Jump to content

F express in Brooklyn to start...this year?


46Dover

Recommended Posts

Once the newer equipment arrives, this could be done. The idea was this:

 

Rush hours: About half the (E) trains (running on the express track) run with the (A) via Fulton Street to Euclid with the rest (including ALL trains to/from 179) beginning and ending at Chambers.

 

All Times: A new (K) train runs between Chambers and 168 as a supplement running 2-5 TPH while the (E) runs to Euclid.

 

 

Why are you so hard on making everybody's commutes be hell? Jesus...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

These statements are all relative. It’s equally applicable to say this for when the express was cut from regular service. “Paul was robbed to pay Peter.” Or in that case, the termination of express service made the commutes of those who lived farther out much longer, benefiting those who already lived relatively close to Manhattan.

 

I looked at the ridership figures some years ago. It was true that all the stations from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue to Church Avenue plus 7 Avenue and Bergen Street had a ridership level similar to Carroll Street, Smith–9 Streets, 4 Avenue–9 Street, 15 Street–Prospect Park, and Fort Hamilton Parkway. The ridership may have changed since.

 

Once remark I’ve read in an MTA document pertaining to the (F) express said that by implementing express service, the (F) could draw ridership away from nearby lines like the (D), (N), and (Q) to the stations from Church Avenue to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue. The resultant increase in ridership itself would justify express service.

Exactly....I think some of us here still comparing the  (F) express that didnt work in the 1970's/1980's to now...Economy is totally different now...I dont see how it wouldnt work...Back then when they tried it subway ridership was nowhere near todays ridership....Yeah there's the oh we lose 50% of trains that serve the stations in between because of this....Well we in NYC...We all know  (MTA) has a habit of making there riders make adjustments to there system...My  (3) pennsylvania station was out for months even after the station renovation..Either walk to the nearest station or take a bus....Same thing with this new  (F)...Ppl at these so called busy stations could either wait for a local  (F) which wont take long or the  (G) to the  (F).....It wouldnt hurt the  (MTA) to try something new...Look how successful the  (M) is going up 6 av the  (Q) along 2av...It might benifit more than ppl think....Just my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the newer equipment arrives, this could be done.  The idea was this:

 

Rush hours: About half the (E) trains (running on the express track) run with the (A) via Fulton Street to Euclid with the rest (including ALL trains to/from 179) beginning and ending at Chambers.

 

All Times: A new (K) train runs between Chambers and 168 as a supplement running 2-5 TPH while the (E) runs to Euclid.  

 

 

The current (E) pattern is best. It's the most frequent  service on 8th Ave, and many times it provides a backup for delayed (A)(C) trains (Due to CPW or Brooklyn /Cranberry issues)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the newer equipment arrives, this could be done.  The idea was this:

 

Rush hours: About half the (E) trains (running on the express track) run with the (A) via Fulton Street to Euclid with the rest (including ALL trains to/from 179) beginning and ending at Chambers.

 

All Times: A new (K) train runs between Chambers and 168 as a supplement running 2-5 TPH while the (E) runs to Euclid.  

 

 

 

OTP on the (E) is gonna plummet... (sips tea)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly....I think some of us here still comparing the  (F) express that didnt work in the 1970's/1980's to now...Economy is totally different now...I dont see how it wouldnt work...Back then when they tried it subway ridership was nowhere near todays ridership....Yeah there's the oh we lose 50% of trains that serve the stations in between because of this....Well we in NYC...We all know  (MTA) has a habit of making there riders make adjustments to there system...My  (3) pennsylvania station was out for months even after the station renovation..Either walk to the nearest station or take a bus....Same thing with this new  (F)...Ppl at these so called busy stations could either wait for a local  (F) which wont take long or the  (G) to the  (F).....It wouldnt hurt the  (MTA) to try something new...Look how successful the  (M) is going up 6 av the  (Q) along 2av...It might benifit more than ppl think....Just my opinion

Come to think of it, the (M) to Forest Hills instead of Bensonhurst was robbing “Peter to pay Paul.” However, as said before, it’s all relative. Paul’s suffering wasn’t greater than the benefits Peter derived from such an adjustment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, the (M) to Forest Hills instead of Bensonhurst was robbing “Peter to pay Paul.” However, as said before, it’s all relative. Paul’s suffering wasn’t greater than the benefits Peter derived from such an adjustment.

Facts.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. The difference is 4%

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf

See pg. 22, 30-32, 37

No, 4% is incorrect. Take a look at the MTA's own ridership stats. Add up the stations north of Church. Then add up the stations south of Church. Then compare them. The difference is more than 4%. A lot more. I suppose if you include Church and 7th Ave, then maybe you'd get a difference closer to 4%. But that's local stations vs. express stations, not north of Church vs. south of Church. Even then, you can't assume everyone at 7th or Church will opt for the express over the local. And I'd really like to see how they came to a difference of 4%, given how much more ridership there is north of Church.

These statements are all relative. It’s equally applicable to say this for when the express was cut from regular service. “Paul was robbed to pay Peter.” Or in that case, the termination of express service made the commutes of those who lived farther out much longer, benefiting those who already lived relatively close to Manhattan.

 

 

I looked at the ridership figures some years ago. It was true that all the stations from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue to Church Avenue plus 7 Avenue and Bergen Street had a ridership level similar to Carroll Street, Smith–9 Streets, 4 Avenue–9 Street, 15 Street–Prospect Park, and Fort Hamilton Parkway. The ridership may have changed since.

 

Once remark I’ve read in an MTA document pertaining to the (F) express said that by implementing express service, the (F) could draw ridership away from nearby lines like the (D), (N), and (Q) to the stations from Church Avenue to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue. The resultant increase in ridership itself would justify express service.

The (F) express study report does mention the possibility of some (D), (N) and (Q) riders switching to an (F) express. I can't see why (Q) riders would switch to an (F) express when they've already got the (B) express on the same line. And would riding an (F) that doesn't go express until it gets to Church really be that much faster than taking the (D) or (N), which begin their respective express runs at 36th and 59th streets?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, 4% is incorrect. Take a look at the MTA's own ridership stats. Add up the stations north of Church. Then add up the stations south of Church. Then compare them. The difference is more than 4%. A lot more. I suppose if you include Church and 7th Ave, then maybe you'd get a difference closer to 4%. But that's local stations vs. express stations, not north of Church vs. south of Church. Even then, you can't assume everyone at 7th or Church will opt for the express over the local. And I'd really like to see how they came to a difference of 4%, given how much more ridership there is north of Church.

Average Weekday Ridership:

 

Bergen St. - 11,548

Carroll St. - 11,923

Smith/9 Sts. - 5,084

4 Avenue - 13,126 total (including the (R) ridership) - divided by 2 is 6,563

[EXP] 7 Avenue - 12,049

15 Street - 6,385

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy. - 5,783

[EXP] Church Ave. - 10,490

North of Church Ave. Total: 69,825

North of Church Ave. Total Excluding Express Stations: 47,286

North of Church Ave. Total Excluding Local Stations: 22,539

 

Ditmas Ave. - 4,622

18 Avenue - 4,458

Avenue I - 2,235

Bay Pkwy. - 1,491

Avenue N - 3,410

Avenue P - 2,804

Kings Hwy. - 3,726

Avenue U - 2,439

Avenue X - 2,859

Neptune Avenue - 1,807

West 8 St. - 2,397 total (including the (Q) ridership) - divided by 2 is 1,198

Coney Island - 14,073 total (including the (D)(N)(Q) ridership) - divided by 4 is 3,518

South of Church Ave. Total: 34,567

 

Total Number of People Benefited (Daily): 57,106

Total Number of People Disadvantaged (Daily): 47,286

 

The (F) express would benefit 9,820 more people than it would disadvantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@T to Dyre Avenue: Maybe they live equidistant between the Brighton & Culver Lines (say, by Ocean Parkway). On top of that, some might live near a local stop which means that they'd have to transfer to the (B) for express service (so if they want 6th Avenue, they can take the (F) directly instead of the (Q) to the (B).

 

If they live by the (N) but want 6th Avenue, the express service might make them decide to switch to the (F).

 

@P3F: Technically, the (F) wouldn't operate late-nights (and would probably end fairly early in the evening, probably around 9PM or so leaving Midtown), so not all of those weekday riders would be affected (in any way) by the (F) express. But yeah, you have that, combined with how much the benefit is per-person (the full express run would probably save about 5-6 minutes, whereas the additional waiting time would only be 1-3 minutes on average, even less when you take the (G) into account)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, the (M) to Forest Hills instead of Bensonhurst was robbing “Peter to pay Paul.” However, as said before, it’s all relative. Paul’s suffering wasn’t greater than the benefits Peter derived from such an adjustment.

 

Nah that was robbing rail fans to pay Paul...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTP on the (E) is gonna plummet... (sips tea)

Only half of the (E) trains during rush hours would go to Euclid due to capacity issues in the Cranberry Tunnel in my idea, and those would be on the express track at that time.  LOCAL (E) trains during rush hours would go to Chambers with the (K) I propose supplementing the (C) and (E) on the local tracks during that time (why the (K) would be only 2-3 TPH most of the time and only in rush hours would be as many as 5 TPH, as that line would be really for people who are specifically looking for CPW stations from Chambers, especially).

 

This would have the (C) become the Culver Express and keep those along Park Slope happy by keeping their (F) service fully local and in the process give those at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have.

 

Of course, the big issue is Broadway-Lafayette and having three different lines on the local track there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only half of the (E) trains during rush hours would go to Euclid due to capacity issues in the Cranberry Tunnel in my idea, and those would be on the express track at that time.  LOCAL (E) trains during rush hours would go to Chambers with the (K) I propose supplementing the (C) and (E) on the local tracks during that time (why the (K) would be only 2-3 TPH most of the time and only in rush hours would be as many as 5 TPH, as that line would be really for people who are specifically looking for CPW stations from Chambers, especially).

 

This would have the (C) become the Culver Express and keep those along Park Slope happy by keeping their (F) service fully local and in the process give those at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have.

 

Of course, the big issue is Broadway-Lafayette and having three different lines on the local track there.

How many times are you going to repeat this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the big issue is Broadway-Lafayette and having three different lines on the local track there.

Of course, you don't see how enormous this issue is. It's big enough to completely preclude entertaining the idea.

Nah that was robbing rail fans to pay Paul...

I thought the rail fans were the ones clamoring for the use of the Chrystie Street connector.  <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, you don't see how enormous this issue is. It's big enough to completely preclude entertaining the idea.

I thought the rail fans were the ones clamoring for the use of the Chrystie Street connector.  <_<

 

There's a certain subset of them that think that every single track segment in the system should be in use regardless of how useful it actually is for the daily commuter, hence proposals for stuff involving, for example, inner SF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only half of the (E) trains during rush hours would go to Euclid due to capacity issues in the Cranberry Tunnel in my idea, and those would be on the express track at that time. LOCAL (E) trains during rush hours would go to Chambers with the (K) I propose supplementing the (C) and (E) on the local tracks during that time (why the (K) would be only 2-3 TPH most of the time and only in rush hours would be as many as 5 TPH, as that line would be really for people who are specifically looking for CPW stations from Chambers, especially).

 

This would have the (C) become the Culver Express and keep those along Park Slope happy by keeping their (F) service fully local and in the process give those at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have.

 

Of course, the big issue is Broadway-Lafayette and having three different lines on the local track there.

I can feel my intelligence leaking from my skull...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North of Church Ave. Total: 69,825

North of Church Ave. Total Excluding Express Stations: 47,286

North of Church Ave. Total Excluding Local Stations: 22,539

 

South of Church Ave. Total: 34,567

 

Total Number of People Benefited (Daily): 57,106

Total Number of People Disadvantaged (Daily): 47,286

 

The (F) express would benefit 9,820 more people than it would disadvantage.

I don't disagree here. I'm not against an (F) express. My only concern is with the intention to split the local and express equally because there isn't equal ridership north and south of Church Avenue. It's when you add in Church and 7th that you get more favorably numbers for the express. And if that's the case, then yes, do the express. I'd just like to see it done in a way that doesn't result in a 50% cut in (F) service at the busier local stations.

 

The report mentions "evenly splitting the current 14 trains per hour" with the possibility of expanding to 15 once there are enough R179s in service. I'm a little confused here. Doesn't the (F)already run 15 tph? Is there 1 (F) tph during rush hours that doesn't enter Brooklyn? If not - and the current schedule does show all (F) trains going to Brooklyn - then shouldn't they already be able to run 8 (F) local and 7 (F) express tph during the rush? I question the point that the report makes about how an unequal split would be "much more likely to lead to delays and uneven service" north of Bergen. There will be merging delays no matter what the split between local and express is.

@T to Dyre Avenue: Maybe they live equidistant between the Brighton & Culver Lines (say, by Ocean Parkway). On top of that, some might live near a local stop which means that they'd have to transfer to the (B) for express service (so if they want 6th Avenue, they can take the (F) directly instead of the (Q) to the (B).

 

If they live by the (N) but want 6th Avenue, the express service might make them decide to switch to the (F).

 

Good points about being able to opt for the (F) express over the (N) or (Q) of riders live between the (F) and (N) or (Q), without having to transfer (like from the (Q) to the (B) ). That's certainly an option too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't. I've heard 14.5, but not 15. 

 

As for merging delays, it's easier to send trains onto the same track if their #s are equal, 'cause then it acts a bit like a zipper. Everyone gets delayed equally, or not at all. If not even, some do, some don't, creating problems further down the line, and killing even headways. 

 

I think that's their reasoning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not supporting a full time <F> but here are my thoughts on the issue:

 

Average Weekday Ridership:

 

Bergen St. - 11,548

Carroll St. - 11,923

Smith/9 Sts. - 5,084

4 Avenue - 13,126 total (including the (R) ridership) - divided by 2 is 6,563

[EXP] 7 Avenue - 12,049

15 Street - 6,385

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy. - 5,783

[EXP] Church Ave. - 10,490

North of Church Ave. Total: 69,825

North of Church Ave. Total Excluding Express Stations: 47,286

North of Church Ave. Total Excluding Local Stations: 22,539

 

Ditmas Ave. - 4,622

18 Avenue - 4,458

Avenue I - 2,235

Bay Pkwy. - 1,491

Avenue N - 3,410

Avenue P - 2,804

Kings Hwy. - 3,726

Avenue U - 2,439

Avenue X - 2,859

Neptune Avenue - 1,807

West 8 St. - 2,397 total (including the (Q) ridership) - divided by 2 is 1,198

Coney Island - 14,073 total (including the (D)(N)(Q) ridership) - divided by 4 is 3,518

South of Church Ave. Total: 34,567

 

Total Number of People Benefited (Daily): 57,106

Total Number of People Disadvantaged (Daily): 47,286

Express service south of Church Avenue is a waste of time. I do not see a need for express service on the BMT section, especially since the main express section is between 18th Av and Kings Highway. No need.

 

North of Church, it can possibly work. Only thing that needs to be done is rebuild Bergen Street to allow it to become an express station again. To me if you are on the (R) and need the (F), you can always continue north to go to Jay St. Jay St wasn't an option until 2010, so it could most certainly work now.

 

Until there is a plan to rebuild Bergen Street, the current plan seems lazy and may not work to the MTA's advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only half of the (E) trains during rush hours would go to Euclid due to capacity issues in the Cranberry Tunnel in my idea, and those would be on the express track at that time.  LOCAL (E) trains during rush hours would go to Chambers with the (K) I propose supplementing the (C) and (E) on the local tracks during that time (why the (K) would be only 2-3 TPH most of the time and only in rush hours would be as many as 5 TPH, as that line would be really for people who are specifically looking for CPW stations from Chambers, especially).

 

This would have the (C) become the Culver Express and keep those along Park Slope happy by keeping their (F) service fully local and in the process give those at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have.

 

Of course, the big issue is Broadway-Lafayette and having three different lines on the local track there.

 

That merge with the (A) will kill OTP on the entire (E) line. Why you don't get this is beyond me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would have the (C) become the Culver Express and keep those along Park Slope happy by keeping their (F) service fully local and in the process give those at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have.

Of course, the big issue is Broadway-Lafayette and having three different lines on the local track there.

If only I had a dollar for all the times you've said the words in bold type on this forum, Subchat, Second Ave Sagas and other railfan sites, I'd be living in a house in Great Neck and driving around in a BMW 435i. Yep, that's how many times you keep bringing up the same ideas for rerouting trains and calling for the reverse-branching (providing more service to the less-busy outer portions of the subway versus the busier central portions) of the subway system. And for the same reason every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please. You could easily get a place in the Hamptons with the amount of times he's spit out the same "brilliant" ideas.

 

One would think that after years of being told why X won't work and why the route of Y does work, he'd at least get a clue. Instead, we see the same stale proposals in thread after thread. (C) via Culver, alternating (E) trains to Euclid or wherever, the absolutely necessary revival of Nassau St loop service - really, it's all very tiring. That's why I try to not even respond to these ideas any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, I did say the number of times he's said "one seat ride for (so-and-so) riders who don't currently have it."

 

That said, if it were up to me, I'd relabel the (F) trains running express as (V) trains - and hey presto! There's your third Smith St/Culver Line service. That's probably not a bad idea given that the (F) does run some R46 trains and their digital side destination signs often don't work properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, I did say the number of times he's said "one seat ride for (so-and-so) riders who don't currently have it."

 

That said, if it were up to me, I'd relabel the (F) trains running express as (V) trains - and hey presto! There's your third Smith St/Culver Line service. That's probably not a bad idea given that the (F) does run some R46 trains and their digital side destination signs often don't work properly.

And where will you get the cars for said line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, I did say the number of times he's said "one seat ride for (so-and-so) riders who don't currently have it."

 

That said, if it were up to me, I'd relabel the (F) trains running express as (V) trains - and hey presto! There's your third Smith St/Culver Line service. That's probably not a bad idea given that the (F) does run some R46 trains and their digital side destination signs often don't work properly.

 

 

Why, Jamaica Yard, of course! The MTA's own report calls for running half the current (F) trains express.

 

You are missing the point here. A third Culver line service would be an increase over the current service and not some silly relabeling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.