Maserati7200 Posted June 23, 2009 Share #26 Posted June 23, 2009 How does the chrystie street connection provide access to CI for the 8th ave line? The transfer at Jay is more useful from 8th avenue, because if you are making the case that W4 is the connection (in which case the chrystie street connection is irrelevant anyway), then service at any 8th ave stations south of that would require an 8th avenue rider to backtrack to get service to CI (or use the IRT right Matted? - and make a second connection at Atlantic). You could take an 8th ave line down to W4, transfer to the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted June 23, 2009 Share #27 Posted June 23, 2009 You could take an 8th ave line down to W4, transfer to the ((D). Right. And as I said above what if you're getting on at Canal, High Street, Spring Street, Chambers, Broadway Nassau, High Street, or any of the Fulton Stations in Brooklyn Heights? Backtrack to W4 to get on? Franklin Shuttle? IRT at Broadway Nassau to Atlantic then walk to the 4th avenue trains or the Brighton line? MUCH more inconvenient than the across the platform transfer at Jay, I agree with Matted on that one. Just because something would have been nice to preserve doesn't mean the service pattern necessarily would have been better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted June 23, 2009 Share #28 Posted June 23, 2009 I rode the Culver shuttle as a schoolkid when I had a combination bus/train pass in the early '60's. I also cleaned Ditmas Ave when I was a RR Porter in the late '60's. Correction to the above poster, it's Ditmas on the and Culver , not Ditmars, and the "TT" ran from C.I. to Chambers St as the West End Local and the "T" was the rush hour West End express from Astoria which is probably where you got Ditmars from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted June 23, 2009 Share #29 Posted June 23, 2009 You could take an 8th ave line down to W4, transfer to the ((D). Jay Street is a cross platform transfer from an 8th Ave. train to a 6th Ave. train rather then having to go down stairs. Plus, the IND connection to the Culver Line came BEFORE Christye Street. Also the IND was needed since both the IRT and BMT lines were failing and city ownership saved them from collapse. And why should the city waste tax money when they can just take a line that is already built. Where would you have had the IND built this line from Church Ave. to Coney Island, right under the Culver line? There is no way another subway line or elevated would have been built going to Coney Island. Say what you want about the IND and it's style (or lack of as some might say) but it got the job done and had the second system been built, New York City would be very different from what it is today. To Subwayguy- Use the IRT and those toy trains, the horror!! (in side joke guys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted June 23, 2009 Share #30 Posted June 23, 2009 Does anyone know why they torn down the BMT Culver instead of building a crossover with the IND? The section from Ditmas to 9th Ave was falling apart, probably due to neglect, because the TA wanted the IND connection from Church Ave. If it wasn't connected the Church Ave terminal (and Smith-9th St relay) wouldn't have made much sense. Instead of spending money on the BMT they had to justify the money already spent on the IND side IMO. So sever the BMT Culver and use the trackage for the IND. Run a shuttle for a while to appease the locals while neglecting it's maintenance to justify it's abandonment. Look at Myrtle-Jay, 3rd Ave, Fulton-Pitkin, and Franklin Ave and the pattern becomes obvious.Neglect,appease and abandon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maserati7200 Posted June 23, 2009 Share #31 Posted June 23, 2009 Jay Street is a cross platform transfer from an 8th Ave. train to a 6th Ave. train rather then having to go down stairs. Plus, the IND connection to the Culver Line came BEFORE Christye Street. Also the IND was needed since both the IRT and BMT lines were failing and city ownership saved them from collapse. And why should the city waste tax money when they can just take a line that is already built. Where would you have had the IND built this line from Church Ave. to Coney Island, right under the Culver line? There is no way another subway line or elevated would have been built going to Coney Island. Say what you want about the IND and it's style (or lack of as some might say) but it got the job done and had the second system been built, New York City would be very different from what it is today.To Subwayguy- Use the IRT and those toy trains, the horror!! (in side joke guys) 1) Actually, only the IRT was bankrupt. During the great depression, which were the BMT's last years, they still made a profit. The BMT was doing very well until its last day when the city bought all of their possessions. 2) Really now? It seems to me that the IND was opposite of progress. In the late 1910's and 1920's, the BMT had plans to strengthen its Fulton street El (in Brooklyn) for subway car use. They also planned to connect the el to the DeKalb Ave. corridor to go over the Manhattan bridge or though the Montegue street tunnel into Manhattan. Why didn't this happen? Because Mayor Hylan (the person behind the IND) didn't allow it to, because he hated the idea of private operation. He did everything he can to stop the BMT and IRT from expansion. He almost got away with not allowing the BMT to build the Coney Island shops (which they really needed. ANYWAY, the city ended up tearing down the Fulton street el, in place for their now Fulton street subway. How is that progress? Look at the Concourse line, its 1 block away from the Jerome Ave. Line. They built it so they could take customers from the IRT. BMT also had plans to extend the Broadway line up Central Park West. Why didn't that happen?? Mayor Hylan! yay! I love that guy (not really, :mad::tdown:) Instead, the IND built their 8th Ave/CPW line. The only IND line that was 'progress' is the Queens Blvd line, crosstown line, and Prospect Park line. The Queens Blvd line is one of the most useful lines,I'll admit, it actually brought people out to Queens. 3) When the IND was building the prospect park line, the initial plan was to take over the Culver line. What I think they should have done is make a subway line under Ocean Parkway or Coney Island Avenue (both of those streets are in between McDonald Ave where the Culver runs and East 16th street where the Brighton runs). The Prospect Park line would somehow end up at Ocean parkway (or CI Ave) and Church Ave, and run to Coney Island. Thats how they would do it. 4) Most of the IND 2nd system plans were modifying existing lines and doing plans that the private companies wanted to do, but were not allowed to due to political red tape. The Staten Island line/connection was planned by the BMT, and if they had more years in operation, it would have been done. Most of the plan "recaptured" older lines by fragmenting them. I will admit, however, that their plans for North-eastern queens and the extension of the Flushing/Astoria would be great progress. The IND could have done important things, but instead they focused on getting rid of the IRT and BMT. It worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maserati7200 Posted June 23, 2009 Share #32 Posted June 23, 2009 The section from Ditmas to 9th Ave was falling apart, probably due to neglect, because the TA wanted the IND connection from Church Ave. If it wasn't connected the Church Ave terminal (and Smith-9th St relay) wouldn't have made much sense. Instead of spending money on the BMT they had to justify the money already spent on the IND side IMO. So sever the BMT Culver and use the trackage for the IND. Run a shuttle for a while to appease the locals while neglecting it's maintenance to justify it's abandonment. Look at Myrtle-Jay, 3rd Ave, Fulton-Pitkin, and Franklin Ave and the pattern becomes obvious.Neglect,appease and abandon. That patten was probably the dumbest pattern to ever happen :mad::tdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapid Transit TO Posted July 9, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 9, 2009 I saw this thread recently, then I received an email with this link.. What a coincidence! I didnt see the link posted here, so here it is.. http://www.culvershuttle.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EE Broadway Local Posted August 7, 2009 Share #34 Posted August 7, 2009 It was Sunday May 11, 1975 that the made its' final run. The Daily News reported it on Friday May 9, 1975. You might like this web site: http://www.culvershuttle.com Site contains the Daily News article, Map, Photos and What's Left Of The Culver Shuttle today. Good memoriees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.