News Coalition urging MTA to restore “express” F train service

[realizm]

 

A coalition of elected officials have urged the Metropolitan Transit Authority to restore express train service in Brooklyn in a letter sent to MTA Chairman Thomas F. Prendengast. The correspondence, which was signed by a bipartisan group of fourteen city, state and federal leaders, noted that “benefits of restoring the F train express service in Brooklyn would be felt throughout the borough with decreased travel time to Manhattan, decreased delays along the entire line and a better quality of life for all subway riders in our communities.” “The F train should stand for fast service, not failed opportunity,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who signed on to the letter.

Read more: Source

[CDTA]

Wow, they will just not quit on this will they?

[RollOver]

f**k the Culver Express.

[bstar1]

They don't realize by adding Express service will more congestion around Bergen St between upper and lower level where trains have to Merge.

They don't realize by adding Express service will more congestion around Bergen St between upper and lower level where trains have to Merge.

[R32 3838]

And if the was the only local they'll bicth about that, yes its needed but its a bit late for it now, the killed that dream, if the was still here then yeah it would have happened but now its impossible

[bstar1]

Yeah because if was to bring V back where would it go North Bound, they're not going to Stop M from serving 6 Av and Queens Blvd because it provides more meaning and serving North Brooklyn and Middle Village Queens.

[Quill Depot]

If only trains to Second Ave could terminate on both sides.

[Quill Depot]

f**k the Culver Express.

f**k the unenthusiam man, look some riders are taking a stand. Surprised they even know express is even possible, but I think it's good.

[biGC323232]

Can't wait to see how the  responds to this..

[bstar1]

What they probably could do for Express is send rush hours only F some selected for example SB local to Smith St than switch to Express track skipping 4av, stopping at 7av, Church av, 18av and Kings Hwy, and vise versa. NB rush hours only some selected F Exp from Kings Hwy and switch back to Loc track after 4av.

[bobtehpanda]

"Let's skip the most heavily used stations on the Culver Line and save one or two minutes, because that would be the best transportation improvement in all of Brooklyn!" /s

f**k the unenthusiam man, look some riders are taking a stand. Surprised they even know express is even possible, but I think it's good.

 

Looking at the data, the express makes about as much sense as the Jerome Av Express.

[biGC323232]

"Let's skip the most heavily used stations on the Culver Line and save one or two minutes, because that would be the best transportation improvement in all of Brooklyn!" /s

 

 

Looking at the data, the express makes about as much sense as the Jerome Av Express.

 

Lol...That might be the next complaint we see....Jerome Av express

[Fresh Pond]

What they probably could do for Express is send rush hours only F some selected for example SB local to Smith St than switch to Express track skipping 4av, stopping at 7av, Church av, 18av and Kings Hwy, and vise versa. NB rush hours only some selected F Exp from Kings Hwy and switch back to Loc track after 4av.

You would just move all the merging problems from Bergen St to 4 Av-9 St

[Via Garibaldi 8]

"Let's skip the most heavily used stations on the Culver Line and save one or two minutes, because that would be the best transportation improvement in all of Brooklyn!" /s

 

 

Looking at the data, the express makes about as much sense as the Jerome Av Express.

So basically because that one stop is heavily used, everyone else further south shouldn't have express service? Don't be ridiculous.  The overcrowding conditions need to be dealt with and arguing that one station has so much ridership isn't the answer.  They need to find a way to split service up so that people further up can get on, and people further South are crammed and stuck with slower service.

[realizm]

The only way this will be possible is if we had a supplemental 6th Avenue local service. We dont have that supplemental 6th Ave local service because of the doomsday cuts in 2010. Because the option of sending the V to Brooklyn was killed. We cant phase out the M now, the demand for it is too high. Amazing that the politicians here do not realize that. They are asking to draw blood from stones.

 

Additionally we simply do not have enough cars to even do this right now. More, the 6th Avenue Line cannot handle 5 services at once even if say the MTA requested more R179 cars with an option 2 as originally planned. They are asking for a miracle out of the clear blue sky.

 

Refer to this document: http://www.mta.info/sites/default/files/archive/pdfs/flinereport.pdf

 

[Union Tpke]

Just wondering, but are there enough R68/As for this service? Could some B/D trains be added via Culver? Not saying its a good idea.

[realizm]

Just wondering, but are there enough R68/As for this service? Could some B/D trains be added via Culver? Not saying its a good idea.

 

The catch is that by the time the revised R179 order is complete the SAS will be open. The few 5 car sets that we will receive will free up R160s for needed service changes and increases on Broadway. The MTA is seriously looking at the N, but they know that they must wait for the R211 order to be finalized to put more cars on the N as cite by others from insider sources (Refer to the R211 thread for more information). So either way we are locked in. 

 

A B or D train via Culver will meet opposition from Flatbush and Sheepshead Bay residents along the Brighton, also along the West End Line. I wouldnt blame them either. The residents in Carroll Gardens, Park Slope and other adjacent areas will just have to live with it. They dont have special privileges. Dont like it? Move out of NYC, have a nice day.

 

Can they use R68As? Well then we have to worry about W service once the SAS opens with the Q rerouted via Second Avenue, long term. Thats why I think what they are asking for in regards to a F express is really not reasonable. We will have to steal cars from other lines that must have a certain number to operate efficiently. 

 

F putins will not be possible even if we had cars specifically because Queens Blvd will not be able to handle it. The politicians here are asking for too much.

 

Put it this way: Im not going to tolerate the politicians games of stealing service from my neighborhood for others in Carroll Gardens or Park Slope like they have special entitlement for service. Hell no!

[bstar1]

You would just move all the merging problems from Bergen St to 4 Av-9 St

At least at 4 Av - 9 St they would on same level That's better than at Bergen St where there's two levels have to watch out for the G, then F on upper level to merge down to exp tracks to get to Jay St and vise versa, and then an Exp F at Bergen St Lower Exp track would to wait also or something that would be a huge mess, but at 4 av - 9 av they would all come on same level and outside so you could see better than in tunnel.

[Lance]

They need to find a way to split service up so that people further up can get on, and people further South are crammed and stuck with slower service.

For the sake of argument and to minimize any potential confusion, let's say the local would terminate at Church Av while the express would continue to Coney Island.

 

With that out of the way, there are several problems with the F (Culver) express proposals that keep popping up. First and foremost, most proposal lack a suitable northern terminal. Now, if express service is achieved through a circle F/diamond F procedure, this wouldn't necessarily apply as both locals and express would come out of Jamaica-179 St. However, unless there is additional service added on the Queens end, which is impossible due to capacity constraints on Queens Blvd, service south of Church Av would be cut significantly. As it stands, the F currently runs 12-15 trains per hour between Kings Hwy and 179 St, so any efficient express/local setup would require effectively halving service south of Church Av. That means those potential express trains would be running every 8-10 minutes instead of the current 4-6 minutes wait between local F trains. I doubt Culver riders will put up with less service (and potentially even more crowded trains) to skip seven stops, so that option is out.

 

Another option would be to reroute another line over to Church Av. Having the G as the sole local is not an option, so I won't even consider that in this. The usual go-to line in these proposals is the E. Pulling it from the World Trade Center seems like a no-brainer because it's so close and it isn't tied to another line (like the C being the local in Brooklyn or the M being the Myrtle Av line). Extending the E creates another problem though. Like the capacity constraints on Queens Blvd preventing the F local/express idea, there is limited capacity in the Cranberry tubes and having the E running through those tunnels would probably max them out. While there is the option of rerouting the E over to the Rutgers tubes, which have plenty of extra capacity, that pulls service away from 8th Avenue. That leads to the inevitable question of why X should lose service so Y can get more service.

 

With that option out, it usually comes to creating a new line that runs down Culver. That's where my earlier remark about lacking a northern terminal comes in. Queens is out for the capacity reason I mentioned before. Having another line run down Central Park West isn't happening because, while there's some space for another line, it would be terribly excessive and wasteful. And we can't have a terminal for this new line while the station is a through station for another line, so a station like 57 St/6 Av is out. While it works for the M during those weekends service is extended to Midtown, it would not work with the tight rush-hour headways of the F. That's why the recent proposal in the thread of the same name has the new line terminating at 96 St/2 Av. Even then, that adds an excessive amount of service on 6th Avenue with the F, M and the new line.

 

That's why we won't see a Culver express any time soon.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For the sake of argument and to minimize any potential confusion, let's say the local would terminate at Church Av while the express would continue to Coney Island.

 

With that out of the way, there are several problems with the F (Culver) express proposals that keep popping up. First and foremost, most proposal lack a suitable northern terminal. Now, if express service is achieved through a circle F/diamond F procedure, this wouldn't necessarily apply as both locals and express would come out of Jamaica-179 St. However, unless there is additional service added on the Queens end, which is impossible due to capacity constraints on Queens Blvd, service south of Church Av would be cut significantly. As it stands, the F currently runs 12-15 trains per hour between Kings Hwy and 179 St, so any efficient express/local setup would require effectively halving service south of Church Av. That means those potential express trains would be running every 8-10 minutes instead of the current 4-6 minutes wait between local F trains. I doubt Culver riders will put up with less service (and potentially even more crowded trains) to skip seven stops, so that option is out.

 

Another option would be to reroute another line over to Church Av. Having the G as the sole local is not an option, so I won't even consider that in this. The usual go-to line in these proposals is the E. Pulling it from the World Trade Center seems like a no-brainer because it's so close and it isn't tied to another line (like the C being the local in Brooklyn or the M being the Myrtle Av line). Extending the E creates another problem though. Like the capacity constraints on Queens Blvd preventing the F local/express idea, there is limited capacity in the Cranberry tubes and having the E running through those tunnels would probably max them out. While there is the option of rerouting the E over to the Rutgers tubes, which have plenty of extra capacity, that pulls service away from 8th Avenue. That leads to the inevitable question of why X should lose service so Y can get more service.

 

With that option out, it usually comes to creating a new line that runs down Culver. That's where my earlier remark about lacking a northern terminal comes in. Queens is out for the capacity reason I mentioned before. Having another line run down Central Park West isn't happening because, while there's some space for another line, it would be terribly excessive and wasteful. And we can't have a terminal for this new line while the station is a through station for another line, so a station like 57 St/6 Av is out. While it works for the M during those weekends service is extended to Midtown, it would not work with the tight rush-hour headways of the F. That's why the recent proposal in the thread of the same name has the new line terminating at 96 St/2 Av. Even then, that adds an excessive amount of service on 6th Avenue with the F, M and the new line.

 

That's why we won't see a Culver express any time soon.

I don't think that the folks along Central Park West would agree.  Service stinks on weekends with just the running and during the week service is slow too with the and running right behind each other and then nothing.  I wouldn't mind having another train run down there at all.  

[Lance]

We aren't talking about weekends since any potential Culver express service would likely be limited to weekdays only, so I'm going to disregard that entirely. And while you may feel more service is needed on Central Park West, the MTA is unlikely to add a fifth line there.

[pelhamfrank dyre av]

how about having limited rush-hour  trains go to church av, like when it go's to 179th st.would that work?

[R32 3838]

Bring back the have it run on a 10 minute headway like the and have it run between 168-Church ave, making all local stops, but I doubt it would happen but they can find a way

[bobtehpanda]

So basically because that one stop is heavily used, everyone else further south shouldn't have express service? Don't be ridiculous.  The overcrowding conditions need to be dealt with and arguing that one station has so much ridership isn't the answer.  They need to find a way to split service up so that people further up can get on, and people further South are crammed and stuck with slower service.

 

Well no, but if the one portion above Church has about two thirds of the ridership versus the rest of the length of the Culver Line, why would you skip it? It wouldn't work for the same reason that 1/9 skip stop failed, and the Jerome Av Express trial failed: the busiest stations that got skipped would need so much service that there wouldn't be any reasonable way to run an express train with the amount of room left over, and the is basically at capacity til the 2020s when Queens Blvd CBTC finishes up.

how about having limited rush-hour  trains go to church av, like when it go's to 179th st.would that work?

 

They only go to 179 because of a lack of terminal capacity at Parsons/Archer.

 

There basically isn't a reasonable way for the to go to Culver without causing huge delays everywhere else.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

We aren't talking about weekends since any potential Culver express service would likely be limited to weekdays only, so I'm going to disregard that entirely. And while you may feel more service is needed on Central Park West, the MTA is unlikely to add a fifth line there.

Well if they ran the current service efficiently, the overcrowding that exists during the week wouldn't be a problem, but there seems to be MIA trains during the week on the and lines and the is usually an afterthought.