Home New York City Transit A brief thought on the G train

A brief thought on the G train

by Benjamin Kabak

Last weekend, after spending the afternoon at Kara Walker’s Domino’s Sugar Factory installation and grabbing dinner at Paulie Gee’s in Greenpoint, I took the G train back to my end of Brooklyn. It was a pretty easy ride, made easier by the fact that we didn’t have to wait long at Greenpoint Avenue, but when we got off in Ft. Greene, I realized I had left my credit card at the restaurant. So I got to enjoy a bonus pair of G train rides.

The ride back to Greenpoint was frustrating. I was annoyed with myself for leaving my card at the restaurant, and to make matters worse, I caught the tail lights on the G departing Fulton St. as I made it to the platform. On schedule 12 minutes later, the next train showed up, and I had better luck on the way home. All told, it was a fine ride that could have been much, much worse.

The next day, G train service got a little bit more frequent. Based on increased off-peak and afternoon demand, the MTA decreased weekday headways from 10 minutes to eight minutes. This move will reduce wait times across the board and alleviate crowds during the P.M. rush. This measure came about after the MTA, at the urging of the Riders Alliance and Daniel Squadron, conducted a line review, and these folks were happy. “These improvements will help commutes on this important line,” Squadron said, “and hopefully make lives a little easier for the riders who depend on it.”

So the politicians like it. But if you thought this increased service would make G train riders happy, guess again. Based on the reaction on social media, G train riders used this news to complain even more about the early morning crowds and the so-called G train sprint. They demand full-length trains from the MTA — though full length trains for the size of those IND Crosstown platforms would be an utter waste of resources — and they bemoaned that the MTA still doesn’t care about G train riders.

On the one hand, as the G train is seemingly ignored throughout the city, its riders are the ones most vocal on Twitter and New York City blogs. It runs through some hip and hipster neighborhoods but also through some areas without density. It doesn’t have the ridership to warrant longer trains, and the concept of induced demand — for which I’ve argued in the past — does not have evidentiary backing strong enough to warrant the costs of added service.

On the other hand, people sometimes have to run for trains! I have to dash down a few staircases if my train is pulling in as I arrive at the station, and sometimes, I miss a train on the weekends that doesn’t run too frequently. It’s all part of not knowing where my train is at all times, but that’s an issue for B division lines without countdown clocks. What makes the G worse of course is the platform sprint, but unless the MTA starts closing extra entrances — such as India St. — the trains won’t line up with the nearest staircases. The crowding complaints are easier to ignore. Let’s see how G riders would handle a rush hour 6 train.

I’m tempted to say the rider complaints can thus be dismissed, but they should be heard out. In an ideal world, the MTA would have the money and resources to run full trains at peak hours to avoid sprints and placate costumers. But they can’t, and the demand isn’t there. When it is, though, riders should be front and center making their voices heard. Today, the added service — which generally runs on time and fairly regularly — will have to suffice.

You may also like


mjp June 16, 2014 - 12:46 am

LOL @ “The crowding complaints are easier to ignore”. Spoken like someone who doesn’t take the G from Nassau to Court Square at 8:30 am every day. Because that person knows that one frequently needs to let one train (or, sometimes, two trains) pass because it’s overcrowded and impossible to squeeze on. And the next train is rarely directly behind it as the conductor usually promises.

(Whilst we’re unfairly generalizing: prior to 2008 I lived in Manhattan and the 6 train was my commute, and I never had the overcrowding problems from which I suffer daily on the G.)

Larry Littlefield June 16, 2014 - 6:21 am

I’ve started taking the G to the 7 in lieu of riding the F all the way to Midtown when the G comes first, and I’ve seen nothing close to that. It’s less crowded than the F the entire way, and I was surprised I could squeeze onto the first 7 train every time.

Bolwerk June 16, 2014 - 11:52 am

It is bad at rush hour, and I guess the number of trains they can run at that time is limited either by equipment or headways on the F.

The rest of the day it’s a pretty smooth ride.

Larry Littlefield June 16, 2014 - 1:27 pm

I take it at rush hour. Never seen a problem, except the line to get up the stairs to transfer.

Tower18 June 16, 2014 - 1:55 pm

I live right on top of Clinton-Washington G, and I have taken to just walking to the C because the Church Av-bound G is so packed by the time it gets to Clinton-Wash that I sometimes can’t get on. I know this is an issue faced by Lex and Canarsie commuters as well, but the difference is that if you have to let a 6 or L go by, the next one will be along in 2-4 minutes. It’ll be 8-10 for that next G. And then you still need to change at Hoyt, Metropolitan, or Court Sq for whatever train you REALLY need.

I enjoy poking holes in the G-hater arguments, but “it’s not that crowded at rush hour” is not at all true. Maybe on the part of the line where it supplements the F, because everyone would rather the F. But not on the rest of the Crosstown.

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 6:03 pm

Well, think about it like this: how many cars are there in relation to other routes? How high is the demand? How packed does each car get? Where do you plan to transfer (as that’s what many who ride the G do anyway)? Honestly, I’ve taken the G. As much as you complain about the issues that exist, it can easily get worse. Much as frequency may become an issue, a train that’s less frequent than another generally fares better with OTP and train delays.

Granted, you could argue that there should be better service on part of the route, but then how are they going to do that? Short-turn at Bedford-Nostrand from Court Square? That doesn’t solve anything for those that need other stations. Short-turn at Bedford-Nostrand from Church Avenue? The problem may arguably be worsened for two reasons: Culver constraints and the aforementioned problem with those that need other stations. Short-turn at Hoyt-Schermerhorn? Where are you putting those trains? One thing none of those options address: where will the equipment come from? There has to be a reason why they swapped the R46 for the R68/A. They can’t use the R160 for OPTO unless sets are snatched from the J, M, or Z. They won’t use the R32 unless they decide to snatch more from 207. They won’t use the R44 for obvious reasons. They can’t use any A Division cars because they’re too narrow. In all honesty, the G has the most direct access to Jamaica Yard and CI Complex. Both already use much of their equipment for nearby routes and CI has just enough left over for the G. Trying to make G service much more frequent than it currently is greatly increases the risk of bottlenecks, which are only slightly mitigated by Bedford-Nostrand. If you ask me, you really shouldn’t complain as much as you do. The 2 and 5 may be more frequent during rush hour but also experience far more delays due to bottlenecks, signal malfunctions, a relative lack of potential midpoint mitigation in the event of a problem or to potentially increase capacity, the works. If there’s a problem on 6 Avenue, the F is simply able to use Crosstown, completely bypassing the issue and temporarily providing those full-length trains people complain about unnecessarily. I’ve seen the crowds firsthand; the cries for longer or far more frequent trains are literally unwarranted because there’s hardly anyone using it in comparison to many other routes. (This is also why the 42 Street Shuttle is the exception rather than the norm).

Eric Brasure June 17, 2014 - 9:38 am

Some of this is correct and some of this isn’t. But I’ll just make this point: if more frequent G service isn’t warranted, why did the MTA just reduce rush hour headways from 10 minutes to 8?

sonicboy678 June 17, 2014 - 5:04 pm

When did I say it isn’t warranted? Point it out and state it verbatim.

Eric Brasure June 18, 2014 - 9:52 am

“…the cries for longer or far more frequent trains are literally unwarranted because there’s hardly anyone using it in comparison to many other routes.”

Bolwerk June 18, 2014 - 12:43 pm

I don’t want to speak for him, but he didn’t say current levels are unwarranted (e.g., the recent decrease in headways). He seemed to be saying future service increases are probably unwarranted.

sonicboy678 June 18, 2014 - 10:04 pm

As I thought. You ignored a key word in my statement entirely.

LLQBTT June 18, 2014 - 1:25 pm

I have (thankfully) not taken the G at rush hour for some time now, but I totally agree with mjp. The northbound problem starts from around 8:15 to 9:00 on the northern section of the route. After a few trains pass by Metro in quick succession, the service really starts to tail off. There are 8 & 9 minute headways between Gs until just before 9:00. And it’s a squeeze on that little train same as any Lex line. People are left standing at the platforms in Greenpoint.

The solution is simple, add 1 or 2 more cars to each train if there’s to be no increase in service.

BoerumBum June 16, 2014 - 9:21 am

The east side IRT is much worse. It’s a rare morning that I don’t have to watch two 5 trains and a 4 train go by before I can get close enough to the edge of the platform to squeeze onto the next 4 train.

Bolwerk June 16, 2014 - 12:57 pm

The 6 is SRO pretty much all day, methinks.

BoerumBum June 16, 2014 - 1:55 pm

If it continued south from Brooklyn Bridge / City Hall, that might be a valid alternative, but as it stands, it would be like trying to take the C train to Inwood.

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 6:04 pm

Or trying to take the C to Queens.

BenS June 19, 2014 - 12:19 am

Connecting the 6 just the few blocks to Fulton St would be huge and an enormous relief of overcrowding on the 4/5. It would be an expensive project but definitely a worthwhile one.

John June 16, 2014 - 1:42 am

Closing extra entrances is a terrible idea — way more time and distance to get on the platform. The sprint might be annoying, but at least you have the chance to do it! That’s better than nothing! If you’re still above ground because you have to walk a few blocks, you’ll just miss the train entirely. To say nothing of the frigid winter.

Grand St. should be reopened as well…

Michael June 16, 2014 - 2:10 am

For decades folks on all of the transit lines and bus lines (before the countdown clocks were installed) did not know exactly where the trains were at all times. People coped – and I do not mean in a “if they could do it in past why not now – kind of spirit. Yes, what seem as large lonely stations and the back lights of the train as it is leaving can be depressing.

At the same time plenty of people all over the system miss a train now and then – how is that feeling worse because it is a G-train? Is it somehow worse than missing the #6 train at 149th Street or the D-train at 167th Street in the Bronx, late at night? Or the C-train at 153rd or the #1 train at 157th Street in Manhattan? Or worse than missing the R-train at 67th Avenue in Queens or 86th Street in Brooklyn? Each of those stations is only served by one train route, just like the G-train.

Is it a case of envy. Other lines have count-down clocks or other features so how come “my line” does not? Is a case of a different kind of envy – one is both so close to Manhattan (within sight distance) but “far enough” and “enough hassle” away from Manhattan. Or is it the idea that plenty of G-train riders have to transfer to another line to complete their journeys on a regular basis, where the G-trains “feels slow” by comparison.

When I lived in Brooklyn near both the C and G trains both of those lines seemed “neglected” compared to the A-train. Was it the idea that one’s taking the “slow local train” compared to riding the faster better express train? Of course then the C-train used the last remaining R-10 type trains, and the “Train to the Plane” was zipping by at full speed. Is it the feeling of being “off the beaten path”?

Consider that folks who live in the Rockaways or near Lefferts Blvd. often if not always have 20-minute waits between trains at all times of the day, nights, weekends – as well as waits for shuttle trains. There may be more frequent service to Lefferts Blvd during the rush hours – but none of those stations have count-down clocks. Yes, some stations may have a panel that lights up if a train is near, but otherwise folks have to hustle to the tracks just like folks everywhere.

Needless to say it, but I will – I wish the Staten Island ferries ran every 12 minutes! Here a boat runs every 15 or 20 minutes is our rush hour schedule! Having to transfer from a bus or another train – missing a ferry could easily add 15, 20, 30 and until recently 60 minutes of extra waiting time.

I guess it is true, as they say, the grass always greener over the septic tank!


Jonathan R June 16, 2014 - 8:32 am

Thank you for the informative post.

I lived on India St back in the 90s.

The big issue with long wait times for the G train is that most people taking the G are transferring to a Manhattan-bound service. A one-seat ride to Manhattan is also a one-wait ride. Even if you catch that Queens-bound G at Greenpoint Ave, you still have to wait AGAIN at 21st St for the E train to get to Manhattan.

Larry Littlefield June 16, 2014 - 9:25 am

“A one-seat ride to Manhattan is also a one-wait ride.”

I’d bet the vast majority of people have to transfer anyway, to get close to their destination in Manhattan.

And even if they don’t they might want to. My “one seat” ride is 16 local stops while standing along the F from Prospect Park 15th Street to 42nd. Even though it takes a little longer, I’ve learned that the G to the 7 — with a seat in the former — is a better deal.

Quirk June 16, 2014 - 11:07 am


What Larry Littlefield said. I transferred most of the time to get closer to my destination as well.

Jim D. June 16, 2014 - 9:10 am

There’s a simple solution to the sprint – just combine every two 4-car trains on the line into one 8-car train. Problem solved. :p

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 6:06 pm

Then that creates a different problem: that screws up the schedules of both the F and G.

John-2 June 16, 2014 - 9:11 am

The G’s problem is based on the IND’s original flawed design for its local service outside of Manhattan and the fact it was supposed to serve as the local train for the E/F from Queens Plaza to Continental and for the F from Bergen to Church Avenue. The problem with that set-up was apparently almost immediately, and the city solved the problem on the southern end by simply routing the F (or at other times, the D) as a local from the start, and on fixed the northern end flaw by adding the 60th and 63rd Street tunnel connectors, to max out the number of lines along Queens Boulevard going into Manhattan.

Once you detached the QB portion of the G from the rest of the route, south of Queens Plaza, you lost whatever reason there was for full-length G trains, because you lost the ridership between Continental and Queens Plaza. Add to that the fact that the MTA doesn’t believe in two-car matched sets anymore, and the options to create trains that are longer than 300 feet but shorter than 600 are far more limited than in the past (G riders’ best hope for the future may be some sort of swap out to where they can at least get eight-car trains of 60-footers like the M or the C, but that probably won’t happen at least until after the R-179 and R-211 orders show up and only if the C can give up its eight-car trains to the G).

JMB June 16, 2014 - 9:44 am

I thought this same thing too regarding the C. That line is due for a new set of cars, right? Once they get implemented, maybe the G can tack on the old C-train cars to give at least an additional 1-2 cars per trainset (even though they won’t match). Then again, I don’t I’ve ever seen a revenue service train with 2 different types of rolling stock connected, maybe its not possible>

John-2 June 16, 2014 - 4:55 pm

The C’s route allows all types of B Division rail cars to operate — it doesn’t have to be tied to two units of four 60-foot trains when the R-32s depart and the line goes all R-160/R-179. It can run the five-car units have have full 10-car trains, or even run two sets of the new 75-foot R-211s (though I’d suspect those will end up on the more heavily used lines, especially if they’re built with five doors per car on each side).

They’ll need to boost the overall fleet to lengthen the G, but they probably can come up with a way to allow at least 480-foot G trains, if passenger volume keeps increasing.

Michael June 16, 2014 - 11:59 am

From a previous message:

“Once you detached the QB portion of the G from the rest of the route, south of Queens Plaza, you lost whatever reason there was for full-length G trains, because you lost the ridership between Continental and Queens Plaza.”

I would also add that what was also lost was the frequency of service required for the Queens Blvd segment, that while not “needed” for the Mid-Brooklyn and southern Brooklyn-segments but was “helpful” to the riders. I guess the G service provided matches the ridership numbers, as well as what the MTA at present is able to provide.

In a way, Park Slope and other southern Brooklyn F-train riders benefit from the frequency of service required for the Queens Blvd segment. That is not to say there should be service reductions (not saying that at all), the ridership numbers while very healthy if looked at alone (imagine the F-train ending at 57th Street and not going to Queens), might suggest a different arrangement of service.

Just a thought.

Glenn June 16, 2014 - 10:54 am

A big part of the problem with the continued complaints was a poor job by the MTA in publicizing the changes they were making.

If they had just pointed out that they were increasing service instead of making ridiculous claims (repeated verbatim in the media) about ending the “G Train Sprint” — which of course, they were not doing — then this wouldn’t have been as big an issue.

Benjamin Kabak June 16, 2014 - 11:04 am

They hung up signs indicating where the train stops so that people waiting on the platform aren’t playing a guessing game. There’s nothing they can do anywhere — other than provide countdown information on trains — to stop people arriving at the station as a train pulls in from having to run to catch the train, right?

Glenn June 18, 2014 - 1:51 pm

You are right of course that someone could always show up when the train is pulling out at any station. But I still think there is a pretty clear difference between the Crosstown line and everywhere else in the system in that once one reaches the platform level, there’s still no guarantee that the train would be stopping anywhere near that particular platform access point.

One think I have always found frustrating is the inability to find an alternative solution – for example, 6-car G trains. The common response that the cars come in “4 car sets” always struck me as a not-insurmountable obstacle.

AlexB June 16, 2014 - 11:03 am

How many daily riders would the G have to have before you got full length cars at 5 minute intervals? I think that would make G train riders happy.

Eric Brasure June 16, 2014 - 11:31 am

More than the C or the R, and that isn’t happening anytime soon.

Larry Littlefield June 16, 2014 - 12:40 pm

How about short trains at six minute intervals?

Basically, that would require more people along the F in Brooklyn taking the G and then transferring for trains to Manhattan in Queens, as I sometimes do.

If there were that many G trains, they could eliminate the bottleneck on the Culver by running half of the F trains express.

But I would worry about terminal capacity for the G on the other end, in Queens.

Eric Brasure June 16, 2014 - 3:07 pm

Good point and I think that’s much more likely. But, you’re right: how many TPH can Court Sq turn? It’s a hack to use it as a terminal as it is.

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 6:10 pm

If they’re to ever run F express service in Brooklyn, they’ll also have to clean and fix Bergen Street’s lower level.

Benjamin Kabak June 16, 2014 - 6:17 pm

It’s not just dirty; it needs to be rebuilt entirely.

Larry Littlefield June 16, 2014 - 6:22 pm

I’m suggesting half the F trains bypass that stop as well.

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 7:45 pm

That’s why I said “clean and fix” instead of just “clean.”

Dan June 16, 2014 - 10:43 pm

It really wouldn’t be ideal either since the Culver Express tracks skip stops that have higher ridership than those south of Church Ave.

The G and C will get longer trains as the MTA replaces its older fleets.

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 11:43 pm

To be fair, this would only concern the portion that the G currently covers.

Eric Brasure June 16, 2014 - 11:10 am

The G, like the IND in general, was overbuilt. The current round of complaining is mostly due to the fact that young gentrifiers now have to put up with the same basic G service that long-time residents dealt with for years. The major problems with the G: lack of transfer points to Manhattan-bound lines, and short trains. However, the number of times that anyone swipes in and has to run for a G already in the station or tearing into the station has to be low with 8-minute headways.

That said, the MTA will be running full-length G trains within 15-20 years.

Seth Rosenblum June 16, 2014 - 11:57 am

I really don’t understand the complaints about the G train sprint. It’s a lot easier to run down the platform than it is to run down the stairs, which is what you do for all the other train lines. I’d much prefer to have all trains be half as long and run twice as frequently. If anything they should just turn trains at Bedford-Nostrand more often to increase service to the hotspots like Greenpoint.

Eric Brasure June 16, 2014 - 12:22 pm

It’s exactly that–with every other train, if you hear it coming, you run down the stairs, swipe in, and the train is right there–better chance to catch it (well, except for the C and M and probably some others I’m forgetting.)

With the G, forget it.

I’m not saying it’s a major problem–just explaining the annoyance.

Bolwerk June 16, 2014 - 5:05 pm

It’s practically an imagined annoyance, probably more born of not knowing where to stand in the first place.

sonicboy678 June 16, 2014 - 6:12 pm

I can see that if the only options are at the ends of the station and you have to go to the center of the platform to catch a train (Bedford-Nostrand, anyone?).

Eric Brasure June 17, 2014 - 9:43 am

When I get off the G in the evening, I see people who just went through the turnstile running for the train. It happens every day–I just doubt it happens to the same person more than once or twice a year.

Bolwerk June 17, 2014 - 10:45 am

Sometimes I run for the train if I hear it coming under the street, before I even get to the turnstiles. Whether I do it before or after the turnstiles makes little difference.

Eric Brasure June 17, 2014 - 11:21 am

And you’d have a much greater chance of catching a train on pretty much any other line besides the G.

Bolwerk June 17, 2014 - 12:24 pm

Can’t say I have trouble catching any of them, including the G. Even darting up to els isn’t that hard, but harder than running along what can’t be more than half an IND platform to catch the G.

Low Headways June 16, 2014 - 12:57 pm

Is it simply a case of there not being enough rolling stock? Or is it supposedly a cost issue? From what I understand, the marginal cost difference of adding two more cars to a train is pretty negligible, and if the rolling stock is available it’s even more of a waste not to use.

But that said, I’ll take better headways over longer trains any day. The more frequently they come, the less time there is for a crowd to build up, thus solving both problems at once.

Eric Brasure June 16, 2014 - 3:12 pm

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the issue was that it was too time-consuming to couple and uncouple cars for 6-car G trains at rush hour and 4-car G trains at all other times.

Now, whether or not the demand supports 6-car trains at all times is another question, and I don’t know if the rolling stock is there for that.

Currently, 4-car trains are at 8-minute headways or 7.5 TPH or 30 cars per hour. If you make the G 6 cars, that reduces the headway to 12 minutes, which no one wants.

Low Headways June 16, 2014 - 4:05 pm

Oh, I see, so it literally is a choice between headways and train length. Certainly pick the former in that case. But it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual tradeoff, or just a case of priorities.

What’s the shortfall in rolling stock? Surely there’s an excess 14 cars somewhere in the fleet…

John-2 June 17, 2014 - 12:30 am

It’s the way the cars are mated — Up until 1959 all 60-foot cars were single units, and from 1959 through 1970, when much of the original fleet was replaced, the cars came in married pairs. In that era, cobbling together a 360-foot train (or even with the older single unit models, a 420-foot train) was no problem.

But since the R-44s arrived, the MTA’s mindset has been pairings of four-car 75-foot units, with an occasional two-car set (The R-68s were originally singles, because car reliability was so awful in the early 1980s when they were ordered, but as reliability improved they also were linked into a four car A-B-B-A units). And once the married pair cars started retiring, all the new 60-foot cars also were linked into four- five-car units.

So a six car G train of 75-footers is almost impossible to put together nowadays without a major readjustment of the R-68 fleet, which the MTA doesn’t want to do, and they can only do 300- or 480-feet with the new R-160s (they could schelp the surviving R-32s/R-42s over to the G and create six car 360-foot trains, but that would rob the line of the full-width cabs the MTA wants for One Person Train Operation).

Rob June 16, 2014 - 2:55 pm

re the platform sprint, they should try Wash. DC, where the incompetent and arrogant wmata has decreed that all trains, as short as 4 cars, must stop at the front of the 8 car platforms, even if the only access at the opposite end.

Low Headways June 16, 2014 - 4:03 pm

Well, we don’t run 4-car trains in DC anymore. Just 6- and 8-car (and supposedly by 2025 we’ll be running 100% 8-car trains, assuming WMATA gets its act/money together).

But you’re right about the pulling forward to the end of the platform. And that’s because the system’s still running in manual, since the 2009 crash. If/when they return to ATO, that problem will be solved, but by then we might have 8-car trains anyways.

Phantom June 16, 2014 - 3:29 pm

I take the G r/t once a month, the Queens-bound ride in rush hour. Never saw an unusual overcrowding problem, or anything close to it.

Why are G train riders like Staten Islanders?

Because they like to complain all the time, 24/7.

Eric Brasure June 16, 2014 - 3:37 pm

I’ve seen massive overcrowding on Queens-bound G trains at the morning rush many times. Personal anecdotes, while interesting, are not really something to base transit service on.

john June 17, 2014 - 11:30 am

Not mentioned but the G…is it not the fastest growing line in the city?
It runs through all the gentrifying hoods in brooklyn.

Benjamin Kabak June 17, 2014 - 11:58 am

It’s one of them, but off the top of my head, I believe both the F and L had higher growth through part or all of their routes.

Michael June 17, 2014 - 2:07 pm

Is there another issue – effective mass communications in the ways of registering a public problem.

Let’s say it is the 1970’s, and there is a transit issue (slow trains, short trains, etc). Plenty of folks are upset about the issue – the recourse is to write letters to the political folk, have and attend meetings with political representatives, write letters to the news papers, form groups and committees for political action, and depending upon the issue march in protest or other actions. There may or may not be hearings on the issue, rallies or debates at city hall, etc. Then there is the ease or difficulty of getting information in or out of respective agencies or companies involved.

Now it is 2014, and there is a transit issue (slow trains, short trains, etc). Plenty of folks are upset about the issue – the recourse is to write letters to the political folk, have and attend meetings with political representatives, write letters to the news papers, form groups and committees for political action, and depending upon the issue march in protest or other actions. (Same as in the 1970’s) There may or may not be hearings on the issue, debates at city hall, and on several other forums.

The getting of information in or out of respective agencies or companies involved – in many ways has been made easier, much easier than in the past.

In 2014, there are Twitter feeds that one can join to talk about the issue, web-pages allowing riders to register a compliant – talking with others about the issue, video blogs and web-blogs that have comment sections to talk about the issue. Folks can even post videos on You-Tube with music about the issue. There are transit forums where the issue can be discussed with other like-minded folks, and maybe with some of the workers at the transit authority bringing in their perspective. Folks can post “man in the street” video’s and pictures of what is happening (or not happening) on the scene at the moment and publicize it for others to see – there are no editors to screen work for the evening broadcast. There are 311 services to register a complaint, as well as telephone banks to the transit authority.

My point is that there is an issue, often an important issue to be attended to, but to also step back and take a look at how much has changed!



Leave a Comment