news MTA Releases Culver Line Report, Proposes Viaduct Express Service

[RollOver]

 

The MTA will start running express service in Brooklyn, officials are set to announce Tuesday. Locals have long clamored for the service, which hasn’t run since it was nixed in 1987. “This is huge. You’re talking about half a million people who use this train on a regular basis in an area that’s starved of transit,” said Councilman David Greenfield (D-Brooklyn), who has pushed to make the express happen. According to a letter to the Council from New York City Transit president Veronique Hakim, officials plan to start running some trains express in both directions during morning and evening rush hours in the fall of 2017.

Read more: Source & MTA Report

 

[R10 2952]

How pitiful and sad. What a shame at such a decision made by a corrupted agency.

How so? Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us instead of making blanket statements...

[RollOver]

How so? Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us instead of making blanket statements...

Blanket statements? Very funny. I thought we already made it clear about this "Culver Express" thing a while back. There have been multiple threads about it. You can check them for more info. It's up to you.

[Snowblock]

How in the heck is it going to shave 15 minutes off of commutes?? The service will only be bypassing 6 stations (5 if Bergen Lower ever reopens), and the shortcut really only saves about half a mile in distance. It shouldn't save more than 5 minutes......

[R10 2952]

Blanket statements? Very funny. I thought we already made it clear about this "Culver Express" thing a while back. There have been multiple threads about it. You can check them. They're all right under your nose.

 

Just because you made your personal views on the matter clear does not mean that other people agree.  You say the decision to implement express service is 'pitiful and sad', and go on to call the agency 'corrupt' for it.  I find that laughable.  (The MTA is corrupt, but for other things and in different ways).  Contrary to what many bean-counters  and apologists who defend the status quo on these boards say, frequencies are not always paramount.  How often a train runs is irrelevant when getting from A to B takes longer than it should.  Hell, it's about damn time they started doing something to speed up service; they should also look at the between 145th and 96th as well as the between Burnside and 149th.  

[paulrivera]

How in the heck is it going to shave 15 minutes off of commutes?? The service will only be bypassing 6 stations (5 if Bergen Lower ever reopens), and the shortcut really only saves about half a mile in distance. It shouldn't save more than 5 minutes......

The president of NYC Transit agrees with you there.

 

Plus the article says the express F trains wouldn't even start/end at Coney Island. I'm assuming these trains will go no further than Kings Highway...

[onthe1train]

...they should also look at the between 145th and 96th as well as the between Burnside and 149th.  

 

Not enough ridership north of 145th. The trains don't fill up until 116 at the earliest.

 

They tried it, riders didn't like it.

[RollOver]

Just because you made your personal views on the matter clear does not mean that other people agree. You say the decision to implement express service is 'pitiful and sad', and go on to call the agency 'corrupt' for it. I find that laughable. (The MTA is corrupt, but for other things and in different ways). Contrary to what many bean-counters and apologists who defend the status quo on these boards say, frequencies are not always paramount. How often a train runs is irrelevant when getting from A to B takes longer than it should. Hell, it's about damn time they started doing something to speed up service; they should also look at the between 145th and 96th as well as the between Burnside and 149th.

 

Listen bud, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. I stand by what I say, period. Like you said, everyone has their views and nothing more. Second, I'm well aware that the agency is corrupt (thank you) and also that decision to run express service on the Culver Line is part of it. I find it laughable that you think skipping 5 stops and also saving 5 minutes is gonna make a difference. Not only that, but also because you seem to forgot why the express in the Bronx never worked out. Why do you think they did nothing else after that little test years ago? Trains were just running empty and other trains were loaded to the gills. Also, with the Culver Express, as it sounds in the article that I posted, clearly indicated that the proposal is to have some trains run express and others stay local, meaning 50/50. You realize this would just create confusion right? Even with the new trains and the conntdown clocks on the line, people still get confused thinking their train will go to their stop. For the record, the stations north of Church have higher ridership than those south of Church. I think the same people who were screaming for express service on the Culver Line are the same people who happen to live at the stations that they know their proposed express train will skip which results in reduced service.

 

Oh, and the express thing will surely fail like the / skip-stop did for obvious reasons---ridership. So you willing to mess up service just so you can get a faster commute? No, I don't think that's a good ridership. We're talking about high ridership at every station some lines like Jerome, West End, Sea Beach etc, and those clearly don't need express service. Skipping like 5 stops really makes little to no difference.

[bobtehpanda]

The downside of the proposal is that riders at local stations in brownstone Brooklyn that will be skipped over by express trains will see a 50% reduction in service and have to wait longer for trains.

In the years-long debate over restoring the service, some said an F express should only happen if more service came with it.

 

...don't these stations make up the majority of ridership on the Culver Line? Why would you have half the ridership left with 50% of the service?

[RollOver]

...don't these stations make up the majority of ridership on the Culver Line? Why would you have half the ridership left with 50% of the service?

That's what I am trying to say...

[bobtehpanda]

That's what I am trying to say...

 

To be fair, your responses had a pretty bad attitude. The point of a forum is to encourage discussion, not shut down the viewpoints of others.

 

(It's also not really a "corrupt" thing, but whatever.)

[Lance]

Well, I'll be damned. I can't say I'm surprised they're reviving the Culver express. I am however appalled they're doing so on the backs of the riders on the busier stations between Jay St and Church Av. It isn't fair that riders at these stations should see their service cut in half because they don't want to or can't run an additional Manhattan-Culver local service.

 

I see this thing crashing and burning as it did back in the '70s when it was the F and GG, which is when Culver Viaduct express service ended, not '87 as the report said.

 

And on a personal note RollOver, while your passion is appreciated, the rudeness is not.

 

On another note, express service was tried in other locations, like between 96 Street and 145 Street on Broadway and from Woodlawn to 149 Street on Jerome Ave and both ideas failed due to station setup and ridership demands. Express service is useless if it bypasses all of the people using the line.

[R10 2952]

Not enough ridership north of 145th. The trains don't fill up until 116 at the earliest.

 

They tried it, riders didn't like it.

 

1. There is plenty of ridership north of 145th Street during rush hours- sometimes a train gets delayed a minute or two in the Bronx and then it's standing room only from 181st onwards.  They do battery runs on a regular basis because of frequent delays, essentially confirming that the current service setup is not working.

2. The experiment was poorly implemented.  They tried to run it express north of Burnside which was a big mistake as there's no need.  Also, the switch setup at that station is not optimal- they would have to reconfigure it if regular service were ever to be implemented. South of Burnside is another story; there are far more people getting on/off at stations north of Burnside during rush hour than south of Burnside (with the rare exception of 161st Street- on game days).  The train is often packed and every minute that could be shaved off the commute counts, what with the being at almost 100% capacity these days. 

[RollOver]

(It's also not really a "corrupt" thing, but whatever.)

Yeah...so? Whatever term I use really doesn't matter. My main concern is what the express will do for the aforementioned reasons, which is why I am against it. I, for one, just think it's wrong so the shouldn't really bother with it. Even some others (such as you and Lance) seem to not like the idea either. All of my other concerns are just secondary. After all, we are talking about high ridership at these local Culver stations anyway.

 

Anyway, since the "corrupted" thing seems to bug you and that R10 guy, I'll fixed that error by saying it's just simply not a good thing. But it's kinda too late for me to edit that now.

[Lance]

1. There is plenty of ridership north of 145th Street during rush hours- sometimes a train gets delayed a minute or two in the Bronx and then it's standing room only from 181st onwards. They do battery runs on a regular basis because of frequent delays, essentially confirming that the current service setup is not working.

2. The experiment was poorly implemented. They tried to run it express north of Burnside which was a big mistake as there's no need. Also, the switch setup at that station is not optimal- they would have to reconfigure it if regular service were ever to be implemented. South of Burnside is another story; there are far more people getting on/off at stations north of Burnside during rush hour than south of Burnside (with the rare exception of 161st Street- on game days). The train is often packed and every minute that could be shaved off the commute counts, what with the being at almost 100% capacity these days.

The main problem with running service express is that something has to replace the service lost. Any kind of express service on these lines results in a reduction in local service at the bypassed stations.

 

On the Broadway line in particular, running trains express without any compensation will leave at least two very busy stations dramatically underserved.

 

Jerome Ave has a different problem. While the majority of the riders may be concentrated north of Burnside Av, the length of the line does not help itself in terms of the potential for express service. Currently, the run from Burnside Av to 149 Street is about ten minutes. Running some of those express will save riders maybe a couple of minutes while again cutting service in half for the other riders

 

Another problem with both ideas, along with the plans for Culver express service, is that there is no additional local service being provided to offset the express service. Why do some riders have to suffer with less service just so that others can get their express trains?

 

Before Wallyhorse comes in and rearranges the map for the 1,000th time this week, the only way I can see Viaduct local riders going along with this if there is some kind of local service to Manhattan, seeing as their wait times will increase from four minutes to eight.

[Kamen Rider]

 

Before Wallyhorse comes in and rearranges the map for the 1,000th time this week.

 

then let's just all hide and pretend this never happened.

 

 

as to the subject at hand. They will be waiting for possibly less crowded trains. Though I took the "not going the whole way" part to mean not going express.

[Around the Horn]

From Second Avenue Sagas (I've emphasized the numbers):

 

F ridership between W 8th and Ditmas Av: 9,275,934 (11 stops)
F ridership at Ft Hamilton, 15th, Fourth Av, Smith-9th, Carroll: 13,311,607 (5 stops)
F ridership at those local stops PLUS Bergen: 17,019,907 (6 stops)

What a mess...

[Lance]

You may as well include Bergen St as a local stop because there's no way they can get that mess of a station operational in a year.

 

as to the subject at hand. They will be waiting for possibly less crowded trains. Though I took the "not going the whole way" part to mean not going express.

That's the only way this would get any consideration. If they tried to run all of the trains express, they'd be out of luck.

...the only way I can see Viaduct local riders going along with this if there is some kind of local service to Manhattan, seeing as their wait times will increase from four minutes to eight.

I forgot to mention that if such a service was created to offset that reduction in service, it would have to be suspended in 2019 to fit the additional trains slated to run during the Canarsie reconstruction work.

 

The joys of typing on mobile...

[Caelestor]

The biggest benefit behind the express service isn't to save riders time; it's to reduce the fleet requirement. As the press release states, only the trains that are currently short-turning at Kings Highway will run express; all Coney Island trains are running local to 179 St. By reducing the end-to-end times of the rush hour supplemental trains, some of the cars can be reallocated to other lines.

 

On that note, let's take a look at how riders at local stations are impacted. It appears as if they will have 4 minute headways, with alternating and trains. The main issue involves the train riders, who will have to transfer back to the somehow. Since Hoyt-Schermerhorn won't work, the lower level of Bergen St is the only alternative, and it has to be put back into service if this operating plan is to become permanent.

[Lance]

Don't include Bergen St in any Culver express plans. That station is permanently out of service pending a full rebuild. Express stations will be Jay St, 7 Avenue and Church Av. Also, the headways of the are largely irrelevant as most riders are travelling between Brooklyn and Manhattan.

 

I don't see much of a change in fleet requirements as there will still be the same number of trains per hour from 179 Street. Also, the number of trains turning at Kings Hwy will be the same as they are today, just running slightly faster.

 

On a side note,  this express plan does nothing for riders south of Kings Hwy either, seeing as they still have only the local.

[Around the Horn]

On a side note,  this express plan does nothing for riders south of Kings Hwy either, seeing as they still have only the local.

WHAT!? They've completely f--ked this up. Run the Coney Island trains express and the Kings Highway trains local or else there is no point...

[Threxx]

Don't include Bergen St in any Culver express plans. That station is permanently out of service pending a full rebuild. Express stations will be Jay St, 7 Avenue and Church Av. Also, the headways of the are largely irrelevant as most riders are travelling between Brooklyn and Manhattan.

 

I don't see much of a change in fleet requirements as there will still be the same number of trains per hour from 179 Street. Also, the number of trains turning at Kings Hwy will be the same as they are today, just running slightly faster.

 

On a side note,  this express plan does nothing for riders south of Kings Hwy either, seeing as they still have only the local.

 

I'm assuming the lack of necessary switches at Kings Highway prevents them from running the Coney Island trains express, as they should.

 

Frankly this entire plan is backwards. They might as well not change service at all. This will fail horribly.

[Wallyhorse]

Don't include Bergen St in any Culver express plans. That station is permanently out of service pending a full rebuild. Express stations will be Jay St, 7 Avenue and Church Av. Also, the headways of the are largely irrelevant as most riders are travelling between Brooklyn and Manhattan.

True on the , but it might encourage some to take the to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the , especially if they work west of 6th Avenue.

 

Long term, Bergen Street-Lower Level should be rebuilt, especially looking down the road to perhaps a connection of the Rutgers tunnel to the SAS during Phase 3 that some have suggested be done (though that might require moving the SAS to 1st Avenue similar to how it was with the old 2nd Avenue EL south of say 23rd Street, with the transfer to the being at 1st Avenue at 14th in that case).  That connection could be the eventual train route (express via Culver to Coney Island with the truncated to Church Street) with another letter handling an eventual routing to lower Manhattan in Phase 4.

 

 

[MysteriousBtrain]

Wonder how the Kings Hwy will work out. I really don't see it being too successful like in the 1980's. T feel that the express should be covered by an 8th av service (I propose a reroute while the takes over the Fulton local, but that's a story for another time) instead of select trains running the line.

Speaking of said line, what ever happened to the connection to the Culver line to the 8th Av tracks (not crossovers? Jay St was built as a Culver express station correct?

[MysteriousBtrain]

I'm assuming the lack of necessary switches at Kings Highway prevents them from running the Coney Island trains express, as they should.

The MTA should convert the station to be similar to the Park chester, where local trains end on the local track while express trains go on the middle track for continuing service.

Of course this conversion should happen if express service runs all the way to Kings Highway, but according to the article it looks like only the section north of Church Av is used.