Orange M Signs Going Up In The East

[vanshnookenraggen]

What I don't get is if there hasn't been express service on the Culver line for nearly a quarter of a century, why would it be implemented just because the MTA replaced some switches and tracks. If I remember correctly, express was suspended because people didn't want to take the . People generally don't like having to take several trains to get from point A to Point B. Plus, is there any plan to rehab the Bergen St station on the lower level because I don't remember hearing about one?

 

Like it's been said, the population of that area has steadily grown and will probably keep growing. It's true that people didn't like having to walk up stairs to switch to the F train but that was when there were only two trains running. If you add a third, and there is plenty of capacity for a third line, then you would avoid this problem. The F would remain local so riders wouldn't have to always use Bergen St to transfer and need to walk up and down stairs.

 

My personal pipe dream is that someday when the Second Ave Subway gets down to Houston St the MTA will connect it directly to the Manhattan Bridge and the will take over the ( in Brooklyn to Brighton Beach. That way the ( could be rerouted to be the Culver Express (Thus creating the line.... someone get that jk)

[Eric B]

That would require the Shallow Chrystie constuction, which has been ruled out as too disruptive to the community. I'm not even sure if they even decided on Chrystie, as Forsythe was another option, that might be easier as you're not going under the existing (.

[Guest lance25]

That raises another question: Where would you send that third line? It can't go via 6th Ave and/or Queens Blvd because contrary to what is said here, the will probably be popular enough to keep.

[Grand Concourse]

I don't see why it is a bad thing that the M is switching routes. Think about it this way, before residents of North Brooklyn had 2 trains both going the same place but now they have one that goes to midtown and one that goes downtown. This should have been done years ago.

 

Now I'm up for getting nit picky, perhaps if the Z was going uptown and the J/M was still going downtown that would have been better but this is still a good deal.

 

The is really half the line. The alone would not have been enough to replace the on its own. And it was going to be either the (M2) or that was going to go. Then of course it changed to the being 'swallowed up by the .

Like it's been said, the population of that area has steadily grown and will probably keep growing. It's true that people didn't like having to walk up stairs to switch to the F train but that was when there were only two trains running. If you add a third, and there is plenty of capacity for a third line, then you would avoid this problem. The F would remain local so riders wouldn't have to always use Bergen St to transfer and need to walk up and down stairs.

 

My personal pipe dream is that someday when the Second Ave Subway gets down to Houston St the MTA will connect it directly to the Manhattan Bridge and the will take over the ( in Brooklyn to Brighton Beach. That way the ( could be rerouted to be the Culver Express (Thus creating the line.... someone get that jk)

The would eventually go all the way to the southern tip of Manhattan. Why add more switching to force the onto the Culver line? Just leave the and as is. People can just transfer to/from the and at Grand St.

[FamousNYLover]

I check the 2nd Av Station today and it only says .

Photo will be coming in order I took.

[vanshnookenraggen]

The would eventually go all the way to the southern tip of Manhattan. Why add more switching to force the onto the Culver line? Just leave the and as is. People can just transfer to/from the and at Grand St.

 

Because I can easily foresee the MTA not having the money to finish the line. Phase 3 already will terminate at Houston St, it would only make sense for them to just connect the two lines to add service.

 

 

That would require the Shallow Chrystie constuction, which has been ruled out as too disruptive to the community. I'm not even sure if they even decided on Chrystie, as Forsythe was another option, that might be easier as you're not going under the existing .

 

I've heard that the Grand St station was designed for the Second Ave Subway to be built around it, thus turning it into a two island platform station. But this might have just been a rumor.

[BJC]

Don't worry. I have faith in the being reintroduced and serving Culver than the lasting more than two months.

 

Even if the new M line does not work out,The old M line won't be coming back at all. After they did all that work on the cut and MTA won't admitted it was a mistake.

[Eric B]

I've heard that the Grand St station was designed for the Second Ave Subway to be built around it, thus turning it into a two island platform station. But this might have just been a rumor.

No, that is true; but it would still require the Shallow Chrystie option for the line to reach that space around Grand St. They're going with Deep Chrystie (TBM), or possibly even Forsythe, which will be way below that, and not able to use it.

[LRG]

Even if the new M line does not work out,The old M line won't be coming back at all. After they did all that work on the cut and MTA won't admitted it was a mistake.

 

Yeah they'll have it terminate at either Chambers or Broad Street instead. And if that happens the R42s won't be needed anymore on the Eastern Division; they'll have to go someplace else.

[Grand Concourse]

Because I can easily foresee the MTA not having the money to finish the line. Phase 3 already will terminate at Houston St, it would only make sense for them to just connect the two lines to add service.

If it is extended past Houston, then they can terminate it just past Grand St. Either way it has to move past Houston first.

 

I've heard that the Grand St station was designed for the Second Ave Subway to be built around it, thus turning it into a two island platform station. But this might have just been a rumor.

I think the community blocked this plan, so the SAS would have to be built under the current (B)/(D) level. Which I totally disagree with.

[Grand Concourse]

Even if the new M line does not work out,The old M line won't be coming back at all. After they did all that work on the cut and MTA won't admitted it was a mistake.

 

trains used it at one time years ago because of track work on the Bridge and had to go down via Nassau to get to Brooklyn. Also they do use it from time to time for maybe non revenue moves. So it's not a waste.

Just because it hasn't been used for revnue service doesn't mean it is a waste.

63rd St has been a waste because they haven't used it to its full potential [originally supposed to have been used for the QB super express].

[LTA1992]

I check the 2nd Av Station today and it only says .

Photo will be coming in order I took.

 

I saw the same thing with the (M2) signs along the 4th Avenue and West End Lines.

[NX Express]

This is why people need to read.. Puts up a sign and no one reads bs. Even if you announce it people will be in there own world. But when the day comes of the service changes then people ill attack the t/a becuz they didn't bother reading or hearing the changes and then blame the for the changes..

Agreed...some NYers think they should be spoonfed every piece of info.:mad:

Then explain to me why in the hell everyone else has to suffer from these cuts while the residents of Middle Village and Glendale benefit from it. Does that make any sense to you at all? It sure as hell doesn't to me.

 

Heck, those people have the QM24 to take them directly to Midtown for a reason so they have absolutely no right to be complaining about no direct service to Midtown because...there is one.

 

Call me what you want but I refuse to show any support for this new line. I'm starting to wish that the rest of the Myrtle Avenue El was just torn down now.

1. It's a service cut. It just happens that people benefit.

2. Some can't afford an express bus.

3. ...and leave that neighborhood with no subway service?

That raises another question: Where would you send that third line? It can't go via 6th Ave and/or Queens Blvd because contrary to what is said here, the will probably be popular enough to keep.

If people are going to use the line, it's gonna have to go via 6 Av. Then, it could go via SAS?

I check the 2nd Av Station today and it only says .

Photo will be coming in order I took.

I saw the same thing at Whitehall St. The signs had stickers over them.

[Grand Concourse]

Broadway is already 'lined up' to go up the SAS. That leaves 6th Av for QB. Otherwise you'll have a delay when the trains meet and have to cross in front of the other to get to their destination. 6th Av lines should stay on QB.

[Guest lance25]

@NXExp: I don't know if you read the entire thread or not, but my response about the was concerning the idea of the Culver Express. If the was somehow resurrected, then there would be five lines on 6th Ave, which would cause some serious congestion along the line. Just thinking about this now however, if a revived line (rush hrs, peak direction only) were to run along Central Park West and terminate at 145 St (since the trains terminate at Bedford Pk then) and enough of a reduction of service along 6th Ave so as to provide ample service but not cause a bottleneck, it could be possible.

[Urbanfortitude]

Wouldn't that cause issues on CPW as well as 6th avenue?

[LRG]

Wouldn't that cause issues on CPW as well as 6th avenue?

 

Especially at 145th Street when the uses the middle track during rush hours.

[NX Express]

@NXExp: I don't know if you read the entire thread or not, but my response about the was concerning the idea of the Culver Express. If the was somehow resurrected, then there would be five lines on 6th Ave, which would cause some serious congestion along the line. Just thinking about this now however, if a revived line (rush hrs, peak direction only) were to run along Central Park West and terminate at 145 St (since the ( trains terminate at Bedford Pk then) and enough of a reduction of service along 6th Ave so as to provide ample service but not cause a bottleneck, it could be possible.

 

Yes, I meant that the Culver Exp line would have to go somewhere. It's not 53rd, it's not the Queens Local..so I thought it could go to the SAS.

[Guest lance25]

We have a better chance of pigs flying before the entirety of Second Ave is completed.

 

I completely forgot about the using the middle track and that there are four line running along Central Park west if you can believe that. Thinking about that now, there is absolutely nowhere for another line to run on in Manhattan for the Culver Express. The would have to run the local and express in tandem similar to the and for it not to tie up Sixth Avenue or Queens Blvd.

[NX Express]

We have a better chance of pigs flying before the entirety of Second Ave is completed.

 

I completely forgot about the using the middle track and that there are four line running along Central Park west if you can believe that. Thinking about that now, there is absolutely nowhere for another line to run on in Manhattan for the Culver Express. The would have to run the local and express in tandem similar to the and for it not to tie up Sixth Avenue or Queens Blvd.

 

Yup, the could go to 179, via QBL exp, then via 53, 6 Av, and Culver Exp to Church. Then, it could go local to CI.

[Guest lance25]

Did you mean 63rd Street because I don't think East 53rd Street would be able to handle the , , and the all at once

[LRG]

Did you mean 63rd Street because I don't think East 53rd Street would be able to handle the , , and the all at once

 

It can't and it won't.

[MattTrain]

Hey aren't we talking about the signs still, they're a plenty along the Brooklyn and Queens Section of the current (M2). I wonder if anyone has seen the destination signs for the going to 71 Avenue?

[LRG]

I saw signs at Marcy and Myrtle Avenues today. They're even up on platform level.

 

(M2) signs at New Utrecht Avenue have been covered all except the platform signs.

[MattTrain]

I saw signs at Marcy and Myrtle Avenues today. They're even up on platform level.

 

(M2) signs at New Utrecht Avenue have been covered all except the platform signs.

 

I still see the (M2) to Bay Parkway during Rush Hours at DeKalb Avenue, do you think they will cover it or chop the sign off?