7th Ave. stop at 9th St. in Brooklyn, and ever since the G train has been extended through my station, trips to Williamsburg, Greenpoint and beyond have been much, much quicker. I don’t have to wait interminably for an F train only to have to wait interminably a few stops later for a G train. A one-seat ride, especially late at night, makes all the difference, and the crowded G train as it snakes through Brownstone Brooklyn is a testament to the success of this extension.
That the viaduct work won’t wrap until 2013 and that the G train extension has been successful, though, will not stop New Yorkers for getting all up in a tizzy. Since it appeared as though the end of the work was at least in sight if not actually around the corner, local leaders found a transit issue they could exploit. That, at least, is my pessimistic take on the issue.
The Straphangers along with Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz joined together to form the 5 Stop Fan Club, an advocacy group with a mission to convince the MTA to keep the G train extension alive. They started a petition drive, garnered front-page coverage in New York’s free dailies and earned a few brief TV and public radio spots. It’s a pro-transit campaign getting mainstream press coverage!
The comments came fast and furious. “Ending this service will have a profound effect on the community and the mom and pop stores along these five stops,” de Blasio said. “I encourage every New Yorker who wants to see the G train service preserved to join the 5 Stop Fan Club and let your voices be heard.” A Carroll Gardens resident echoed this concern. “The extension is a minor inconvenience for them to keep open, but it’s a major convenience for the public, especially on the weekends when service is slower,” George Luis Cordero said to The Daily News.
Something about this petition drive rubbed me the wrong way though. When I expressed my doubts via Twitter, Cate Contino of the Straphangers parried with me. I think the politicians signed on are just looking to garner constituent favor and that the G train extension will be saved if lower-case-s straphangers actually use it. The Straphangers, rightfully so, seek to raise awareness of a useful subway extension that will cost the MTA the operating budget equivalent of 3-4 extra train sets.
Yet, the MTA never said ti would axe the G train extension. At the start of the Culver rehab, the authority said the extension would be temporary with an evaluation to be conducted at the end of the work. That’s the line they’re still pushing today. As I’ve said, if the ridership warrants it, the G train extension to Church Ave. will become permanent, and so far, ridership appears to warrant it.
So here’s my proposal: Sign the petition; raise awareness about it. But in the end, as the folks petition over the M8 back in 2010 showed, if the ridership isn’t there, no amount of petitioning can save a doomed transit route once the MTA puts it under the cutting knife. So ride, ride, ride, and the G train won’t be going anywhere.
36 comments
More than ridership, funding is what’s needed. Since the extension is required for the viaduct construction, it’s currently being funded from the capital budget. Once the construction wraps up, so does the funding source.
The Facebook page is ridiculous: “Five G train stops are at risk of closure”? No they’re not. I want the extension to remain in place as much as the next guy, but using blatant falsehoods as your soundbites looks stupid. Also, how hard is it to look up what “MTA” stands for? (It’s not “Metropolitan Transit Authority.”)
Well you know how I feel about using borrowing to prop up the operating budget. If there is a capital project anywhere near an area, everyone on the road who works part of their lunch charges lunch hour overtime — and anything else they can get away with — to the capital plan.
But let’s get back to the central issue. New York City Transit has a shortage of yard space, with some trains stored on the right of way overnight. There is a yard at Church Avenue that used to be unused. I had suggested that the Church Avenue yard become the home yard of the G.
The turnaround at 4th Avenue requires TA workers to cross main line tracks to access a crew quarters. That wouldn’t be true at Church. So perhaps the G should go there anyway.
Back in the BMT days, in order to save equipment and money, the West End line didn’t go all the way to Coney Island. It terminated at 86th Street and 18th Avenue, where people had to change to a shuttle that used old, obsolete (wooden) equipmment. Also to save money, the MTA converted Rockaway Park to a shuttle.
Bottom line is, the justification of cutting the number of stops on the G could be made for the outer reaches of any subway line. But the MTA’s response to that is usually the trains need to go to the end anyway, because that is where the yard is.
Those “BMT days” seem like before my time. Did you possibly mean “BRT days”? (NOT bus rapid transit, but Brooklyn Rapid Transit, one of the ancestors of the BMT.)
BRT was bankrupt by 1920. It became the BMT after its receivership. In other words, someone who was 95 now would have been a toddler when it failed. Hard to imagine how things change in one lifetime. :-\
OK, thanks for the info. The BMT days include my childhood in the 1950’s: Subway cars with rattan seats and ceiling fans, one-cent chewing gum vending machines, and 15-cent tokens with a cut-out “Y” in “NYC” and smaller in size than a penny.
🙂
There is a poster on nyc.transit who I think remembers the per-unification system. But he was very young (this would have been late 1930s). He must have been in his 40s or 50s when he started using usenet. :-p
I still remember my father telling me about how he had once seen a man accidentally get a fishing pole chopped up in one of those subway car ceiling fans.
(I guess that guy was lucky that he was an amateur fisherman instead of a player with the Knicks. In THAT case, he would have been decapitated.)
Straphangers is really a sad joke these days. I get that transit advocates need to do the politicking thing too, but SH is at the point where they aren’t even bothering to understand the relation between riders and the system. Like, in the off chance the G Train does turn out to be not worth it, who ends up paying? The people who pay the taxes that pay for the system, of course. Fares aren’t going up – not because of this, anyway.
They should be thrilled the MTA is willing to do a quantitative analysis to see if this is justified. I am.
There was definitely a phase in 2007 where this extension was thought to be permanent: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/s.....great.html
But now the agency says that the direct underground link between Greenpoint and Kensington — by way of Park Slope —will be permanent.
http://bkabak.wpengine.com/200.....n-f-grade/
Maybe the tide really is turning on the G train. The service extension to Church Ave. in Kensington, once thought to be temporary, will remain in place permanently once work on the Culver Viaduct is completed.
Maybe we were all just living in a 2007 pre-recession bubble.
Photo and/or video documenting the crowds on the G train between Fourth Ave. and Church Ave. right now would probably help the cause, if the trains are being used as much as claimed (though given the current financial situation, it wouldn’t shock me if the MTA tries to split the difference and just goes for extended service to Church during rush hours).
From what I’ve heard, the MTA is very very likely to keep the current extension in place. Photos, etc. help, but they know the numbers.
Interesting, because yes, how else do they measure this? Turnstiles only tell them trends in total passenger use, not which train is providing the passengers.
There are probably lots of metrics that can at least give them an idea. Like, how much did turnstile use increase since the extension? Or, changes in platform crowding. Some kind of headcount sampling of the G can be compared to changes in a passenger entry/exit flow model they probably have – perhaps something like this could take into account swipes that are occurring elsewhere on the system made possible by the extension (granted, probably minuscule).
Anyway, they must have a way to estimate how many new swipes the G is drawing. And, from that, they can probably even estimate whether the extension improved financial performance.
A swipe gives an indication of where somebody got on. The following swipe gives a likely indication of where he got off.
Then figure out the likelihood that he used the G to get between the two points. (If he went to Greenpoint Ave., it’s quite likely. If he went to 23rd and 6th, it’s quite unlikely. If he went to Rego Park, it probably depends on whichever train came first.)
I signed the petition, and also wrote the MTA a positive email thanking them for the G train extension and telling them how it had positively impacted my life. I got a nice response from them about it.
What I want to know–when will the coney island bound trains resume stopping at 15th/Ft. Hamilton? They said “March”, and last I looked at the calendar…
John
If you look ahead on the MTA website at the “Planned Service Changes”, they are shuttle busing from Jay Street south the weekend of March 30-April 1, and the stations should be reopened as of 5am on April 2nd.
Ugh…
Thanks!
Oh, and keep up the great work, love the blog!
John
Bill wants to be mayor and Marty, other than being a bit eccentric and anti bike, probably teamed up to ensure a spot on Billy’s mayoral staff since he is term limited (again) and won’t be BBP after 2013. So he needs the work. That’s the cynical side. Now, can Marty use some of his discretionary funding to fund (in whole or in part) the G extension? And would his successor honor that agreement, in effect becoming another steady revenue stream for the MTA?
On the other hand, this could be a pre-emptive attempt to influence the debate.
Thanks for the M8 shout-out! 🙂
In that case, and in this case too, I think having the Electeds on board absolutely helps. I don’t think the community would have saved the M8 if not for both a) the tremendous outcry (marches, turn-out at hearings, petitions, press, etc…) and b) the support of the Electeds, who first publicized the potential elimination of the M8, and then helped organize a meeting with the MTA and advocated on our behalf.
The problem is that when we fight these local battles separately, often the MTA will be forced to rob Peter to pay Paul. If you save one line, you effectively axe another in an area where people aren’t as vocal.
If transit riders were viewed as a wider constituency instead of a set of competing interests, perhaps we could address the funding issue that is at the heart of all of these battles. People need to vote for transit-friendly Assemblymembers and Senators. Unfortunately with the shameless gerrymandering that just took place I am skeptical that there will be a transit-friendly State Senate any time soon.
Cuomo and Silver really sold us out for their own short-term interests, and now transit-riders (and the rest of the city) will be paying for it for the next decade.
Anytime there’s an oppertunity to add service, it should be taken advantage of regardless of the motivation. So in that light if the G extention to Church Avenue works, then keep it.
Looking at this issue from another angle,ridership on the G to Forest Hills was low do to infrequent service & no service on weekends. As a result, trains now end in Long Island City.
As you can see, if you give an insentive to ride a given line by providing good service, people will use it. Take the insentive away, well you know what happens.
From my unscientific observation, very few people are on the G from Park Slope to Hoyt–Schermerhorn, compared to between LIC and Hoyt–Schermerhorn.
I think it wold be nice if the G would run on the express track. Begren, 7th Ave, then Church.
But then again, I would get on at 7th Ave and would not be needing to change to the R.
Not possible given the structure of the system.
The G is useful not only for intra-Brooklyn travel, but also because service on the F is deteriorating and will likely continue to do so. You can use it to get to the R at 4th Avenue or A/C at Hoyt.
Because of the track layout, the G can’t run express between Fourth Ave. and Bergen and access the tracks to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. The ramp north of Bergen only connects the local tracks to the express, which is the one the F uses to get from Bergen to Jay Street.
But the G used to make its “U turn” on the express track at 4th Ave???
Or maybe the F can start running express
Alternate rush hour Fs id run express from 1967-76, but passengers at the local stops along the line, especially Carroll Street, complained they were losing one-seat ride access into Manhattan during peak hours because of the express runs between Jay Street and Kings Highway (the PM southbound express trip during the summer at the railfan window on an ACed Slant-40 made it a great ride for me, but I don’t think that was why the MTA set up the service in the first place).
I take the G from 4th-9th sometimes and it’s never crowded, but the ridership must be there.
Now if we could only get 6-car trains back…
I’m a little confused by the graphic in this story. Why is there an old BMT Nassau line M train bullet beneath the D train’s bullet?
Because it’s an old graphic.
There was a VERY short period where the G Train had been extended to Church Avenue, and the M still operated without the Chrystie Street Connection.
I believe the period was less than a year with BMT Nassau Street Line service and Church Avenue G Train service operating concurrently. Bit of an anomaly; if you were ever a person who loved the fact that you could take a G Train to 4 Avenue and 9th Street, and then switch to an M train, your enthusiasm was very short lived.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. During that time, did the M run between Middle Village and 4th Ave / 9th St?
The M ran to Bay Parkway (on the West End line) during rush hours.
Very short period? It was nearly a year. The G was extended to Church on July 5, 2009 and the M was rerouted on June 27, 2010.
I agree this is a bit of a non-troversy. It’s more that Straphangers (a worthy organization, no doubt), is trying to generate contributions.
What do people think the effect of the 7 train stopping at Court-Square again starting April 2nd (I think). Keeping the G extension would make it easier to get farther into Brooklyn from Flushing without wasting time going through Manhatten