« Quote of the Day Closing Bell: 315 Garfield Place, The Movie »

November 18, 2008

50% Less G Service Coming Our Way

gtrain-1108.jpgDuring the Thursday meeting, The MTA is expected to: completely do away with the "W" line, which runs from Queens to Manhattan, and the "Z" line, which runs through Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan. Also on the chopping block: service will be cut in half on the "G" line, which runs from Queens to Brooklyn; and the "M" line, which runs through Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. - WCBS




Posted by Brownstoner at 3:32 PM | Comments (32)
Categories: Transportation

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7266

Comments

honestly - who takes the G from Court Square into deepest Queens? Its the run through brroklyn than has the passengers.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 18, 2008 3:30 PM

I'm confused - hasn't the G only gone to Court Sq for a while now? I'm not sure how much of a service ct that really is.

Posted by: BrooklynZoo at November 18, 2008 3:35 PM

nobody, because it doesn't go there anymore. service beyond court square in queens is "temporarily" (but permanently) eliminated.

Posted by: i disagree at November 18, 2008 3:35 PM

The G is pretty important for connecting williambsburg and greenpoint with fort greene and clinton hill...

Posted by: brownstoner at November 18, 2008 3:36 PM

but thats not being affected Mr. B.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 18, 2008 3:37 PM

Ouch, I was hoping the M was going to start running from Queens through Manhattan and into southern Brooklyn again.

Posted by: Heather at November 18, 2008 3:38 PM

This is a huge bummer for all of us who use the G to go from Ft Greene/Clinton Hill to Cobblehill and Williamsburg (two neighborhoods where friends live). The G has been a great resource for me over the years and I really hope this report is not accurate.

Posted by: wasder at November 18, 2008 3:38 PM

this is terrible news for brooklyn. Both the M and G are trains that had noticeable increases in ridership over the last 10 years and were thriving as people populated the previously sparse regions of the borough. nyc is taking significant steps backwards with moves like these.

Posted by: Diego Maradona at November 18, 2008 3:39 PM

I see the problem - its not specific in the story.

The Daily News was more precise, its the Queens part of the service (apart from ct. square and 21st st) thats being "cut".

Posted by: dittoburg at November 18, 2008 3:39 PM

ditto--where are you seeing that the cutting in half means a shorter run as opposed to fewer trains?

Posted by: wasder at November 18, 2008 3:39 PM

Ah ha. If true that makes me feel better. Thanks for the info ditto.

Posted by: wasder at November 18, 2008 3:40 PM

I wonder if this will resurrect congestion pricing as a way to support greater subway service.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at November 18, 2008 3:54 PM

ah, thanks for actually reading up on it.

Posted by: brownstoner at November 18, 2008 3:57 PM

I've never heard of the "Z" train.

Posted by: McFly at November 18, 2008 4:06 PM

Yes this doesn't seem to actually affect Brooklyn riders. It just makes permanent the existing service cuts that made Court Sq. the last stop for at least the last few years.

Posted by: BrooklynZoo at November 18, 2008 4:13 PM

The W line is a waste. I'm glad they are doing away with it.
I hate that it kicks out all the Brooklynties at Whitehall Street.

Posted by: sam at November 18, 2008 4:19 PM

AGHH! that's horrible news about the G - it's not like there are other trains serving these areas. i hope that's true that it's not less frequent g service. if that were the case, i'd probably give up on it. recently, i've waited 10 to 15 mins during the day, if that jumped to 20 to 30, it wouldn't be worth it.

Posted by: bebklyn at November 18, 2008 4:22 PM

I will do everything I can to see that cuts and reductions to the G train does not happen. This train is vital to all of us along its path. I have an idea-get some of that $700B and put it to transit and not to corporate bonuses.

Posted by: gwbrubaker at November 18, 2008 5:13 PM

gwb - I agree, also any tax increases Obama has in mind for the $250K plus set would most wisely be spent on infrastructure and transit.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 18, 2008 5:17 PM

mcfly, it's one hell of a ride.

Posted by: z at November 18, 2008 6:19 PM

The problem seems to be that mass transit in America is just financially unsustainable. Ours is a nation that has been based, since the 1920's, on the ideal that everyone would own their own means of transportation, ie: a car. New York City, having been largely built and planned prior to 1920, is the last holdout of the Victorian notion of trolleys and horsecars and trains bringing people back and forth short distances. This ideal, though historic, and romantic, is unsustainable unless the fares go up to three or four dollars a ride, and that is just for now. In ten years what will it cost to ride the subway? %50? It is a depressing scenario. The MTA is a dinosaur. It is destined for extinction. And when the meteor lands and the trains die, we are all going to have to figure out something else. Maybe the old tunels could be used for parking.

Posted by: sam at November 18, 2008 7:23 PM

That is not cool. I used to live in Clinton Hill and I could get to the upper east side (third and 53) in about 20 minutes on a good day and always get a seat. I always felt like I was in on some kind of secret. ; )

Posted by: sbbrock at November 18, 2008 8:14 PM

Sam, take a deep breath, it makes sticking your head in the sand palatable for longer times.

What utter rubbish...it's the auto life style that's unsustainable. If you have any financial analytic acumen at all, consider all the "subsidies" given to the entire auto transportation system, include the "externalities" (side effect costs), add in the anguish caused by deaths (50000+/yr) and you might see that mass transit is so much superior to the single auto paradigm that the latter will eventually become the dinosaur, though not in our lifetimes maybe.

Posted by: cmu at November 18, 2008 8:27 PM

Sam, that is so whack that I'm going to take the high road and assume you were being sarcastic.

Posted by: tinarina at November 18, 2008 9:00 PM

I think that I am being very rational and original. It is not the car that is unsustainable, it is the subways. Cars are getting better and cheaper, subways are horrible and ever more expensive. I am not approaching this on ideological grounds, just pragmatic grounds. The MTA is an insatiable monster. No matter how much money you throw at it, it wants more, more, more. It is a monopoly that has been allowed to get away with horrible service and minimal customer satisfaction. It is just horrible, crowded, awful, and antagonistic public utility. Such a dysfunctional, expensive, badly-run, anti-modern, dinosaur-era transit system deserves too go extinct. Either Obama decides to nationalize the dinosaur (the only chance it has) or it dies. I don't see what is so controversial about those observations.

Posted by: sam at November 18, 2008 9:24 PM

Rational and original? Maybe you should read The Power Broker and then come back and read your opinion and see if you say the same thing.

Oh yeah, and all that tax payer money that the Big 3 Auto companies are now asking for is not about sustainability at all.

Posted by: skormos at November 19, 2008 12:30 AM

Sam, why is it that Paris, London, Tokyo, Seoul and many other world capitals have great public transportation and the US just can't pull it off? Are we just lousy at it? Have we lost out edge?

Posted by: leftnyc at November 19, 2008 6:08 AM

Sam - are you off your rocker? You'rte living in la la land.
And anyway - what is so bad about MTA - how many million people does it get to work each day? Trying doing that in cars and see what happens.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 8:50 AM

People in London wouldn't necessarily agree that they have great public transportation. Trains are more crowded, there are frequent service disruptions, and a single ride costs north of $5. Nobody wants to pay more, but the reality is that running a transit system costs a lot of money.

Posted by: jawbreaker at November 19, 2008 10:07 AM

I don't really agree with Sam's observation that the car lifestyle is sustainable, but I do agree that the MTA is a dinosaur.

What's frustrating is that there's been high-profile and pretty rapid progress in auto development recently (at least in terms of getting off gas and having less of a carbon footprint), and virtually no progress in updating the MTA. So the L Train has new electronic information boards. Great. A hybrid bus here and there. Great. There are still B61 drivers that don't even know the route they're supposed to drive.

I lived in the UK 10 years ago and at least in terms of information being given to the passengers, the transit system *then* was ahead of what the MTA provides *now* - you have to figure the MTA is at least 20 years behind the curve, so there's obvious room for vast improvements, but no motivation to actually accomplish anything.

Posted by: dbcn at November 19, 2008 10:12 AM

sam: awesome troll.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 19, 2008 10:21 AM

Makes me wish I lived in Hong Kong again, which has superior, up-to-date MTR service.

Posted by: btwprd at November 19, 2008 1:03 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions